Annotations for 2 Kings

Annotations for 2 Kings

Annotations for 2 Kings

The god mentioned in is the Canaanite storm and fertility deity Baal-Hadad, in one of his many localized manifestations. Here he is Baal-Zebub, which would most naturally be taken to mean “Baal/lord of the flies.” If this is correct, it is possibly a deliberate Israelite corruption of “Baal-Zebul” (“Baal the prince”) intended to express the Biblical authors’ scorn of or hostility toward this “deity.” Alternatively, Baal-Zebub, rather than being a corruption, is a title indicating mastery over flies, the spreaders of pestilence, and thus over the curing of disease. An Ugaritic deity named El Dhubub may signify something similar.

Ahaziah himself does not scorn this deity, however, but regards him as a source of information and power. In this our authors depict the king as only one of those many Israelites who, in the monarchic period, prefers Baal to Yahweh—or at least does not wish to give Yahweh exclusive allegiance. It is not made clear in the Biblical text why Ahaziah must send messengers on a 60-mile (almost 100-kilometer) trip for such a consultation, although the implication appears to be that a localized manifestation of Baal can only be consulted in his locale. On Baal, see the article “

Go to

Samaria. See note on .

may fire come down from heaven. The idea of gods raining down fire to destroy enemies is well known in the ancient world. Here the power of Elijah’s God is signaled as a sign that Elijah is Yahweh’s prophet. (For another instance of messengers of a king who come to find a prophet and find themselves incapacitated, see . For signs given of a king’s doom, see Jeroboam in .)

book of the annals of the kings of Israel. See note on .

take . . . up to heaven. Extra-Biblical texts underline the unusual nature in the ancient Near Eastern context of any idea that mortals can enter and remain in heaven, the best known of which is the Akkadian myth of Adapa, the son of Ea, who visits heaven and almost obtains eternal life but is compelled in the end to return to earth. Another tale of a journey from earth to heaven is told of Etana, one of the fabled rulers of the Sumerian dynasty of Kish, who is compelled to visit heaven (with the help of an eagle) in order to obtain the plant of birth and overcome his childlessness.

Here it is unclear whether Elijah is taken to heaven, referring to the dwelling place of God, or to the heaven, referring to the sky. The other prophets assume the latter since they go looking for where he might have come down. The same Hebrew verb is used with regard to Enoch in , but there the destination is unspecified.

a double portion of your spirit. This is the language of inheritance. Elisha requests of Elijah what an eldest son would expect of a father in Israel (cf. v. ): a double portion (cf. ). In this case, however, the inheritance is not land—Elisha has already left normal life and normal rules of inheritance behind (cf. ). Elisha is asking to receive the status of the principal successor of Elijah.

Elijah’s ascent.

Jonathan Walton

Return to

chariot of fire. Commonly associated with divine manifestation. Some deities, like the sun-god Shamash and the storm-god Hadad, are assigned charioteers or depicted in chariots. It is possible that Yahweh is here appearing as a familiar manifestation of a storm-god.

took hold of his garment and tore it in two. Elisha tears his clothing in the customary gesture of sorrow (cf. ; ; ), but perhaps also to indicate the end of an old life and the beginning of a new one as Elijah’s successor, symbolized by the picking up of Elijah’s cloak (v. )—“new” clothing (see next note).

cloak. The “mantle” has passed, quite literally, from Elijah to Elisha; and the cloak that was used in to symbolize Elisha’s prophetic call has now become Elisha’s permanent possession. New clothing was also symbolic of new life elsewhere in the ancient Near East. In the Akkadian myth of Adapa and the South Wind (see note on v. ), Adapa is offered in heaven both the food of life and a new garment, which he declines.

Go to

boys. The age of the mockers is uncertain. The Hebrew can refer to prepubescent children, but can also refer to “the younger generation”; the same Hebrew word describes Rehoboam’s peers in (“young men”), and they are over 40. This is probably a group of young teens.

sacred stone of Baal. See note on .

Mesha. A ninth-century BC Moabite king, the successor of his father, Chemosh-yatti, according to the Moabite Stone. He began his reign under the dominion of the Israelite house of Omri. pay . . . tribute. As was true of most subservient peoples in the ancient Near East, Mesha had to pay his overlord “tribute” (i.e., taxes). In Mesopotamia and Assyria this could involve the handing over of a percentage of agricultural products or of flocks and herds, or indeed people (forced labor). The present verse describes the taxation in this more local case as involving sheep and wool, which is understandable given the importance of sheep in the economy of ancient Palestine. After Ahab’s death, however, Mesha took advantage of the new situation and rebelled, inciting Ahab’s son Joram to launch the campaign described in this chapter. a hundred thousand lambs. This is an immense tribute, but nowhere near the 800,000 sheep Sennacherib claimed to have taken from Babylon, so we can see that the amounts are not beyond what is attested in other ancient Near Eastern records.

Desert of Edom. The idea was to attack Moab from the south rather than from the north, which was possible because Edom was under Judahite rule and Edom’s “king” was Jehoshaphat’s deputy rather than an independent monarch ().

Elisha . . . used to pour water on the hands of Elijah. This classifies Elisha as an attendant of the famous prophet. Despite the insignificance of the task, Elisha’s association with Elijah is enough to provide hope for divine aid.

the prophets of your father and the prophets of your mother. Refers to the prophets of Baal who serve Ahab and Jezebel (see note on ). Either Joram consulted Yahweh specifically to begin this campaign or, more likely, the oracle was taken by Jehoshaphat. In either case, it is Yahweh who has led them there, and now Yahweh must be dealt with. The divine direction is now perceived by Joram as intending to destroy them.

bring me a harpist. The implication is that music plays its part in Elisha’s attainment of the prophetic “state” in which he utters his prophecy. This connection between music and prophecy is also hinted at in , and suggests that, on this occasion at least, Elisha was engaged in “ecstatic” prophetic behavior of a kind similar to that evidenced at Mari. Another example of ecstatic prophecy is recorded in an eleventh-century BC Egyptian text. It describes the visit of the traveler Wenamun to the Phoenician city of Byblos and the following event that took place during a temple ritual: “Now while he [the prince of Byblos] was making offering to his gods, the god seized one of his youths and made him possessed. And he [the young man] said to him [the prince]: “Bring up the god! Bring the messenger who is carrying him [i.e., Wenamun]. Amun is the one who sent him out.”

water flowing from the direction of Edom. The campaign is probably close to the Wadi Zered, which drains runoff from high elevations and so can suddenly fill with water even if no rain falls in the area. Prophetic knowledge of flooding due to rain elsewhere is also demonstrated by Deborah in (see note on ).

the water looked red—like blood. It is easy to see how water in a sandstone region under a red sky would appear like blood, but it is not so easy to see why they didn’t notice the lack of corpses. More likely they thought they saw a deserted camp. A Mesopotamian omen dictates that if a river carries blood, internal strife will cause an army to do battle with itself. The Moabites probably see the water as such an omen.

he took his firstborn son . . . and offered him as a sacrifice. See notes on ; ; ; . Here the mechanism of sacrifice is not explicitly described. We are only told that the child was the king’s firstborn son—the sacrifice of something exceedingly precious in an exceedingly critical situation. Jephthah’s vow is similar to this, though his sacrifice of his daughter comes after the fact ().

his creditor is coming to take my two boys as his slaves. Indebtedness was a problem commonly found throughout the ancient Near East and could lead to the loss of property, home, fields and ultimately the freedom of the debtor or a family member of the debtor, who then became a “debt-slave” to the person looking for payment. See notes on ; , .

It’s not the New Moon or the Sabbath. The implication is that it was the custom in Israel to consult prophets only on particular rest days and that to do anything else was unusual. associates New Moons (marking the beginning of each month) with Sabbaths in terms of cessation of work when it attacks avaricious people for their anxiety that “the New Moon be over that we may sell grain, and the Sabbath be ended that we may market wheat” (cf. also ; ). The practice of celebrating on the first of the month had ancient roots; the New Moon was already one of the principal lunar festivals of Old Babylonian times.

staff. This is a different Hebrew word than that used for Moses’ rod; it connotes a crutch or cane. It appears that Elisha and Gehazi thought the staff would be enough to revive the boy. In Akkadian incantation texts, a staff is a component used in the exorcism of disease-causing spirits. Because the boy’s head was hurt, the staff is laid on the boy’s face.

See note on .

death in the pot! The poisonous ingredient is generally considered to be “apples of Sodom” (colocynths, a yellow gourd), which can be fatal.

Get some flour. Flour is often mentioned as having magical power, though it is not normally used in this manner. Sometimes a doughy paste is made into a figurine, other times it is sprinkled around in a circle. Elisha’s procedure has some similarity to magic, but lacks the exact procedure or any of the ritual elements.

leprosy. It is clear from that the Hebrew word here in fact refers to a wide range of patchy disfigurements of skin or material (see note on ), which may or may not have included what is now commonly called leprosy (Hansen’s disease). “Skin disease” may be a better way to categorize this (see ). Such an ailment signified to the Hebrew reader ritual uncleanness or defilement (cf. ) and the judgment of God (cf. ; ; ). Naaman is one who is in every sense “outside the camp” (; see note there)—a foreigner, as well as a leper. An interesting analogy is found in an Old Babylonian omen text which says that “if the skin of a man exhibits white pusu-areas or is dotted with nuqdu dots, such a man has been rejected by his god and is to be rejected by mankind.” A Neo-Assyrian text similarly maintains that “if a man has the surface of his flesh covered with black and white spots, the disease is the mamitu (curse/tabu).”

ten talents of silver. The “talent” was an ancient measure of weight. Its origin probably lies in the load that a man could carry, but it is estimated to have represented around 75 pounds (34 kilograms). It was widely regarded in the ancient Near East as equivalent to 3,000 shekels (see and there). The larger amount of silver in Naaman’s gift when compared to the gold reflects the much greater value of the latter metal. six thousand shekels of gold. The value of the gift is more clearly understood when it is realized that 6,000 shekels of gold represented the combined annual wages of 600 common laborers. Converted to today’s buying power, it equals about 750 million dollars.

he tore his robes. As well as indicating sorrow (cf. ; ; ), the tearing of clothes could signify consternation (cf. the actions of King Josiah in , when faced with the prospect of the covenant curses taking effect as a result of the breach of Torah). The king of Israel’s distress here arises from the king of Aram’s delegation to him of a task that only divinity can accomplish.

wash yourself seven times in the Jordan. A Mesopotamian ritual involves submerging seven times facing downstream and seven times facing upstream, allowing the river to carry impurities into the underworld. Gifts for the god Ea were also released into the stream. Elisha’s procedure is cosmetically similar, yet also distinct from familiar magical rituals.

wave his hand over the spot and cure me of my leprosy. Akkadian inscriptions from this period depict a magical specialist with raised hand offering an invocation and prayer for the removal of disease and evil. A magical ritual would have required the supervision of such a specialist to conduct or oversee the proper rituals. Elisha is careful to remove himself from this role, leading Naaman to think that any source of water would serve the cleansing purpose. He expects the presence of the practitioner to be the key to the success of the ritual.

as much earth as a pair of mules can carry. The transportation of the earth is connected here with the making of burnt offerings and sacrifices to Yahweh, which implies that the earth is to be used in the construction of an altar. The OT does itself mention “earth” or “ground” (Hebrew adamah) as one of the materials used in the construction of altars (). Most likely we are to envisage a mud brick altar constructed from clods of clay, taken from the Lord’s own land.

Rimmon. In the OT, the storm-god Hadad is almost always called by the name “Baal” (which is, strictly speaking, a title; see the article “

a talent of silver. Gehazi’s request is modest compared to what Naaman was prepared to offer, but it is still the equivalent of 300 years’ wages, which Naaman doubles (v. ).

olive groves and vineyards, or flocks and herds, or male and female slaves. This is describing the life of luxury Gehazi will be able to purchase with this ill-gotten loot.

Naaman’s leprosy will cling to you. The punishment inflicted threatens neither his life nor health, but condemns him as a social outcast. white as snow. Refers to flakiness, not color; “white” has been added by translators.

Magic is typically forbidden to Israel for a number of reasons: (1) Magic is human encroachment into the divine realm. (2) Magic is used to manipulate deity. (3) Magic involves relying on a power other than Yahweh. If that is the reason, a sanctioned prophet would be able to bypass all three; his office already enters the divine realm, and the power comes from Yahweh, even though the prophet appears to have some autonomy in using it. The prophets are called to wield divine authority at some level. ◆

Go to

iron axhead. Iron technology was becoming more widely available at this time, but implements of iron were still expensive and valuable.

cut a stick . . . made the iron float. Ancient magic included a category called transference, where properties or characteristics of one object were passed to another. In this case, the buoyancy of the wood is passed to the axhead. While the text is unclear whether Elisha was actually practicing magic or not, his actions would have appeared that way to an ancient observer.

the king of Aram was at war with Israel. Aram had already become a thorn in Israel’s side during the reigns of Baasha, Omri and Ahab (; ; ), although the two states sometimes became allies when a greater threat confronted them. The Assyrian Monolith Inscription mentions Ahab fighting alongside the king of Damascus against the Assyrians at Qarqar in southern Syria in 853 BC. It was shortly afterward, however, when the Assyrian threat had waned, that conflict between Israel and Damascus was renewed and Ahab lost his life fighting to recover Ramoth Gilead (). Thereafter, there is no evidence of any Israelite presence at known battles between Shalmaneser and the Syro-Palestinian alliance. This external evidence, combined with the internal evidence of the Biblical text, suggests a general breakdown of relations between Israel and Damascus in the aftermath of Ahab’s death, which sometimes exhibited itself in the form of an uneasy truce between them (cf. , noting especially the Israelite king’s reaction in ) and sometimes in the outbreak of full hostilities, as here in . It may have been during this war that Ramoth Gilead was recovered by Israel, since we are later told that Joram was wounded at a defensive battle at this city (; ). Our knowledge of interactions between Israel and Damascus in this period or in any other is, however, limited in view of the number and nature of the sources available to us, and specifically by the limited number of native Aramean records.

