presented their credentials (Hebrew sepa ̄ rîm), as well as proffering gifts, termed minha ̄h
which is the usual word for “tribute,” thereby intimating esteem for Hezekiah’s
elevated status. Much is made of the fact that Hezekiah showed the legation all of
his vast treasures. The Babylonian legation is portrayed as obsequious, and Hezekiah
- as boastful.
Enter the prophet Isaiah, who had, according to the narrative sequence, just
announced to an ailing Hezekiah that he would be granted a new lease on life. A
dubious Isaiah now engages Hezekiah in conversation about the Babylonians visiting
from a far-off land. He issues the dire prediction, implicitly critical of Hezekiah, that
all of the treasures that the Babylonian messengers had been shown would be
transported to Babylon in days to come, and that his princely descendants would
become servile courtiers in the palace of the king of Babylonia. The real reason for
the delegation to Hezekiah was, ostensibly, Merodach-Baladan’s interest in securing
Hezekiah’s collaboration against Assyria, either against Sargon II or Sennacherib, as
the case may be. The message of this narrative, and of Isaiah’s prophecy of punishment
in kind, is that collaboration with Babylonia in rebellion against Assyria was counter
to the will of Yahweh, God of Israel. To whatever extent Hezekiah may have
collaborated with Babylonia, and despite his rebellion of 705 BCE, he heeded Isaiah’s
counsel and ultimately submitted to the Assyrian yoke, after all. This accommodation
enabled Jerusalem and Judah to survive for a century, albeit in a state of dependency.
In an earlier study (Levine 2005 ), we argued that this prophetic doctrine, one of
submission to Assyria and avoidance of foreign alliances against her, was, indeed,
promulgated by First Isaiah in the context of the Assyrian threat to Jerusalem and
Judah during the early years of Sennacherib. In response to imperialism on a grand
scale, First Isaiah taught that Assyrian world domination was part of Yahweh’s plan
for the entire earth, and that, eventually, Assyria would also fall (Isa 14 : 24 – 27 ).
Assyria was Yahweh’s “rod of rage,” his instrument for punishing Israel (Isa 10 : 5 – 10 ).
A sign that Yahweh controlled the destiny of nations, large and small, was the
unexpected sparing of Jerusalem in 701 BCE. As will be shown, this doctrine gained
acceptance in prophetic circles, and is prominent in the writings of Jeremiah (note,
as a prime example, Jeremiah, chapter 27 ), where it is applied to Babylonia during
the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II.
As has been suggested by Cogan and Tadmor, the passages reporting on the
Babylonian mission were most probably composed at that later time, between 598 – 586 ,
during the reign of Zedekiah. This was after the first wave of exile under Jehoiachin,
when the temple treasury was actually plundered, and when privileged and skilled
elements of the population were deported. In literary terms, what was predicted in
2 Kings 20 : 12 – 21 is reported, in similar words, as having been fulfilled in 2 Kings
24 : 8 – 17 , particularly, in verse 13. Isaiah’s “prediction” is thus to be regarded as
retrospective, making of the report on the Babylonian mission, itself, a product of
the Neo-Babylonian period, when the actual enemy was Babylonia, not Assyria.
This textual analysis would explain the tension between ( 1 ) Isaiah’s entreaty to
Yahweh to grant Hezekiah an extension of life, and his assurance that Jerusalem
would be defended against Assyrian destruction ( 2 Kings 20 : 1 – 11 ), and ( 2 ) Isaiah’s
implied criticism of Hezekiah, expressed in the prediction of the future Babylonian
invasion, immediately following ( 2 Kings 20 : 12 – 21 ). The former announcement
bespeaks divine approval of Hezekiah, granting him