Beware of passing that place. Prophetic messages were often sought and/or offered in the ancient Near East in relation to military campaigns. In the case of Zimri-Lim of Mari, the information we have does not portray the king actively consulting prophets or personally encountering them, but only receiving their words through intermediaries. Prophetic messages were subjected to testing by other, more common means of divine communication (e.g., divination procedures such as extispicy). For divination regarding military tactics, see note on . For differences between prophecy and divination, see the article “

At least during the reigns of the Assyrian kings Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, prophecy was highly esteemed and considered on a par with astrology and extispicy in terms of sources of information from deity. These kings received prophecies, as did Zimri-Lim, during their military campaigns, and prophets were included among the Assyrian forces as they marched. The Assyrian royal inscriptions mention kings receiving oracles during battles; and one Neo-Assyrian source lists “Quqi the prophet” in a lodging list alongside three high-ranking military officers: Nergal-mukin-ahi, chariot owner; Nabu-sarru-usur, cohort commander; and Wazaru, bodyguard of the queen mother.

hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha. The text does not speak of the mountains surrounding Dothan, but of the mount where Elisha stands. It refers then not to an army in the hills, but to Elisha’s heavenly bodyguard. They are not there to attack the Aramean army, but to protect Elisha from harm. This differs from the examples in the ancient Near East, in which the king is protected by the deity himself in that it is Yahweh’s army acting on his behalf.

blindness. It is often assumed that this refers to a total loss of physical sight. Yet the Arameans would not doubt their location just because they could no longer physically see it; and the “seeing” of the closely preceding vv. , which lies in contrastive parallel with this “not seeing,” is certainly not physical. It seems much more likely that the text refers to a dazed mental condition, in which the Arameans are open to suggestion and manipulation, but are still able to follow the prophet to Samaria. They believe Elisha when he tells them that they are in the wrong place (v. ), and they do not realize that he has tricked them until the daze has passed (v. ). An analogy to the idea of a god “blinding” enemy troops is found in the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic, where Shamash, the sun-god, “blinded the eyesight of the army of Sumer and Akkad.”

a donkey’s head sold for eighty shekels of silver. It is not likely that the inhabitants of any city would have moved quickly to slaughter and eat animals valuable to them in respect of their livelihoods. The Assyrian reliefs depicting Sennacherib’s conquest of Judahite Lachish in 701 BC underline this by showing animals (some of them looking more emaciated than the captured people) emerging from the city after the siege. That they are thus emaciated, but at least alive, indicates that their owners chose to eat their animals’ food before eating their animals. The people of Samaria, by contrast, were reduced not only to slaughtering and eating animals valuable to them, but also to consuming body parts that would not normally be consumed—and purchasing them for exorbitant prices. The cost of a live horse in is only 150 shekels of silver. seed pods. Lit. “dove’s dung,” which is sometimes interpreted as the popular name for something other than it at first appears (e.g., NIV’s “seed pods” and NEB’s “locust beans”). Yet we know that ancient city sieges often led to extremes among the besieged populations, including the eating of dung, and the people of Samaria were certainly in dire straits. A “quarter of a cab” is equivalent to about a quarter pound (100 grams). During the siege, then, a quarter pound of dove’s dung cost five shekels (what the average worker could make in six months).

Give up your son so we may eat him today. Describing his two-year siege of Babylon that ended in 648 BC, the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal says that “famine seized them; for in their hunger they ate the flesh of their sons and daughters.” Later he tells of a siege of King Uate of Arabia and his army in the mountain stronghold of Hukkuruna, where “famine broke out among them and they ate the flesh of their children against their hunger.” The Bible itself knows of other instances of this gruesome reality of cannibalism arising from long siege (e.g., ; ; ).

May God deal with me, be it ever so severely, if the head of Elisha son of Shaphat remains on his shoulders today! Even though the prophets spoke on behalf of the deity, the people often held them responsible for the results as if they had the power to stop judgment or to enact deliverance. The office of prophet was therefore a dangerous one that could exact a high personal price.

officer. Refers to the member of the chariot crew whose job it was to hold the shield and protect archer and driver. Eventually the term evolved to designate the king’s armor bearer (see note on ) or administrative assistant. floodgates of the heavens. See note on . This expression is usually used of sending rain, but the officer is using it more broadly to describe God’s provision, since the shortage here is food, not water.

hired the Hittite and Egyptian kings. The Aramean army was deceived into thinking that a mercenary army, drawn from Egypt to the south and the Hittites to the north, had been summoned to Samaria to lift the siege. The “hiring” of armies was not unusual in the ancient Near East, as the Kulamuwa Inscription (c. 830–832 BC) from Sam’al illustrates: “My father’s house was in the midst of mighty kings. Everybody stretched forth his hand to eat it. But I was in the hands of the kings like a fire that eats the beard, like a fire that eats the hand. The king of the Danunians tried to overpower me; but I hired against him the king of Assyria.”

The Samarians suspect the common tactic of setting an ambush after pretending to give up and go home. A well-known application of this ruse was used by the Greeks against Troy. The Moabites were tricked the same way by Israel in ch. .

she . . . went to appeal to the king for her house and land. In the woman’s absence, her house and land had been taken by others—possibly by the king himself, displaying the same land-grabbing tendencies as his parents (cf. ). The king was now the recipient of her appeal, as the person with primary responsibility under God for the establishment and maintenance of order and justice throughout the kingdom.

Give back . . . all the income from her land. Normally, a person would not receive income from land reclaimed after a period of absence. The income would instead go to the caretakers and workers who had kept it up during that period.

Hazael’s seizure of the throne of Aram from Ben-Hadad II, known to the Assyrians as Adad-idri, is recorded not only in these verses but also in a fragmentary Assyrian text on a basalt statue of Shalmaneser III, which refers to Hazael as the “son of nobody,” perhaps reflecting his lowly, nonroyal origins. This dismissive notation is interestingly matched by Hazael’s own self-deprecating speech in v. , where he refers to himself as “a mere dog”—a conventional humility matched in one of the Lachish ostraca of the later seventh century BC, in which a subordinate addresses a superior thus: “I am nothing but a dog; why should you think of me?”

Hazael came to power at some point between Shalmaneser’s campaign in the west in his 14th year (845 BC), when we know that Adad-idri was still on the throne, and the campaign of Shalmaneser’s 18th year (841 BC), which records Hazael now as king. He reigned for around 40 years as one of Israel’s most bitter enemies.

Take a gift with you and go to meet the man of God. Ben-Hadad II consulted Israel’s God about his future in much the same way that King Ahaziah of Israel earlier consulted Baal-Zebub of Ekron in ch. . It appears to have been customary when consulting prophets for this and other purposes to offer some payment—in this case an extravagant gift of 40 camel-loads of wares (v. ). The gift is meant to buy the favor of the deity in exchange for a favorable oracle, which would in turn carry the deity’s power with it.

set fire to their fortified places, kill their young men . . . dash their little children to the ground, and rip open their pregnant women. These tactics are all standard procedure for a conqueror hoping to prevent future rebellion. Destruction of the cities prevents their use as defensive or staging points, and the execution of men, women and unborn children decimates any current or future army. Tiglath-Pileser I is said to have ripped open pregnant women, and Assyrian conquest accounts mention the burning of young boys and girls.

Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat. Jehoshaphat is the king of Judah credited in 1,2 Kings with making peace with the king of Israel in the aftermath of the struggles that arose out of the division of the kingdoms under Jeroboam and Rehoboam (), and from his reign forward the fortunes of the Omrides and Davidides were closely interconnected. The two royal houses fought together (vv. ; ch. ) and were linked by intermarriage, in that Jehoshaphat’s son Jehoram married Ahab’s daughter Athaliah (vv. , ). Over time they came to share a similar religious policy, such that both King Jehoram and his successor, Ahaziah, are portrayed in Kings as idolaters under the influence of the house of Ahab (vv. , ).

a lamp for David. See notes on ; ; .

Libnah. Likely a Judahite city to the southwest of Jerusalem (, ), near the Philistine border, although its identification is disputed. This verse makes clear that even Jehoram’s rule in Judah itself was not entirely secure. adds to our knowledge of Jehoram’s reign by telling us that he had previously executed all his brothers, as well as certain others who (we can assume) were perceived as offering some threat to his position, and informs us of attacks from the very Philistines and Arabs who had given tribute to Jehoram’s father. The picture is clearly that of a weak king.

Omri king of Israel. Omri was the first king of the northern kingdom of Israel to successfully establish a dynasty following the period of relative instability that ensued after the division of Israel into two kingdoms (). Of Omri himself we know very little, whether from Biblical or other sources, apart from the manner of his accession to the throne, his purchase of the hill of Samaria, the building of the new northern capital there () and his domination of Moab. Yet the northern kingdom became so identified with this Omride dynasty in the eyes of the outside world that even after the Omride period it was referred to in Assyrian records as “the land of Omri.” This suggests that Omri was perhaps a more substantial international figure than can be deduced simply from 1 Kings. See note on ; see also the article “Omri and Jehu in History.”

;

There are numerous references to the “land of Omri” (Bit-Humria = Israel) in Assyrian texts. Examples include an inscription from the palace of Sargon II (722–705 BC) in ancient Dur Sharrukin (“fortress of Sargon,” modern Khorsabad) that summarizes the king’s campaigns, and one found on a pavement slab for the gates at Dur Sharrukin:

The Mesha Inscription, or Moabite Stone, was discovered in 1868 near the ruins of ancient Dibon in Transjordan, which lay a short distance north of the Arnon River. Its content as well as its style indicates that it is a mid-ninth century BC text, whose purpose is to describe the blessing of Moab’s chief deity, Chemosh, in his deliverance of Moab from the control of its neighbor Israel. It is of interest to readers of the Bible chiefly because it appears to refer, from a Moabite point of view, to the revolt of King Mesha against Israel that is mentioned in ; . It refers to Omri by name and recounts some of the interactions between Israel and Moab.

Jehu King of Israel giving tribute to King Shalmaneser III of Assyria, on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III from Nimrud, c. 827 BC.

© 2013 by Zondervan

As for Jehu, we are told and shown in pictorial form that Shalmaneser collected tribute from “Jehu the Israelite” as well as from Tyre and Sidon. The detail of the campaign is given in various of Shalmaneser’s inscriptions, including one engraved on a statue of the king found at Calah and dating from 839 to 838 BC (the Kurba’il Statue, dedicated to the god Adad of the city of Kurba’il).

The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III is a four-sided biographical monument of black limestone discovered at ancient Calah (modern Nimrud) and dating from 828 to 827 BC. It stands some seven feet (two meters) tall and is inscribed with both text and relief sculptures depicting battles and other events from Shalmaneser’s reign. Among the reliefs is one that shows Jehu kneeling before the Assyrian emperor in the course of his western campaign of 841 BC—the only contemporary portrait in existence of an Israelite king. The relief is accompanied by the following caption: “The tribute of Jehu, son of Omri: I received from him silver, gold, a golden bowl, a golden vase with pointed bottom, golden tumblers, golden buckets, tin, a staff for a king, and javelins.” ◆

The basalt Mesha Inscription (c. 840 BC) references the “land of Omri.” It also bears the earliest certain extra-Biblical reference to the Israelite God Yahweh.

Wikimedia Commons/Mbzt 2012, CC BY 3.0

Go to

Jehu son of Jehoshaphat, the son of Nimshi. Although King Joram of Israel himself had retired wounded to Jezreel (), his army was still at Ramoth Gilead; Jehu, elsewhere simply called “Jehu son of Nimshi” (e.g., v. ; ), was one of its commanders, now destined to be Israel’s next king. He appears as such in Assyrian records.

no one will bury her. It was considered a terrible thing in Israel not to be afforded a proper burial (see ; , which capture the horror well). A similar view of burial is reflected in a curse that concludes the inscription on a ninth-century BC boundary stone found at Sippar in Mesopotamia. The curse inflicts the violator with having no children, a hard life and no proper burial.

Certainly in Mesopotamia the importance of the burial of the body was connected with a belief that, without burial, the etemmu (ghost) of the deceased would not find its natural place among the community of the dead and would therefore have no rest. In addition, the lack of a burial prevented the ongoing care of the dead at the burial site in the form of mortuary rites—it dissolved community between the living and the dead. One way to ensure that a dead individual did indeed lose his or her individual and social identity was, as this verse implies, to feed the body to animals (see note on ). In such a case, some Mesopotamian texts suggest, the dead person was consigned to a formless and chaotic reality and perhaps even to the world of demons.

;

The joint campaign conducted by Joram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah against Aram provides the background against which our Biblical sources describe the death of both kings. It is probably to these same events that the fragmentary ninth-century BC Tell Dan inscription also alludes. Tell Dan was located in the northern region of Israel at the foot of Mount Hermon, and the discoveries were made in 1993 and 1994. The inscription appears to commemorate a victory by an Aramean king over kings of Israel and Judah and to claim responsibility for their deaths, naming them as Ahaziah of Judah and Jehoram of Israel.

If this is so, the Aramean king is presumably Hazael, and he is likely engaging in the oversimplification and hyperbole that is typical of victory steles; for although the deaths of Ahaziah of Judah and Jehoram of Israel certainly followed their conflict with Hazael, the Biblical testimony suggests that the events surrounding them were more complex than the stele implies. Perhaps Hazael regarded Jehu as a vassal and felt justified in claiming Jehu’s feats as his own. We may further deduce that the stele was set up in Dan during a period of Damascus/Aramean control of the city and was later reused as building material by Israelite builders (the main fragment of the stele formed part of a pavement when it was found). ◆

House of David Inscription from Tell Dan, 870–750 BC.

Kim Walton. The Israel Museum, Jerusalem.

Go to

A similar accusation is made by Hittite king Mursili II to depose his late father’s Babylonian wife on the grounds that she practiced sorcery.

she put on eye makeup, arranged her hair and looked out of a window. The significance of these actions is not entirely clear. It could mean nothing more than that Jezebel meets her end proudly, dressed up as a queen should be. It is intriguing nonetheless that her posture echoes the “woman in the window” motif found on carved ivory plaques from various ancient Near Eastern sites, which may represent the goddess Astarte, one of the consorts of Baal. In this case, Jezebel is represented as the very incarnation of the religion she brought into Israel from Sidon. Alternatively, Jezebel’s reference to Zimri (v. ) may be a not-so-subtle warning about the failure of Israel’s last military coup. By making herself alluring, she may be encouraging him to take over the harem and thus establish his legitimacy through her.

eunuchs. It was common practice in the ancient world for the king to have a harem (cf. ) and for the harem to be provided with guards. These guards were typically eunuchs (castrated men), so that the king could be sure that the males who were in close proximity to his women were not capable of sexual relationships with them.

Eunuchs also performed an important role in the official hierarchy of the ancient Near East more generally. In Neo-Assyrian sources, e.g., they are attested at the royal court, in the army, in the bureaucracy, and in the provincial administration. They functioned, among many roles, as the king’s personal attendants, cooks, palace guards, scribes and envoys to foreign rulers. They belonged to an official guild or corps, headed by the rab ša reši, who was one of the king’s closest advisors. It was a great honor to belong to this corps, and it was also a path to material advancement.

Perhaps in order that their loyalty should be assured, Assyrian eunuchs received significant grants of arable land and laborers from the king and various tax exemptions. Although this has been a matter of dispute among Assyriologists, it now seems more than likely that the beardless figures found in various Neo-Assyrian reliefs are intended as representations of eunuchs—a contention supported by the numerous seals of Neo-Assyrian officials (the majority of all the Neo-Assyrian seals) that likewise depict beardless worshipers.

dogs will devour Jezebel’s flesh. Jezebel’s gruesome end is paralleled in the Egyptian Tale of Two Brothers, in which the elder brother kills his own wife for her treachery, casts her to the dogs, and then sits mourning for his young brother, who had fled because of his older brother’s false accusation. For the significance of animals eating the flesh, see note on .

palace administrator. The Hebrew is “who was over the house”—an important position at the royal court, which is also mentioned in ; , ; . The power of the palace administrator, at least in Judah, is indicated in ; next to the king, he had complete power over Judah, somewhat akin to the power of vizier in Egypt. Both the title and sometimes the names of its holders are found in extra-Biblical inscriptions.

One of these is the inscription over a tomb from the monarchic period found on the slopes of the village of Siloam to the east of Jerusalem, which reads: “This is [the tomb of x]yahu, palace administrator. There is neither silver nor gold here, only [his bones] and the bones of his maidservant with him. Cursed be the man who would open this [tomb]!”

took the princes and slaughtered all seventy of them. This kind of drastic action against a royal household was not uncommon in the ancient world, as present incumbents of thrones tried to ensure their own future. The Aramaic Panammuwa Inscription, found at Zinjirli on a statue erected by Panammuwa of Sam’al’s son Bar-Rakib around 733–727 BC, records that Panammuwa himself was the survivor of a palace coup in which a brother killed his father Barsur, along with 70 brothers of his father. This text, along with , where Abimelech kills 70 of his brothers prior to being crowned king, may suggest that the number 70 in such contexts is a matter of literary convention rather than strict accounting.

two piles at the entrance of the city gate. The piling of the severed heads of victims at the city gate evokes both the Baal Cycle myth from Ugarit (see note on ), in which Anat in victory kicks her enemies’ heads around like soccer balls, and also the literal case of the Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II, who records in an inscription decorating the walls and floor of the Ninurta temple in Calah a campaign that included the siege of the city of Damdammusa. Ashurnasirpal claims that he cut off the heads of 600 enemy troops and “took the live soldiers and the heads to the city of Amedu, his royal city, and built a pile of heads before his gate. I hung the live soldiers on stakes around about his city.” Visual evidence for the practice of collecting the heads of the enemy slain is available from the much later time of Sennacherib in the form of a wall relief portraying plunder taken from a town in southern Babylonia.

close friends. This designation does not refer to personal acquaintances, but rather to those who enjoyed the patronage of the court. They are royal wards, and probably not Israelites. Ahab’s family, administration and priesthood are also killed.

relatives of Ahaziah. Ahaziah is Joram’s nephew, so his relatives are at least distantly related to Ahab, which is enough to warrant their deaths.

great sacrifice. It was common rhetoric for a new king to proclaim himself a more pious devotee of the national cult. This would usually include promises to repair or expand the sanctuary and was intended to gain the support of the priesthood and the populace, and also hopefully bring the favor of the deity on his reign. The celebration is probably an enthronement ceremony, in which Jehu will be crowned a vassal in the service of Baal. Absence from such an event could easily be considered treason.

Call an assembly in honor of. The Hebrew word translated “assembly” is comparatively rare; the entire phrase is unparalleled in Hebrew. However, a Ugaritic text about gaining protection for the royal ancestors of King Ammurapi of Ugarit suggests that the phrase represents genuine Canaanite religious terminology, referring to the convening of a solemn meeting.

robes. These are cultic robes used in the worship of Baal. It is possible that the use of these robes is partly to prevent weapons from being worn, making the job easier.

latrine. Temples were usually built on the site of earlier temples, because the ground had already been considered holy. By turning the site into a latrine (or possibly garbage dump), Jehu ensures that it will never be used as a temple again, making the revival of the cult in Samaria difficult.

golden calves at Bethel and Dan. Jeroboam installed these images of a young bull made from gold in the northernmost and southernmost ends of his new kingdom after leading Israel in revolt against the house of David (). The religion that ensued is not regarded by the authors of Kings as explicitly Baal worship (note the contrast between this verse and v. ; cf. ), although it is regarded as idolatrous.

Carites. They also appear in the consonantal Hebrew text of as part of the elite royal bodyguard alongside the Pelethites. They may well be essentially the same body as the Kerethites, with whom the Pelethites normally appear in the OT (; ; , ; , ). The Pelethites were perhaps Philistines, and the Kerethites Cretans—mercenaries who served as David’s bodyguard in the period after his service to Achish king of Gath (; ); the Carites were the later royal bodyguard of Davidic kings.

the pillar. This probably refers to one of the two pillars (Jakin and Boaz) that were found at the temple entrance (see , ), flanking the temple forecourt, just as the monumental gateways of major ancient Near Eastern cities marked the entrance to their own sacred enclosures.

high places. See notes on ; .

money that is brought as sacred offerings. The text appears to differentiate two sorts of income that represent regular temple income—payments made in relation to the periodic census of male Israelites (), and payments connected with personal vows (monetary equivalents for things dedicated to God, ). A third sort of income derives from a special fund-raising campaign similar to that initiated by Moses, at God’s command ().

treasurers. The Hebrew word (makkar) occurs in the OT only here and in v. , and it is of uncertain meaning. Older translations (e.g., KJV) derived it from the root nkr, “regard, recognize,” and translated it as “acquaintances.” The NIV’s “treasurers” connects the word with Ugaritic mkr, a functionary referred to on lists of temple personnel whose precise occupation is unfortunately uncertain. In addition, Akkadian has the cognate makkuru, which means “valuables, treasures, property, assets, estate” and can be used specifically to refer to temple or palace property or estates; we also know of the tamkaru—Assyrian traders and credit merchants. Perhaps the makkarim were merchants associated with the sacrificial cult of the temple who also invested temple money. The temple was, after all, not only a political and religious center in Israel but also an economic center—a secure stronghold in which were stored the national assets and revenues of the state (e.g., tribute from vassals, plunder from conquered peoples, and profits from the sacrificial system). repair . . . the temple. The Jerusalem temple, like other temple buildings in the ancient Near East, was not merely a worship site. It was the dwelling place on earth for the deity (in this case, the God of Israel) and as such the preeminently important symbol of the presence of a god with the king and the nation. Similarly to the palace of a god, it had to be a fine dwelling place, built and furnished with the finest and most expensive of materials and cared for with the greatest of care. To neglect a temple in the ancient world was to neglect its deity and to risk his or her disapproval and the possible undermining of a king’s legitimate authority to rule. This is why a king like Esarhaddon of Assyria had servants such as his minister Mar-Ištar traveling around his realm and sending him reports about the state of temples and their cults and the political and religious issues arising from them. Conversely, a deity’s approval of the ruling king was often communicated in the ancient Near East through the construction of a temple or, if a major shift in political power was taking place, through the renewal or renovation of an existing temple. This construction or renovation of a temple, it was believed, would bring peace and prosperity to all the inhabitants of the kingdom. It is against this background that Joash’s actions are to be understood, as the Davidic dynasty sought to reestablish itself in the aftermath of Athaliah’s coup.

treasurers. See note on v. .

The measures described in this and the following verses and designed to ensure shared responsibility between the crown and the priesthood for the distribution of funds in respect of the temple restoration are interestingly paralleled in a letter from the crown official Mar-Ištar to King Esarhaddon of Assyria concerning necessary repair work to the temples of Uruk and Der. This may suggest that Jehoiada did not himself invent the procedures described in these verses, but simply adapted practices already used in the temples of neighboring lands.

Hazael . . . attacked Gath . . . Jerusalem. Hazael king of Aram already controlled the entire Israelite Transjordan (). Now he brings the Arameans right into the heart of Israelite territory to the west of the Jordan and threatens Jerusalem. The capture of the Philistine city of Gath in fact presupposes that Hazael could move at will through Israelite territory to the north. The campaign is best explained in terms of an attempt by Damascus to gain control over the western part of the incense trade that in later times came from south Arabia via the Wadi Arabah to southern Philistia. It is best dated during the reign of Jehu’s son Jehoahaz (c. 815–799), who, according to , , fared even worse than his father at the hands of Aram and thus provided no bulwark of defense (conscious or unconscious) for Judah.

the book of the annals of the kings of Judah. These were in all likelihood analogous to the royal annals of Assyria—personal memorials of individual Judahite kings that provide accounts of royal achievements, especially military campaigns. See note on .

The LORD provided a deliverer for Israel. The identity of this “savior” who rescues Israel from their extremity in the face of Damascene assaults is not made explicit in the text. However, it seems likely that we are hearing a veiled reference to the resurgence of Assyrian interest in Syria and Palestine that results in a measure of relief for Israel as Assyria begins to occupy the attention of Damascus again in the north. The first explicit evidence of this interest can be found in the Saba’a Stele of Adadnirari III, which speaks of a campaign in the west in 806 BC during which the Assyrians besiege Damascus and exact tribute.

This appears to have been one of several campaigns west of the Euphrates during the first half of Adadnirari’s reign, although several of these military expeditions were probably organized by provincial governors rather than by the king himself. The paucity of the records for Adadnirari’s reign makes it difficult to be certain about their exact number and date.

Asherah pole. See notes on ; .

like the dust at threshing time. This simile is drawn from agricultural practice. In separating the grain from the remainder of the crop, the crop was threshed and then winnowed (see note on ). The threshed material was thrown into the air to allow the breeze to blow away the chaff, or “dust.” Jehoahaz’s armed forces have been scattered just like chaff on the breeze.

Perhaps in the background of this part of the story lie ancient beliefs about omens and their importance as conveyors of divine messages. These beliefs gave rise to the widely practiced art of divination. The diviner would attempt to read significance out of unusual natural phenomena or out of divinatory rituals. One form of divination, known as belomancy, involved arrows that could be used in various ways. For example, a number of different instructions might be attached to a set of arrows, which were then fired. The instruction on the arrow that flew the farthest, or was found first, would be obeyed. Alternatively, the instructions on the first arrow drawn from a quiver would be taken, or the arrows could be thrown to the ground and the practitioner would travel in the direction they pointed as they settled.

threw the man’s body into Elisha’s tomb. Tombs in ancient Israel were often dug out of soft rock or located in caves. They did not present to people in a hurry the difficulties of access that more modern, Western forms of burial do. Cave tombs are in fact much more frequently attested in the southern Levant of the tenth to the eighth centuries BC than during any previous or subsequent periods.

Three times Jehoash defeated him. It was during the reign of Hazael’s successor Ben-Hadad III that Israel began to recover territory, as Ben-Hadad was preoccupied by the Assyrian threat to his north. At the same time, it is evident that Israel itself did not entirely escape Assyrian attention. Both the Calah and the Tell er-Rimah inscriptions of Adadnirari claim that tribute passed from Israel to Assyria in this period, and the Rimah inscription explicitly mentions Jehoash of Israel as a tribute-payer. Yet the Assyrian threat and the infighting among the various Syrian kingdoms nevertheless allowed for a limited Israelite recovery vis-à-vis Damascus. Jehoash’s successes were later spectacularly exceeded by his son Jeroboam II, once the Assyrian threat had entirely (if temporarily) receded.

high places. See notes on ; .

defeated ten thousand Edomites. Edom had revolted against Judahite rule during the reign of Jehoram (). Amaziah, established on the throne of Judah in the wake of his father Joash’s assassination (), is not noted as reestablishing Judahite control over Edom, but he did win an important battle that had implications for Judah’s ability to trade (cf. v. ). Valley of Salt. Best identified with Wadi el-Milh, east of Beersheba (cf. ). Sela. Meaning “rock,” it has commonly been identified with the famous rock-city Petra, halfway between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba, although archaeological evidence does not suggest settlement there earlier than the seventh century BC. It may more plausibly be identified with Khirbet Sil‘, a couple of miles/kilometers north of Buseira (Biblical Bozrah), which was a fortified city from the ninth to the seventh centuries BC.

Ephraim Gate . . . Corner Gate. The assault on Jerusalem that followed the battle of Beth Shemesh resulted in the destruction of about 600 feet (183 meters) of city wall on the northern side of the city between these two gates. Ephraim Gate. As its name suggests, it was the main gate in the center of the northern wall and exited to the road that led to the mountains of Ephraim via the central Benjamin plateau. Corner Gate. Its location is uncertain (as indeed the precise location of the city walls more generally in this period is uncertain), but it is assumed to have been at the northwestern corner of the city.

Lachish. Identified with Tell ed-Duweir, now called Tel Lachish, situated near the Wadi Ghafr—a main route from the coastal plain to the Hebron hills. Archaeological excavations there have revealed (level IV) a large fortified city in this period, which we may assume was constructed during the reign of Rehoboam (, ). Among the finds were an impressive city-gate complex in the southwestern wall (the city’s only gate), and a palace-fort in the center of the city attached to a storehouse and a stable. It was to this city, then—the most important fortified city in Judah after Jerusalem—that Amaziah fled when Jerusalem was lost.

Elath. Elath was a port town on the northern coast of the Gulf of Aqaba (the Red Sea), closely associated with Ezion Geber and the trade of the Solomonic era with the wider world (). It stood at the southern end of the great King’s Highway, which ran all the way north through the Transjordan to Damascus and facilitated trade connections especially with southern Arabia (see note on ). Presumably Elath was lost to Judah when Edom revolted during Jehoram’s reign (), just as both Israelite and Judahite control of the highway was challenged as a result of both that revolt and also the earlier Moabite uprising (; ) and the constant pressure from Damascus. It was only in the aftermath of Amaziah’s victory over the Edomites (v. ) and with the decline of Damascus that Azariah, Amaziah’s son, was able once again to reassert control of Elath.

restored the boundaries of Israel. In the aftermath of Assyria’s assault on Syria, which had evidently seriously weakened the kingdoms of that region, and in a period of relative Assyrian quiescence in Syria and Palestine, Jeroboam II was able to further the Israelite recovery begun by his father. Assyria did not apparently trouble Syria or Palestine much in the period between Adadnirari III (811–783 BC) and Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 BC). Assyria’s kings—Shalmaneser IV (783–773 BC), Ashur-Dan III (773–755 BC) and Ashurnirari V (755–745 BC)—were beset by other troubles and only infrequently ventured out on military campaigns in the west. Lebo Hamath. Hamath was situated in central Syria at the place where the main road from the north crossed the Orontes River, about 133 miles (214 kilometers) north of Damascus (v. ), and Lebo Hamath (“entrance to Hamath”) was presumably a closely associated city or geographic feature. As we can see from , Jeroboam II restored the territory of northern Israel to its previous greatest extent under Solomon. He not only recovered all the territory in Transjordan captured by Hazael in , but in fact now claimed dominion over Aram and the Syrian kingdoms beyond Damascus, to the ideal boundaries of the promised land described elsewhere as including territory “from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt” and “from Tiphsah to Gaza” (, ; cf. ). Whatever Lebo Hamath is, therefore, it cannot be (as many have suggested) a city to the south of Hamath itself (e.g., modern Lebweh in the Lebanon Valley). It must be looked for to the north. Gath Hepher. suggests that it was a town on the eastern border of the territory of Zebulun, and traditionally it has been identified with Khirbet el-Zurra‘a near the modern settlement of Mashhad, a couple of miles/kilometers east of Sepphoris, which, in fact, contains a tomb opportunistically attributed to Jonah.

Azariah (also known in the Biblical texts as Uzziah, e.g., , , , ) consolidated the Judahite recovery initiated by his father, Amaziah (), and at some point during his long reign may indeed have risen to a position of preeminence among the Syro-Palestinian kingdoms. The evidence is implicit and disputed, however. It comes from two textual fragments that some scholars view as forming parts of one text from the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 BC), but that others claim derive from different Assyrian kings (Tiglath-Pileser III and the later Sargon II or Sennacherib). The composite text has been interpreted as suggesting that Azariah stood at the head of an anti-Assyrian alliance during the early years of renewed Assyrian activity in the west in 743–738 BC—the period in which our Biblical sources suggest that his son Jotham was exercising effective governmental power in Judah as a result of his father’s illness ().

The first fragment identifies a person apparently called “Azriau” of “Ia-u-da-a-a” as a payer of tribute to Assyria. The second fragment comes from the annals of Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 BC) and describes an unnamed group of kings who had taken 19 districts and cities of the coast belonging to Hamath and had given them to one “Azriau.” The identification of “Azriau” with Azariah of Judah is disputed. However, even if it were shown to be indisputably the case that the first fragment belongs to the records of a king later than Tiglath-Pileser III, the fact remains that the second fragment contains a name Az-ri-a-a-u that is written in an Israelite, not an Aramean, form and that we know of no king of this name in this period other than Azariah of Judah. These points taken together favor identifying Az-ri-a-a-u with Azariah, at least in the case of the second fragment. ◆

Go to

high places. See notes on ; .

leprosy. See note on . in a separate house. Lit. “in the house of freedom,” the meaning of which is unclear. The second NIV text note on this verse is probably on the right track in taking the phrase as a metaphor for Azariah’s being relieved of (set free from) responsibility in government. More than that, however, the suggestion is perhaps that the king, being seriously incapacitated, was regarded as effectively dead. The Hebrew word hopshi (“free”) appears in connection with the world of the dead in ; (“set apart”), and there is one reference in the Ugaritic Baal Cycle to the netherworld as the bt hptt, “the place of seclusion.”

With Jeroboam II’s death around 748 BC () and the assassination very shortly thereafter of his son Zechariah (vv. ), the northern kingdom, after its brief period of recovery, was on its way to destruction (722 BC). The assassin Shallum held on to power for a mere month before losing both crown and life to Menahem (vv. ), whose power base was apparently in the old Israelite capital of Tirzah (vv. , ; cf. ; see next note).

Tirzah. Probably Tell el-Far‘ah, six miles (almost 10 kilometers) northeast of Nablus. Tiphsah. An important city on the Euphrates River located about 75 miles (120 kilometers) south of Carchemish on the main trade route connecting Mesopotamia with Syria. Menahem made one last attempt to retain for Israel Solomon-like influence in the north by engaging in a campaign that took him as far north as Tiphsah (cf. ). Such a campaign would likely have taken place early in his reign, either before the Assyrian campaigns of 743–740 BC began, or during these years as part of the anti-Assyrian struggle in the region. It is in this same struggle that Azariah and Jotham of Judah each may have been involved in a leading role (see the article “Azariah King of Judah.” ripped open all the pregnant women. See note on .

Pul. The Hebrew version of the Akkadian “Pulu”—a short name for Tiglath-Pileser, not found in any of the inscriptions contemporary with him but known from the Babylonian king lists. During the reigns of Menahem in Israel and Azariah and his son Jotham in Judah, the relative lull in Assyrian military activity in Syria and Palestine came to a decisive end with the appearance of the armies of Tiglath-Pileser III. Tiglath-Pileser’s first campaigns represent the beginning of a process through which, within a short period, northern Israel and most of the Syro-Hittite states to its north were incorporated into the Assyrian Empire. His goal was apparently to establish an Assyrian trading center on the border with Egypt, and he required control of the intervening regions to accomplish this and to ensure safe passage for trade between Philistia and Assyria. Menahem gave him a thousand talents of silver. The payment of tribute bought Assyrian support for Menahem’s rule, which had been seized by force and would not have been regarded as legitimate by many. Menahem is mentioned in two texts dating from the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III as a king paying tribute to Assyria. The first text comes from Tiglath-Pileser’s royal annals from Calah, compiled during the final years of his reign but now in a fragmentary and difficult state, and relates to 738 BC: “I received tribute from . . . Rezin of Damascus, Menahem of Samaria, Hiram of Tyre.” The second text is found on the only known stele of Tiglath-Pileser III, set up in western Iran on the border of one of the states defeated during the 737 BC campaign. It may look back on the year 738 BC, or possibly an earlier year: “Rezin, the Damascene, Menahem, the Samarian, Tuba‘il, the Tyrian . . . I imposed on them tribute of silver, gold, tin, iron.”

Pekah . . . reigned twenty years. It seems clear that if Menahem was king of Israel in 738 BC and Pekah was succeeded by Hoshea around 732 BC, Pekah could not have reigned for 20 years over Israel. Indeed, if we were simply to add together the regnal years for Hoshea (), Pekahiah (v. ) and Pekah, and work backward from the fall of Samaria at the juncture of the reigns of the Assyrian kings Shalmaneser V and Sargon II in 722 BC, we would arrive at a starting date for Pekah’s reign of around 753 BC—well before the accession of Tiglath-Pileser III in 745 BC. The best solution is to assume that before succeeding Pekahiah in Samaria, Pekah had already ruled as governor over at least part of the Israelite territory mentioned in v. . Verse appears to locate his power base in Gilead. Pekah then counted his regnal years from the earlier period (during which he was not really a king) as a way of claiming legitimacy, perhaps as the “true” successor to Jeroboam II.

The Assyrian invasions of the eighth century BC were the most traumatic political events in the entire history of Israel.

The brutal Assyrian style of warfare relied on massive armies, superbly equipped with the world’s first great siege machines manipulated by an efficient corps of engineers.

Psychological terror, however, was Assyria’s most effective weapon. It was ruthlessly applied, with corpses impaled on stakes, severed heads stacked in heaps and captives skinned alive.

The shock of bloody military sieges on both Israel and Judah was profound. The prophets did not fail to speak out against their horror, while at the same time pleading with the people to see God’s hand in history, to recognize spiritual causes in the present punishment.

1. CAMPAIGNS OF TIGLATH-PILESER III (738–732 BC)

King Tiglath-Pileser of Assyria (745–727 BC) proved to be a vigorous campaigner, first exacting tribute from Menahem and then annexing Hamath, Philistia, Galilee, Gilead and Damascus (738–732 BC) during the reign of Pekah.

The ferocious onslaught against the northern tribes left only central Israel and the capital city of Samaria intact.

By this time Israel was a tiny nation wracked by pro- and anti-Assyrian factions, multiple assassinations, hypocrisy, arrogance and fear.

2. CAMPAIGN OF SHALMANESER V (725–722 bc)

The last king of Israel, Hoshea, conspired with Egypt and withheld the annual tribute to the Assyrians.

A protracted three-year siege conducted by Shalmaneser and concluded by Sargon II saw the end of the Israelite kingdom in 722–721 BC.

At that time, according to Assyrian annals, “I [Sargon] besieged and conquered Samaria, led away as plunder 27,290 inhabitants . . . I installed over [those remaining] an officer of mine and imposed upon them the tribute of the former king.”

3. SENNACHERIB’S CAMPAIGN AGAINST JUDAH (701 BC)

In the 14th year of Hezekiah, the Assyrians finally attacked Judah. The Prism of Sennacherib calls Hezekiah “overbearing and proud,” indicating that he was part of Philistia’s and Egypt’s effort to rebel against Assyria.

A battle in the plain of Eltekeh was won by Assyria; the Egyptian and Cushite charioteers fled. Lachish was besieged and taken. Sennacherib’s annals note: “As for Hezekiah the Jew, he did not submit to my yoke. I laid siege to 46 of his strong cities, walled forts and the countless small villages in their vicinity, and conquered them by means of well-tamped earth ramps and battering-rams brought near to the walls combined with the attack by foot-soldiers, using mines, breaches and sapper work. I drove out 200,150 people, young and old, male and female, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, large and small cattle beyond counting, and considered them plunder. Himself I made a prisoner in Jerusalem, his royal residence, like a bird in a cage.”

Nowhere, however, does the boastful Assyrian king record the disaster mentioned in ; ; .

Go to

In the time of Pekah king of Israel, Tiglath-Pileser . . . came. In 733–732 BC, Tiglath-Pileser met with concerted opposition in Syria and Palestine, led by Rezin (Rakhianu in cuneiform sources) of Damascus and supported by Pekah of Israel and others. The kingdom of Judah, an ally of Assyria at this point (v. ; ), itself came under attack from this coalition. The Assyrian response was to launch campaigns against Damascus and its allies in both 733 and 732 BC. Damascus was eventually captured in 732 BC, and in the course of the campaigns Israel also suffered major losses, relinquishing territory on both sides of the Jordan River as far south as Megiddo and Ramoth Gilead, respectively. deported the people to Assyria. The first recorded example of the deportation of people groups by the Assyrians comes from the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I (c. 1243–1207 BC), whose defeat of the Hittites was followed by the transportation of a large group of that conquered people from Syria to labor camps in Assyria. By this means Assyrian kings could not only increase their labor force for building projects or the development of uncultivated land in order to increase the food supply, but also reduce the possibility of further opposition among the subjugated peoples. Tiglath-Pileser III made deportation of this kind a major feature of his imperial policy, and it was imitated often by subsequent rulers. It is estimated that 250,000–500,000 people were deported during the reigns of Assyrian kings. With only occasional exceptions, they were deported to environments similar to those from which they originated—some to cities, others to underpopulated rural areas, and still others to regions of the empire depopulated by an earlier deportation after a rebellion. One major consequence was that Assyrian cities in particular became cosmopolitan and multilingual.

Hoshea . . . succeeded him. Although much of northern Israel had been absorbed into the Assyrian Empire by 732 BC, a smaller state confined to the hill country of Ephraim survived for another ten years as Assyria’s vassal. The new king, Hoshea, was on the throne of that kingdom when Samaria eventually fell in 722 BC. It seems that the Assyrians were content to allow some territories a relative degree of autonomy in relation to the empire, refusing the trouble of absorbing a state (or in this case, all of a state) where they did not think it necessary for their ends. It was no doubt useful to them to have a “buffer zone” of semi-independent peoples between the borders of their empire and the borders of Egypt. A summary inscription of Tiglath-Pileser III, inscribed on a pavement slab, also records this transition of power and describes the deportations and payment of tribute associated with it.

high places. See notes on ; . Upper Gate of the temple. The “gate behind the guard” () that was located in a wall separating the temple and palace complexes. It is intriguing that Jotham should give attention to the boundary marker between temple and palace when it is precisely the transgression of that boundary for which blames his father.

sacrificed his son in the fire. Child sacrifice was a prominent feature of at least some of the polytheistic Canaanite religions practiced in ancient times in Syria and Palestine (see notes on ; ; ; ). In the aftermath of Jotham’s relatively orthodox reign comes a renewed period of officially sanctioned idolatry in Judah, as King Ahaz “followed the ways of the kings of Israel” and the high places became centers, not of the worship of Yahweh, but of the worship of Baal Hadad.

high places. See notes on ; .

Elath. Elath had only recently been won back for Judah by Azariah (see note on ). It is here implied, however, that Rezin was able to reestablish Aramean control over the entirety of the King’s Highway in Transjordan, from Damascus to Elath (see note on ). He then apparently gave it to the Edomites, who appear to have taken part as allies in the assault on Judah along with the Philistines ().

Besieged in Jerusalem, King Ahaz’s response was to call on Tiglath-Pileser for help, sending at the same time a large gift to encourage compliance (possibly the same tribute referred to in an Assyrian text from Tiglath-Pileser’s time). The help is represented in 2 Kings as the Assyrian campaigns in Syria and Palestine of 733–732 BC that resulted in the capture of Damascus and the death of Rezin, as well as the annexation of large parts of northern Israel and the death of Pekah ().

For the Biblical authors, the direct intervention of Assyria into Judahite affairs in 734–732 BC was fateful for Judah in terms of its religious, not just its political, consequences. A king open to foreign influence in his religious policy from the beginning (cf. vv. ), Ahaz is presented here as traveling to Damascus to pay homage to the Assyrian king and being so impressed by an altar there that he reorganizes worship in Jerusalem around its facsimile. The origin of the altar—Assyrian or Aramean—is not stated, but it was most likely the latter. The assumption that it was an Assyrian altar has led some to suggest that implicit in this story is the imposition of Assyrian religion on Judah as a vassal state. There is, however, no compelling reason to think that Tiglath-Pileser imposed Assyrian religious architecture on a vassal state, and nothing in Ahaz’s actions upon returning to Jerusalem implies specifically Assyrian religious practice as such. explicitly says that in fact it was “the gods of Damascus” that Ahaz introduced into Jerusalem—a particular variant of the Baal worship that had so recently plagued northern Israel (see note on ). If some of the things that Ahaz did were “in deference to the king of Assyria” (), these are less likely to have been impositions than voluntary attempts to please the Assyrian king, in part by incorporating into Judahite religion further elements of the worship of Hadad. Nevertheless, the altar could simply represent artistic innovation rather than religious syncretism.

The pressure on Judah from Rezin king of Aram/Damascus and Pekah king of Israel has already been mentioned in with respect to Jotham’s reign, and in it is mentioned with respect to Ahaz’s reign. In all probability this father and son shared some years of coregency around the time of the crisis (cf. , which has 732/731 BC as Jotham’s 20th year, whereas tells us that he reigned for only 16 years), just as the reigns of Azariah and Jotham had previously overlapped.

This crisis is usually referred to as the Syro-Ephraimite War. It began around 734 BC in the context of the opposition to Tiglath-Pileser III led by Rezin of Damascus and supported by Pekah of Israel and others (see note on ), which led in turn to the Assyrian campaigns of 733–732 BC against Damascus and its allies. The motive for the attack on Judah is never explicitly given in the Biblical sources. However, even if Judah was involved in anti-Assyrian resistance early in Tiglath-Pileser’s reign (as the “Azriau of Judah” text may imply [see the article “Azariah of Judah”]), the evidence suggests that Judah had been in a tributary relationship with Assyria since that time and would have had no desire to fight against the empire. It was no doubt this pro-Assyrian stance on the part of Judah under Jotham and Ahaz that prompted the Syro-Ephraimite assault.

A list of tributary kings of Syria and Canaan, found on the only complete building inscription of Tiglath-Pileser III, from Calah and dating from around 729 BC, mentions King Ahaz (here given his fuller name of Jehoahaz) as a vassal paying tribute in the context of the Assyrian campaigns of this period, without explicating the circumstances. It is unclear whether it alludes to the same payment of tribute that is mentioned in or to an earlier instance. ◆

Go to

Ahab’s use of the altar for “seeking guidance” suggests the practice of extispicy that is well-known in the ancient world. Extispicy is attested in the ancient Near East from early in the second millennium BC and played an important role not only at royal courts, but also in the everyday lives of ordinary people. It is attested not just in Mesopotamia, but also in Syria and Canaan, where clay models of livers used by the apprentice diviner to learn his craft have been found (e.g., at Megiddo and Hazor). Such models typically have inscriptions on them indicating interesting features observed on the organ that has been modeled or informing the handler of the circumstances in which the consultation took place, as in this example from Ugarit: “This liver model is for Agaptarri when he was to buy the boy of the Alashian [Cyprus].”

Extispicy focused on abnormalities in animal entrails, and its practice led to the accumulation of extispicy reports, which detailed past findings in the hope of guiding future enquiries. The different parts of the entrails, especially the liver, had their own names and significances, both individually and when added up to give the final conclusion.

We possess particularly good information about divination, and specifically extispicy, from the city of Mari, where eighteenth century BC letters share this common theme. Here too we find documents that list previous phenomena as a guide to the diviner in the present.

Hadad himself was one of the cosponsors of Mesopotamian divination, along with Shamash, the sun-god. It was from these deities (through oil and liver divination) that Enmedurranki, the ancient king of Sippar, was believed to have first received the secrets of heaven and earth, so that he could later pass them on to wise men in the cities of Sippar, Nippur and Babylon. ◆

Go to

seeking guidance. The new and impressively large Hadad altar displaced the bronze altar that had been used for sacrifice since the days of Solomon (v. ; , ; ), the latter now being reserved for Ahaz’s practice of “seeking” oracles. This no doubt refers to the use of the bronze altar for divination (the interpretation of omens). It is probably specifically a reference to extispicy—the examination of the entrails of sacrificial animals in order to divine the will and intentions of the gods, most importantly focusing on the inspection of the liver (hepatoscopy; ; use the same verb for ritual examination; see the article “Extispicy”). Although the OT describes legitimate ways of seeking divine guidance that are not dissimilar to some forms of divination elsewhere in the ancient world (e.g., the use of the Urim and Thummim, see the article “

Hoshea reigned only a few years in Israel before a failure to render tribute to Assyria brought down on him the wrath of Tiglath-Pileser’s successor, Shalmaneser V (727–722 BC), who imprisoned Hoshea and laid siege to Samaria. It is Shalmaneser who is identified in Biblical tradition as the eventual conqueror of Samaria around 722 BC after a three-year siege (; ). Extra-Biblical tradition possibly speaks with two voices on the subject, however. The Babylonian Chronicle does indeed identify Shalmaneser V as Samaria’s besieger and conqueror, but Shalmaneser’s successor, Sargon II (722–705 BC), also takes this honor for himself in his inscriptions.

It is possible that Sargon absorbed Shalmaneser’s conquest of Samaria into his own record in order to claim more success for himself than he actually achieved and perhaps also to give himself legitimacy (as a usurper of the Assyrian throne) by connecting himself with the previous reign. It was certainly Sargon and not Shalmaneser who brought the final end to Israelite independence, however, following up the successes of his predecessor in Syria and Canaan, consolidating them, and transforming Israel into the Assyrian province of Samerina. This ongoing campaign included Sargon’s own brief siege and speedy reconquest of Samaria in 720 BC.

The Babylonian Chronicle is an important source for ancient Near Eastern history in the Assyrian period from 745 BC on; it is a year-by-year account of political events as they affected the region of Babylonia; it also provides useful cross-references for the claims of Assyrian texts. The Chronicle touches on the events surrounding the fall of the city of Samaria in 722 BC.

Sargon II’s own inscriptions, however—in addition to celebrating a later victory in 720 BC over a coalition of forces that included the army of Samaria—appear to claim the conquest of Samaria in 722 BC for himself in a summary inscription from the wall slabs of some of the rooms in Sargon’s palace in Dur Sharrukin (modern Khorsabad) as well as on a text from a pavement slab for the gates at Dur Sharrukin. ◆

Go to

So king of Egypt. As well as failing to render tribute to Assyria, Hoshea had also entered a conspiracy with Egypt. The Egyptian ruler of the time is apparently named in this verse, although it is not certain that “So” is intended as a personal name rather than a place-name (perhaps “Sais”). The pharaoh in question may have been Osorkon IV (see ), the last pharaoh of the Dynasty 22 (730–715 BC, with “So” being an abbreviation of Osorkon) or Tefnakht, founder of the overlapping and rising Dynasty 24 (727–720 BC), which was based in Sais.

He settled them in Halah, in Gozan on the Habor River and in the towns of the Medes. Deportation became a standard tactic of Assyrian kings after Tiglath-Pileser III (see note on ), which was in part designed to reduce the chance of future trouble from a conquered city or state by dispelling any strong sense of community and leadership. Halah. Possibly a town and district northeast of Nineveh. Gozan. Tell Halaf on the modern Turkish-Syrian border. Habor River. A tributary of the Euphrates River now named al-Khabur. Medes. A people of central western Iran who would shortly ally themselves with the Babylonians to overthrow the Assyrian Empire in 612 BC.

high places. See notes on ; .

sacred stones and Asherah poles. See notes on ; .

calves. See notes on ; . Baal. See the article “

sacrificed their sons and daughters in the fire. See notes on ; ; ; ; ). divination. See notes on ; ; see also the article “

The mass deportation policy of the Assyrians was a companion piece to the brutal and calculated terror initiated by Ashurnasirpal and followed by all his successors. It was intended to forestall revolts but, like all Draconian measures, it merely spread misery and engendered hatred. In the end, it hastened the disintegration of the Assyrian Empire.

There is some evidence that Israel experienced its first deportations under Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 BC), a cruelty repeated by Sargon II (721–705 BC) at the time of the fall of Samaria. The latter king’s inscriptions boast of carrying away 27,290 inhabitants of the city “as plunder.” According to , they were sent to Assyria, to Halah, to Gozan on the Habor River, and apparently to the eastern frontiers of the empire (to the towns of the Medes, most probably somewhere in the vicinity of Ecbatana, the modern Hamadan).

The sequel is provided by the inscriptions of Sargon: “The Arabs who live far away in the desert, who know neither overseers nor officials, and who had not yet brought their tribute to any king, I deported . . . and settled them in Samaria.”

Much mythology has developed around the theme of the so-called ten lost tribes of Israel. A close examination of Assyrian records reveals that the deportations approximated only a limited percentage of the population, usually consisting of noble families. Agricultural workers, no doubt the majority, were deliberately left to care for the crops (compare the Babylonian practice, ; ).

Go to

Babylon, Kuthah, Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim. The ruins of ancient Babylon lie in the suburbs of modern Baghdad in Iraq. In the second half of the eighth century BC, and for most of the seventh, Babylonia was under Assyrian control, although the region was the focal point for frequent unrest and the target of frequent Assyrian military campaigns designed to restore order. The most notable of the anti-Assyrian agitators in Babylonia in the late eighth century BC was Marduk-apla-iddina II, who appears in as Marduk-Baladan. When Sargon II ascended the Assyrian throne in 722 BC, Marduk-Baladan had himself crowned king at Babylon. It is the ongoing attempts to depose Marduk-Baladan that provide a possible context for deportations to the cities of Samaria from Babylon and Kuthah (commonly identified with Tell Ibrahim, 20 miles [32 kilometers] northeast of Babylon).

lions. Wild beasts were one of the ways deities could express displeasure, along with famine and disease. Devastation by wild animals was linked to treaty violations, and Assyrian negative omens from the period commonly refer to lions and wolves.

The people . . . do not know what the god of that country requires. The idea that people could run afoul of a local deity for want of knowledge of the proper way in which to worship him is also found in a text from Ashur of uncertain date, in which the writer seeks to persuade the reader of the crucial importance of honoring the god Marduk in his temple, Esagila, in Babylon. The writer of the text does this by establishing a connection between the piety of the worshipers and their fates at the hands of Marduk. Inscriptions from the time of Sargon indicate that he introduced religious syncretism into the region with the express purpose of diffusing nationalistic tendencies.

Sukkoth Benoth . . . Nergal . . . Ashima . . . Nibhaz and Tartak . . . Adrammelek and Anammelek. The only deities in this list who are clearly known from other sources are the West Semitic god Ashima and the Mesopotamian god Nergal, who was an underworld god associated with famine, drought, plague and death and whose cult was centered in the city of Kuthah. The combination Sukkoth Benoth alludes at least to the goddess Banitu and possibly also to Sakkut (Ninurta). Nibhaz and Tartak may be Elamite deities, while Adrammelek and Anammelek may be Phoenician and Emarite gods, respectively.

Since at least 733–732 BC, and probably since near the end of Azariah’s reign, Judah was in tributary relationship with Assyria and had avoided the fate meted out to other states in the region—absorption into the Assyrian provincial system and the deportation of significant segments of their populations (especially the leading members of communities). Hezekiah, however, was not his father (Ahaz), and eventually he rebelled against his Assyrian overlord.

Hezekiah might have begun on this path as early as 720 BC, when one of Sargon II’s inscriptions describes Sargon as “the subduer of the country Judah which lies far away,” apparently in connection with a campaign undertaken to crush a revolt that had broken out in Syria and Canaan under the leadership of Hamath. If the so-called Azekah Inscription belongs to Sargon II rather than his successor Sennacherib, Hezekiah may also have been involved immediately after his sole accession to the throne (714 BC) in a revolt against Assyria spearheaded by the Philistine city of Ashdod that led to the absorption of Ashdod into the Assyrian provincial system in 712 BC. However, the first event described in Assyrian records that can be securely related to the statement in that Hezekiah “rebelled against the king of Assyria” is the widespread revolt that broke out in Syria-Palestine, as in other parts of the empire, after Sargon’s unexpected death on the battlefield in 705 BC.

Assyrian records from Sargon II’s reign tell us of an effort by the Philistine city of Ashdod to woo “neighboring kings” away from Assyria, and of an Assyrian assault on Ashdod and other Philistine cities. The only clear evidence that any attempt to win Judah over was successful, however, is the so-called Azekah Inscription, whose relevance to these events is disputed. If the Assyrian king in question is Sargon, then this inscription probably relates to his campaign against Ashdod and Judah. If Judah was involved, we must assume that Hezekiah came to some arrangement with Assyria before judgment descended, for there is no evidence that Judah suffered any Assyrian penalties after the revolt was over; only Azekah (Tell Zakariya) is said to have been destroyed. The text may in fact relate, however, to the later invasion of Canaan by Sennacherib in 701 BC, or its two parts may not belong together at all. Sennacherib’s own account of the campaign of 701 BC is found in its earliest form on the Rassam Cylinder, which dates from immediately after the events (700 BC). ◆

Go to

Hezekiah . . . began to reign. With the fall of Samaria and the incorporation of much of Syria and Palestine into the Assyrian Empire, only Judah was left as a relatively independent remnant of what had been Israel. Although Ahaz’s son Hezekiah attained regal status just a few years before the end of the northern kingdom (727 BC), he was not yet sole ruler of the kingdom; his 14th year in v.  is in fact correlated with Sennacherib of Assyria’s invasion of Judah in 701 BC, implying a sole accession date of 714 BC and a period of coregency with Ahaz from 727–714 BC.

The bronze snake that Moses had made in the desert () had perhaps been deposited in the temple in Jerusalem, like other religious items from the Mosaic age (cf. ). Nehushtan is not presented in the OT tradition as having originally been made for worship (see note on ); nor is it likely that the authors of Kings meant that it was, in fact, worshiped continually even in the monarchic period, but it eventually became in practice a focal point for idolatry, perhaps because of the association of snakes with the goddess Asherah. Snakes fashioned from copper alloy or bronze and used as cultic images have been found throughout the ancient Near East, and in general the snake was a popular religious symbol that adorned many artifacts (see notes on ). A particularly striking copper alloy serpent with gold foil overlay was found at Timna, about 19 miles (30 kilometers) north of Eilat/Elath. Snakes often appear in this religious iconography in the hands of a god or goddess; among these is the goddess Asherah, who is sometimes called Qdš in the Ugaritic texts and is attested by this name in Egypt, where she appears on reliefs and amulets and is characteristically represented holding snakes in one hand and sometimes both hands. An eighth-century BC bronze bowl found at ancient Calah in Assyria, which perhaps came there as tribute to Tiglath-Pileser III from Hezekiah’s father (Ahaz), has engraved on its rim a winged snake mounted on a standard of just the kind envisaged by our Biblical texts. ◆

Go to

high places. See notes on ; . Even the most righteous of Judahite kings thus far had always failed to remove the “high places” (man-made structures, sometimes located on mountain tops or on raised platforms, within which or upon which cultic acts were performed), and the possibility always existed, therefore, that they would become focal points for the kind of slide from true worship of Yahweh into apostasy that occurred during the reign of Ahaz (cf. ). Hezekiah now appears as the one who addresses this issue, although it is not clear from the evidently generalized and perhaps hyperbolic language of the text what this closure of the high places might have looked like “on the ground” in terms of its severity and geographic extent. sacred stones . . . Asherah poles. See notes on ; .

Sennacherib . . . attacked all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them. After Sargon II’s death in 705 BC, the new Assyrian king Sennacherib (705–681 BC) was involved in a campaign in southern Mesopotamia (703–702 BC) against the erstwhile king of Babylon Marduk-apla-iddina II (Biblical Marduk-Baladan), who was leading a revolt there in renewed pursuit of his own royal claims. It was only after dealing with this closer threat that Sennacherib was able to turn his attention to Syria and Palestine (in 701 BC). The rebellion there quickly collapsed, according to Assyrian records, and Hezekiah found himself without effective allies and without fortresses.

Sennacherib’s records report that Hezekiah paid about 30 talents (1 ton or 0.9 metric tons) of gold and 800 talents of silver (3 tons or 2.7 metric tons). Assyrian texts are more detailed, specifying a wide variety of persons and objects.

Lachish. One of the most important cities in Judah, it guarded a main route from the coastal plain to the Hebron hills (see note on ), and it received particular attention from Sennacherib during this campaign. The main Assyrian attack was carried out in the southwest corner of the city—the only part of the city not protected by a deep valley—where a siege ramp of boulders was erected to allow the approach of the Assyrian forces. The city was eventually captured and burned to the ground.

When King Sennacherib later in his reign constructed his royal palace at Nineveh, he commissioned a set of stone reliefs to commemorate his famous conquest of the city of Lachish. They depict the besieged city itself (portrayed in the center of the series), the attack on it, Assyrian soldiers carrying plunder away from the city, the deported inhabitants leaving it, Sennacherib sitting on his throne facing the city and, finally, the Assyrian camp. The detail is extraordinary and gives us a vivid impression of these events.

Inscribed in a rectangular block to the left of the figure of the king are the following words: “Sennacherib, king of the world, king of Assyria, sat upon a nimedu-throne and passed in review the plunder from Lachish.” The choice of the assault on Lachish for this impressive artistic representation is interesting in that it serves to underline (without meaning to do so) that Sennacherib did not capture Jerusalem.

sent his supreme commander, his chief officer and his field commander. While still besieging Lachish and having apparently decided after all not to accept Hezekiah’s attempt to persuade him to withdraw (vv. ), Sennacherib sent an army to Jerusalem to pressure Hezekiah into a full surrender. We have an analogy to the practice of besieging a major city while continuing operations elsewhere in the surrounding region in Tiglath-Pileser III’s campaigns in Syria in 743–740 BC. supreme commander. The turtanu (Hebrew tartan), one of two persons in the Assyrian army with this title who often led campaigns on behalf of the emperor. chief officer. The rab-saris (lit. “chief eunuch”), who was often dispatched on campaigns at the head of Assyrian forces; the title does not necessarily indicate that he himself was physically a eunuch. field commander. The rab-shakeh (lit. “chief cupbearer”) did not normally take part in military campaigns, but he would have accompanied the emperor as a personal attendant. His presence in this delegation is no doubt to be explained in terms of his linguistic abilities, as he spoke the local language. He may well himself have been of Aramean or Israelite origin, for although his first speech in vv.  reveals many parallels with the Neo-Assyrian annals, he clearly not only knew the local language, but also displayed good knowledge of Judahite customs.

palace administrator . . . secretary . . . recorder. Three of the most important of the Judahite officials went out to parley with the three Assyrian officials. palace administrator. See note on . secretary. In charge of royal correspondence and, as such, was a royal counselor. recorder. Also a royal counselor, somewhat akin to a modern secretary of state but absorbing also the role of the king’s official spokesman.

Egypt. The Assyrian push to the Mediterranean in pursuit of sea trade, begun with the campaigns of Tiglath-Pileser III, inevitably brought Assyria into conflict with Egypt. Throughout the later eighth and early seventh centuries BC, the kingdoms in Syria and Palestine often looked to Egypt for help in resisting the Assyrians. Hoshea of northern Israel had sought military support against the Assyrians from “So King of Egypt” just prior to the fall of Samaria (), and in 712 BC it was to Egypt that the rebel ruler of the city of Ashdod fled when all was lost: “When Yamani heard about the advance of my [Sargon II’s] expedition . . . he fled into the territory of Egypt . . . and his hiding-place could not be detected.” In 701 BC, Hezekiah also looks to Egypt for help.

Please speak . . . in Aramaic. Aramaic was the language of the Assyrian Empire west of the Euphrates and would have been understood by the educated royal officials, but not by the ordinary people on the city wall. The Assyrians are trying to appeal to the people over the heads of their rulers, however, and so their choice of Hebrew is understandable. They want the people to be fully aware of the hopelessness of their situation and the consequences of a long siege (they will “eat their own excrement and drink their own urine,” v. ). Perhaps the people will even turn on their leaders.

Tirhakah, the king of Cush. At some point during Sennacherib’s 701 BC campaign, as the Biblical and Assyrian records agree, an Egyptian army marched into Palestine to aid the rebels. The Egyptian forces were led by Taharqa (Hebrew “Tirhakah”), who would not become pharaoh for another 11 years (690–664 BC), but is referred to here under his later title. He was in fact a Cushite and the third king of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty in Egypt, founded by Shabako (716–702 BC), who was then followed by Shebitku (702–690 BC). These kings were descendants of the Nubian/Cushite rulers who had pushed north toward Egypt (and had eventually annexed Egypt to Cush) in the same period that the Assyrians were pushing south toward the same destination. Tirhakah’s entire life was marked by conflict with the Assyrians, from his leadership as a young man of the Egyptian forces helping Hezekiah through the period of his own rule, which ended in defeat at the hands of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal. The battle in 701 BC took place at Eltekeh, probably Khirbet el-Mukennah, about 12 miles (19 kilometers) east of the Mediterranean on the eastern border of the coastal plain. Sennacherib claims to have defeated the Egyptian force at Eltekeh, and we have no reason to disbelieve him. It may be that it was after this Assyrian victory that Hezekiah, in an attempt to buy more time, released Padi of Ekron, whom Sennacherib claims to have “made” come from Jerusalem and to have reestablished on his throne (see the article “Hezekiah and Assyria”).

enthroned between the cherubim. The OT envisions the God of Israel as dwelling in a special way (though not an exclusive way, cf. ) in the Jerusalem temple, and as being invisibly enthroned in the Most Holy Place on two enormous cherubim, overlaid with gold, which functioned as a covering for the ark of the covenant (; see note on ). The cherubim served as guardians to both royal and divine thrones in the ancient world (see note on ). Yahweh, however, was not visibly depicted on this throne.

I have ascended the heights of the mountains . . . I have dried up all the streams of Egypt. Sennacherib never literally conquered Egypt, nor did he ever literally ascend the heights of the mountains with his chariots and cut down Lebanon’s tallest trees, although he may have taken some cedar back to Assyria with him as his predecessor, Ashurnasirpal II, claims to have done. The point of the text is that Sennacherib thinks of himself as a god. These words reflect the exaggerated view that Sennacherib and other Assyrian kings often had of their own persons and their accomplishments.

put my hook in your nose and my bit in your mouth. This metaphor may reflect actual Assyrian practice. After his second campaign against Egypt in 671 BC, King Esarhaddon erected several victory steles, the most famous of which depicts Esarhaddon as leading two prisoners, apparently Baal I of Tyre and Taharqa/Tirhakah of Egypt, by ropes tied to a ring that pierced their lips. Ashurbanipal, his successor, further records an act of humiliation against Uate, king of Arabia, in which he “pierced his cheeks with the sharp-edged spear . . . put the ring to his jaw, placed a dog collar around his neck and made him guard the bar of the east gate of Nineveh.”

what grows by itself . . . what springs from that. The sign that Judah will recover from the Assyrian assault is to be found in the way that the survivors will be provided for in the short term. Initially the people will only be able to survive because of the crops that spring up from what is already in the ground; but in the third year it will be possible to resume normal agricultural practice. The initial fragility of both human and economic conditions should not be a reason for despair.

He will not . . . build a siege ramp against it. According to Isaiah’s message here to Hezekiah, Sennacherib will return home before the army encamped outside the city of Jerusalem can take military action against it—before an arrow is fired, a shield raised or a siege ramp is built against its walls. See the article “

the angel of the LORD . . . put to death. One of Ashurbanipal’s inscriptions claims that the plague-god Erra wiped out an Arabian king and his army in response to a treaty violation.

Sennacherib king of Assyria . . . returned to Nineveh and stayed there. Nowhere in his own account of his campaign does Sennacherib claim to have taken Jerusalem, nor even to have received tribute from Hezekiah in the immediate aftermath of the siege. He tells us only that after his return to Nineveh (the occasion of which he does not describe), Hezekiah sent tribute. His silence on the way in which the siege ended when compared to what he says in this same account about other kings in the region requires some explanation. Our Biblical sources give us some hints in the direction of this when they tell of a mysterious reversal suffered by the Assyrians while Jerusalem lay at their mercy (v. ).

A considerable time after these events, in the middle of the fifth century BC, the Greek historian Herodotus heard an Egyptian story about Sennacherib’s campaign that also ascribed the Assyrian withdrawal from Palestine to a miracle. The presence of mice in his story has suggested to some the possibility of plague afflicting the Assyrian army.

The Babylonian Chronicle reports the death of Sennacherib as taking place in 681 BC, during an insurrection led by his son, but not Esarhaddon, the son who ascended to the throne in the aftermath. Esarhaddon describes the events surrounding his accession to the throne at greater length. He identifies himself as the youngest son of Sennacherib, yet chosen as successor by his father. He claims that he drove the assassins out of the country. A letter to Esarhaddon, found in the royal archives of the Sargonid Dynasty at Nineveh, identifies one of the assassins as Arad-Mullissu—probably the Adrammelek of the Biblical text (). ◆

Go to

his god Nisrok. The identity of this deity is unknown, though it may be a variant form of the name Marduk, Nusku or Ninurta. Esarhaddon. Ruled Assyria 681–669 BC. Unlike his father, Sennacherib, who took a harsh stance in relation to Babylonian unrest led by Marduk-Baladan and others (see notes on ; ) and ultimately destroyed Babylon itself in 689 BC, Esarhaddon pursued a conciliatory policy, which gave him peace in the south and enabled him to give his full attention to the west. As far as we can tell, Judah was in tributary relationship with him throughout his reign and was even compelled at some point to receive deportees from other parts of the Assyrian Empire ().

These verses are a “flashback” to the period around 713/712 BC (see note on v. ).

Remember . . . I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion. Kings in the ancient world would be likely to offer prayers to deity when their health or kingdom were threatened, as Hezekiah does here. A prayer of Ashurbanipal is preserved in which he asks for healing on the basis of faithfulness to Ishtar. He speaks of his humility, reverence, his tears and anxiety, the many rituals he has carried out and himself as beloved of the deity.

poultice of figs. Figs had long been cultivated in Palestine, and as well as being eaten fresh, they could be dried and made into cakes or fermented and made into wine. However, it is specifically their medicinal use that is in view here: A fig poultice is applied to what may have been an abscess. The belief that figs had medicinal qualities is also attested later in Rome and earlier at Ugarit. Sweet substances such as figs and dates were used to combat infection in the ancient world, and they do have antibacterial properties.

Shall the shadow go forward ten steps, or shall it go back ten steps? It has often been assumed that this refers to a device designed to tell time, but if so this is the only mention of such a device in the OT. Scholars refer in this context to ancient sundials in general (dating back to fifteenth-century BC Babylonia and Egypt) and in particular to the model of a house excavated in Egypt that contained two flights of stairs used for telling time. This is, however, to read a considerable amount into the Biblical text. It may be a device used in the worship of astral deities, or it may simply be a flight of steps on which shadows can be observed.

Marduk-Baladan son of Baladan king of Babylon. When Sargon II ascended the Assyrian throne in 722 BC, Marduk-Baladan (Marduk-apla-iddina II) had himself crowned king in Babylon, and there ensued a period of ongoing if intermittent conflict in Mesopotamia that lasted until Esarhaddon’s reign (see notes on ; ). The visit of Marduk-Baladan’s envoys to Jerusalem is best set during the period in which he was still enjoying his first spell of kingship in Babylon (722–710 BC), before Sargon II reconquered Babylonia after 710 BC and drove Marduk-Baladan into exile.

as a whole, in fact, represents a “flashback” to the period around 713/712 BC, 15 years before Hezekiah’s death (cf. v. ). The visit suggests that the anti-Assyrian resistance that arose after Sargon’s death in different parts of the empire was coordinated rather than coincidental and had its roots in long-term prior contacts between the different groups involved. Hezekiah may have been involved at this time in a revolt against Assyria spearheaded by the Philistine city of Ashdod (see the article “Hezekiah and Assyria”).

Settled existence in Syria-Palestine required adequate water supplies, or at least water supplies that could be made adequate by human interference with nature. Towns were often built, therefore, beside rivers and springs, so that the course of the rivers could be altered and the flow of springs could be improved. Wells were dug in order to access underground water, and rainwater from the wet months was collected in cisterns or reservoirs for later use. Particular attention had to be given to ensuring that towns possessed water sources that would enable them to withstand siege.

In the case of Jerusalem, the Gihon spring in the Kidron Valley was the crucial resource, and a complex water system was created early in order to secure and access its water. An impressive tower was constructed in the Middle Bronze Age (eighteenth to seventeenth centuries BC) to protect the spring, and a large, quarter-mile-long (0.4-kilometer-long) conduit (often known as the Siloam Tunnel) channeled the water from there to the reservoir at Birket el-Hamra (perhaps the Lower [Old] Pool of ) at the southern end of the City of David, gathering as it went run-off water from above and irrigating adjacent fields. Although well protected by large boulders wedged in the channel, this water supply lay outside the city’s walls and was vulnerable in time of siege.

However, the Middle Bronze Age water system also contained a subsidiary tunnel that led from the Siloam conduit, near to its beginning point by the Gihon spring, into a large rock-cut pool, from which Jerusalem residents could draw water from above by way of a further tunnel that began inside the city walls. This water supply would have been especially useful in time of siege. Later, in preparation for the Assyrian attack, King Hezekiah had a tunnel cut that diverted water from the Gihon spring directly underground to the Pool of Siloam (Birket es-Silwan) at the southern end of the Tyropoeon Valley—which by this time lay within the city walls. This not only secured his own water supply, but also deprived the Assyrians of one (see , ). At this point the old water system was apparently abandoned.

An inscription cut into the tunnel wall (known as the Siloam Tunnel Inscription) commemorates King Hezekiah’s accomplishment in building a tunnel that brought water from the Gihon spring directly underground to the Pool of Siloam. The feat was considered remarkable partly because the tunnel was cut by two teams working toward each other from opposite directions and yet meeting accurately in the middle. ◆

Hezekiah’s tunnel.

© Baker Publishing Group and Dr. James C. Martin.

Go to

The records of Esarhaddon’s son and successor Ashurbanipal (669–c. 630 BC) indicate that Manasseh remained a loyal vassal of Assyria at least throughout the early part of Ashurbanipal’s reign. Manasseh’s Judahite forces fought on the Assyrian side in 667 BC during the king’s first campaign there, when Ashurbanipal recaptured Memphis and laid the foundation for his capture of Thebes a few years later in 664 BC.

However, Esarhaddon had divided his kingdom between two of his sons rather than bequeathing it to one, and Ashurbanipal therefore ruled directly only over Assyria, with Shamash-shum-ukin in charge of Babylonia. Open war between the two was the eventual result (652–648 BC), with Ashurbanipal the victor. While he was campaigning in Babylonia, there was widespread disaffection in Syria-Palestine. Although 2 Kings gives no hint of these events, it is likely that they are alluded to in , which perhaps implies that Manasseh was suspected of being involved in disloyal activities and was summoned to Babylon to answer charges either during the siege or after the fall of Babylon (648 BC). He was subsequently restored and appears to have enjoyed a degree of freedom under Assyrian overlordship in the subsequent period, perhaps because Ashurbanipal wished to have Judah as a strong buffer state between Syria and Canaan, and Egypt.

Egypt had itself withheld tribute a few years before Shamash-shum-ukin’s rebellion, and afterward Egypt never came under the Assyrian domination that it had earlier experienced during the reigns of both Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal. After the rebellion, with Ashurbanipal occupied with troubles elsewhere in his empire, Pharaoh Psammetichus I gradually extended Egypt’s influence once again into Syria-Palestine and became more of a presence there. ◆

Go to

starry hosts. In the ancient Near East generally, the stars and the planets were identified with specific gods and goddesses and worshiped as such, and their movements were carefully studied for astrological reasons. The sun was worshiped in Mesopotamia as Shamash, the moon as Sin and the planet Venus as Ishtar (the goddess of love and sexuality). At Ugarit in Syria the sun was worshiped as the goddess Shapash, the moon as Yarikh and Venus as Astarte.

Israel encountered astral worship of this kind as soon as it entered Canaan (Israel “served Baal and the Ashtoreths” []). Ashtoreth is the Biblical name for Astarte, and the plural refers to various local manifestations of the goddess (see note on ). The cult was revived during the monarchic period by Solomon (, ) and may well have been promoted, along with other aspects of astral worship (), under Manasseh, in part to display his loyalty to the Assyrian king.

Certainly we find no lack in the archaeological record in Palestine of religious art that reflects this indigenous worship of heavenly powers. A bulla from Jerusalem dating from the seventh century BC displays the crescent moon standard of the god Sin, while a seventh-century BC scaraboid from Shechem shows the moon-god in anthropomorphic form, enthroned on a low stool and with his arms raised in blessing.

All the terms in this verse appear in (see notes there). sacrificed his own son in the fire. See notes on ; ; ; ; ). divination. See notes on ; ; see also the article “

his palace garden, the garden of Uzza. This burial site is of uncertain location, but the implication may be that it lay outside the “City of David” (i.e., the original settled area on the southern hill), which is noted as the resting place of preceding kings (e.g., Ahaz in ). It is tempting, in view of Manasseh’s worship of astral deities (v. ), to associate Uzza with the Arabian goddess al-‘Uzza, who was identified with Venus, and to speculate that the garden of Uzza was an enclosure dedicated to her on the temple mount. An equally plausible suggestion is that this enclosure was at the southern end of the Kidron Valley, just outside the city walls, where we know that there was a “king’s garden” (; ).

found the Book of the Law. We are not told the range of content that was included in the document that was discovered. It is clearly a covenant document of some sort. Given that the foundation and structure of ancient Near Eastern buildings were often used as a repository for dedicatory inscriptions and the storage of royal annals, Hilkiah’s “discovery” of the Book of the Law is not as peculiar as it may at first appear. Such foundation tablets would often include instructions of religious and architectural significance for those who might be involved in future temple restoration. For example, in the palace of Sin-kasid at Uruk, a large number of clay tablets were intentionally built into the foundation of the temple in regular intervals of approximately 16.5 inches (42 centimeters).

In the context of Josiah’s religious reforms and temple restoration (), there may have even been an intentional search for such guiding documents given the supreme importance of properly handling sacred space. Discovered texts were commonly reburied in conjunction with a temple refurbishing project, as reflected by the Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta I, who redeposited foundation tablets from the time of Adadnirari I into the wall of the Aššurimtu temple at Assur.

The discovery of ancient foundation documents at a holy place such as a temple could also impact contemporary religious thought, since these texts carried an implicit level of authority. Pharaoh Shabako claimed to have found a forgotten theological text describing the creation of the world by Ptah, now called the Memphite Theology, which he had inscribed on stone. A similar process is seen by the reforms enacted by Josiah following the discovery of the Book of the Law.

The Hebrew word translated “book” in refers generally to a document, which could have been composed of various materials (clay tablet, parchment, papyrus, wax tablet). Bound books had not yet been invented, and written material tended to be used for official documents stored in archives. Temples had archives as well as foundation deposits, and this document could have been found in such locations. While basic literacy was widespread, and kings would likely have had a higher level of literacy, it was still conventional for documents to be read before the king by a scribe rather than the king reading them himself. Though many parts of Deuteronomy are traced back to Moses, we do not know when the entire book we know as Deuteronomy was compiled. It may be that such material was still only transmitted in numerous individual documents found in archives and in the oral traditions that preserved them. ◆

Assyrian foundation tablets from the Temple of Mamu, 875–865 BC. Bound books had not yet been invented, and written material tended to be used for official documents stored in archives.

© 2013 by Zondervan

Go to

the prophet Huldah . . . wife of Shallum . . . keeper of the wardrobe. It is not clear whether Shallum was in charge of the king’s wardrobe or the wardrobe of the priests in the temple (cf. ). It is consequently unclear whether Huldah was the wife of a court official or perhaps one of the temple personnel. Female prophets are well-known in the ancient Near East, sometimes addressing kings (as here) on important matters such as their personal security.

the pillar. See note on .

Kidron Valley. Lay to the east of the Old City of David, separating it from the Mount of Olives. It ran from north to south to join first the Tyropoeon Valley at the southern end of the city and then, farther on, the Hinnom Valley. The stream that ran through the valley, then, progressed southeast and emptied into the Dead Sea. Associated with idolatry since the time of Solomon (), the Kidron Valley became during Josiah’s reformation a convenient place to destroy cult objects, thus not only removing them from Jerusalem but also desecrating the valley itself as a religious site. Bethel. Jeroboam I had focused his new cult on Bethel and Dan (; see note on ), and this cult lived on in the activities of the new settlers in the land of Israel (cf. ). Most scholars identify Bethel with Tell Beitin. Josiah is here envisaged as seeking to reform worship both in Judah and in territory that had belonged to the northern kingdom of Israel (cf. ), which he now implicitly claims back as his own. It is certainly clear from a consideration of the political circumstances of the period that the opportunity existed from early in Josiah’s reign for increasing activity to the north of his capital. Ashurbanipal died around 630 BC, plunging the Assyrian Empire into an extended period of civil war and general strife, out of which the city of Babylon eventually emerged as the new imperial power in the east. Palestine was far from the center of events throughout the period, and after 630 BC Assyria was little interested in or capable of exercising effective control there. The major power in Syria and Palestine was increasingly Egypt, but there is no reason to think that in the midst of the many larger matters that concerned them, the Egyptians would have cared much about Josiah’s interest in the territory to his north that did not directly affect their interests. The evidence suggests, in fact, that Egyptian interest in Palestine in this period was limited to commerce and trade, and it did not extend to possession of territory as such—albeit they expected to be able to move troops through Palestine when they wished to do so (see note on v. ).

male shrine prostitutes. See note on . weaving for Asherah. This probably refers to the manufacture of ritual garments for worship of the goddess Asherah (cf. ).

Topheth . . . the Valley of Ben Hinnom . . . Molek. The Hinnom Valley ran along the western and southern sides of ancient Jerusalem until it met the Kidron Valley, running from north to south. Like the Kidron Valley, it was associated with idolatry—in particular with the worship of Molek (see note on ). Topheth was apparently the cultic site where this worship was practiced, lying at the juncture of the Kidron and Hinnom Valleys near En Rogel.

horses . . . dedicated to the sun. On the worship of the starry host, including the sun, see note on . The practice of dedicating horses to the sun appears to have been distinctively Assyrian (by way of the Hurrian peoples of Mitanni in northern Mesopotamia and Syria in the second half of the second millennium BC), but is also known in Ugarit. The sun-god was thought to ride across the sky in a chariot drawn by horses. These horses may be dedicated to a foreign solar deity, or perhaps to a syncretistic version of Yahweh as a sun-god.

altars . . . on the roof. A text from Ugarit that describes the ritual for the annual celebration of the grape harvest at the temple of Baal in that city also mentions a king sacrificing at an altar on a roof (on this occasion, the roof of the Baal temple), in the context of the worship of Shapash, the female sun-god at Ugarit. The roof is a natural location for worshiping the starry host.

Hill of Corruption. Because it hosted the idolatrous altars here mentioned, the Mount of Olives is named the “Hill of Corruption.” The mountain was the central summit on a ridge of three running to the east of Jerusalem and the Kidron Valley. Ashtoreth. See note on . Chemosh. The chief god of the Moabites, although he was already known in ancient Ebla in Syria (Tell Mardikh) as Kamish and is probably to be identified with the Mesopotamian deity Nergal, an underworld god associated with famine, drought, plague and death. Molek. See note on .

human bones. It is possible that these were added to the refuse so that no one would disturb it, because of the taboo of coming into contact with dead bodies.

high places. See notes on ; .

mediums and spiritists. See note on . household gods. See the article “

Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt went . . . to help the king of Assyria. After the death of Ashurbanipal of Assyria around 630 BC, Egypt gradually emerged as the major power in Syria-Palestine and indeed as the ally of Assyria in its struggle with Babylon, sending troops northward at least from 616 BC on to join with the Assyrians in battle. The campaign mentioned here took place in 609 BC, as Pharaoh Necho II marched north for what was apparently the last joint Assyrian-Egyptian engagement with the Babylonians (and their allies, the Medes). After this we no longer hear of the last Assyrian ruler, Ashur-Uballit II, who had set himself up as king in Harran after the fall of Nineveh in 612 BC and was now trying to retake Harran (with Necho’s help) from the Babylonians, who had captured it the previous year.

To accomplish the movement of troops to the north, the Egyptians needed effective control of the Coastal Highway, the international highway that ran from Egypt along the western coast of Palestine and then northeast via Megiddo and Damascus. The city of Megiddo controlled this highway as it entered the Jezreel Valley. Josiah’s decision to confront the Egyptian army there implies that he had captured Megiddo from either the Egyptians or the Assyrians prior to the battle.

The motives for Josiah’s intervention are not clear; perhaps he is attempting early in the reign of the new pharaoh (who had succeeded his father, Psammetichus, in 610 BC) to establish his independence from an increasingly powerful Egypt, hoping to benefit from being seen as taking the Babylonians’ side. If so, the attempt ends in disaster. Josiah is killed, and any limited independence that Judah may have had during the period of Assyrian decline in Syria-Palestine is now lost.

Riblah. Located in a wide plain about seven miles (11 kilometers) south of Kadesh on the eastern bank of the Orontes River. It was an ideal place for Necho and his army to encamp on their journey back from the unsuccessful siege of Harran in 609 BC. Shortly after Josiah’s death, the new king of Judah, Jehoahaz (also known as Shallum, ; ), was summoned to Necho’s headquarters at Riblah, removed from power, and subsequently imprisoned in Egypt.

605–586 BC

Events in Judah moved swiftly following the death of Josiah. Pharaoh Necho pressed his advantage by deporting Jehoahaz, the new ruler, and appointing a second son of Josiah, Jehoiakim, as king.

The prophet Jeremiah was taken to Egypt by Judahite refugees fleeing from Babylonian-controlled territory. They brought him to Tahpanhes, where he continued his prophecies.

The Chaldeans (Kaldu), as the Neo-Babylonians were called, had important connections at Ur and Harran, centers of worship of the moon-god Sin. They also developed the trade routes across North Arabia, where Tema was particularly important, becoming the residence of Nabonidus during the last days of the kingdom.

DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM 586 BC

Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, was appointed by Nebuchadnezzar, but he also rebelled. Jerusalem was attacked and besieged for two and a half years. Lured by a feint of Pharaoh’s army, the Babylonians withdrew temporarily. When the Egyptians retreated, however, the Babylonians returned with a vengeance to Jerusalem.

Facing starvation, Zedekiah with his army fled by night “through the gate between the two walls” () toward the Jordan River, but both were overtaken in the plains of Jericho.

Zedekiah was captured and was dragged off in chains to Riblah, where he saw his sons slaughtered before he was blinded and taken to Babylon. One month later (in 586 BC) Jerusalem was ransacked and burned. Numerous high officials were executed, the temple furnishings were carried off and the people were exiled.

Dramatic military dispatches found at Lachish warn of the encircling army.

CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM c. 597 BC

Soon a stronger power appeared in the north in the person of Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Chaldeans (Neo-Babylonians), who determined to follow the fierce policies of his Assyrian predecessors.

The tribute of Jehoiakim was paid at a distance when he heard of Nebuchadnezzar’s approach. After three years as a Babylonian vassal, he rebelled, bringing a rapid response in the form of small-scale raids from Babylonians, Arameans, Moabites and Ammonites (c. 602 BC). Finally, Nebuchadnezzar’s forces controlled all of the coastal territory north of the Wadi of Egypt.

When 18-year-old Jehoiachin had ruled just three months (597 BC), the main Babylonian army struck, capturing Jerusalem and exiling the king as a captive in Babylon. Ten thousand persons were deported.

Go to

Jehoiakim. Jehoahaz’s brother Eliakim replaced him on the throne, ruling as an Egyptian vassal under the name of Jehoiakim. It was during his reign that King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon (605–562 BC) invaded Palestine in pursuit of complete victory over Egypt. Early in 605 BC, he defeated the Egyptian army at Carchemish on the Euphrates River, following up this victory with a march the following year that reached as far as Ashkelon in Philistia. An Aramaic letter, written to Pharaoh Necho of Egypt by Adon king of Ekron just prior to the Babylonian assault on that city, pleads for Egyptian help, but to no avail. Nebuchadnezzar was never able to defeat Egypt finally. An attack on Egypt itself was repulsed by Necho in 601 BC with heavy losses on the Babylonian side. Egyptian influence over Syria-Palestine was nevertheless removed, as v.  indicates: “The king of Egypt did not march out from his own country again, because the king of Babylon had taken all his territory, from the Wadi of Egypt to the Euphrates River.” became his vassal for three years. But then he . . . rebelled. It was probably during Nebuchadnezzar’s successful campaign of 604 BC in Syria and Palestine that Jehoiakim switched his allegiance to Babylon. This campaign of Nebuchadnezzar—the first of eight campaigns during the next ten years directed at establishing Babylonian control over the region—produced, among other feats, the capture of the Philistine city of Ashkelon. But Nebuchadnezzar failed in his attempt to invade Egypt in 601 BC (“three years” later), and his withdrawal to Babylon to refit his army led Jehoiakim to rebel against Babylon and to look once again to Egypt for help ().

advanced on Jerusalem and laid siege to it. The Babylonian withdrawal from Palestine in 601 BC turned out to be only temporary, and Judahite hope in Egypt was illusory. In the short term, Jehoiakim’s rebellion brought down on Judah only assaults by limited Babylonian and allied forces (v. , cf. ). However, the end of the year 598 BC saw the main Babylonian army before the gates of Jerusalem and no Egyptian forces on hand to help. The city surrendered to the Babylonians on Mar. 15 or Mar. 16, 597 BC, and the independent state of Judah all but came to its end.

carried all Jerusalem into exile. On deportation as an imperial tactic, see notes on ; . In the aftermath of Judah’s surrender to Nebuchadnezzar II, Jehoiachin, the queen mother, royal officials, military officers, artisans, and 7,000 soldiers were taken captive to Babylon.

Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon. Jehoiachin’s replacement as king was his uncle, Mattaniah, who ruled as a Babylonian vassal under the name of Zedekiah. Babylonian conquerors usually instated vassal rulers from the same house as their predecessor to ensure continuity and stability with the local population. The Babylonian Chronicle refers to him as “a king of his [Nebuchadnezzar’s] liking/choosing.” However, Jeremiah suggests that from early on in his reign (; ) Zedekiah was involved in discussions with neighboring peoples about the possibility of revolt. Eventually, Judah did in fact rebel, in circumstances that are not entirely clear but that were no doubt connected with the machinations of Egypt under Necho’s successor, Psammetichus II (595–589 BC).

Zedekiah stopped paying tribute, and a new siege of Jerusalem followed. This siege was temporarily lifted when the new pharaoh Apries (589–570 BC) sent an army into Palestine (), but it was resumed when the Egyptian army withdrew. The city eventually fell in 586 BC, after nearly two years of siege and with all supplies of food exhausted.

Cuneiform text listing rations for Jehioiachin and his sons.

Kim Walton, Vorderasiatisches Museum.

Return to

through the gate between the two walls. As the city wall of Jerusalem was being breached (probably on the northern side), Zedekiah managed to escape by night with his troops through an exit in the southeastern wall that is probably to be identified with the Fountain Gate of . The mention of “two walls” likely alludes to the old wall of the City of David and the new wall built in the eighth century BC in order to enclose the western hill and the Pool of Siloam. fled toward the Arabah. Zedekiah’s plan was to flee to the Arabah (the great rift valley of Palestine that runs from the Sea of Galilee to the Red Sea and forms the barrier between Israel and Transjordan), apparently by way of the Wadi Kelt in the vicinity of Jericho to Jerusalem’s northeast. The Babylonians overtook him near Jericho, however, on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho (v. ).

Nebuzaradan commander of the imperial guard. He may also be named as a high official of Nebuchadnezzar’s court on a prism found in Babylon and now located in Istanbul: “I ordered the following court officials in exercise of their duties to take up position in my official suite: as mašennu-officials, Nabuzeriddinam.”

set fire to the temple . . . the royal palace and all the houses . . . broke down the walls around Jerusalem . . . carried into exile the people. The systematic destruction of the city, including prominent buildings such as the temple, the palace and the city defenses, was overseen by Nebuzaradan, a Babylonian officer who also organized the deportations (and indeed the executions, vv. ). counts the number of the exiles taken to Babylon from Jerusalem at this time as totaling 832 people in all. It was a sizable deportation of people important for the independent rule and prosperity of Judah, and it was designed to have a detrimental effect on the ability of the Judahites in the future to organize for rebellion.

Mizpah. The site that Gedaliah chose for his new administrative center was Mizpah (located at Tell en-Nasbeh, about eight miles [almost 13 kilometers] from Jerusalem on Judah’s northern border)—a significant fortress that appears to have escaped destruction in the course of the Babylonian campaign. may imply that it became not only Judah’s new capital, but also its new worship center, for these verses describe a pilgrimage in order to offer grain and frankincense at the “house of the LORD”—perhaps in Mizpah itself. Jaazaniah. Among the archaeological discoveries at Mizpah is an onyx seal dating from the sixth century BC and inscribed “belonging to Jaazaniah, servant of the king.” This may be the person named in this verse.

Knowledge about the destiny of the captives from Israel and Judah is sparse in the period following the capture of Samaria and the later destruction of Jerusalem.

Assyrians and Babylonians treated their subject peoples essentially the same: overwhelming military force used in a manner inspiring psychological terror, along with mass deportations and heavy tribute.

Three deportations are mentioned in , the largest one consisting of 3,023 Jews who were taken to Babylon along with King Jehoiachin in 597 BC.

After the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuzaradan, the commander of the Babylonian army, hundreds of exiles were taken to Riblah in the land of Hamath, where, in addition to Zedekiah’s sons, at least 61 were executed.

Clay tablets from the fifth century BC called the Murashu archives have been found at Nippur. They document the commercial transactions with Jewish families who remained in Mesopotamia following Ezra’s return to Jerusalem.

and indicate that other captives were placed at Tel Aviv and at the Kebar River, both probably in the locale of Nippur, as were other villages mentioned in ; , ; .

Jehoiachin and his family were kept in Babylon, where clay ration receipts bearing his name and the names of his sons have been found.

Go to

Awel-Marduk. Nebuchadnezzar’s son and successor, ruling 562–560 BC. He is known for virtually nothing other than his release of the Judahite king Jehoiachin from prison.

Jehoiachin . . . ate regularly at the king’s table . . . a regular allowance as long as he lived. Jehoahaz was exiled to Egypt and died there (), while the fate of Zedekiah in Babylon is never made clear (v. ). But news of Jehoiachin at the end of the books of Kings seems designed to foster hope that the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of its people does not mean that there is no future for the Davidic line. One of the most interesting extra-Biblical texts that touch on the deportation of Judahites to Babylon is in fact an administrative document that lists rations for Jehoiachin and his sons, apparently in captivity in Babylon.

↑ Back to top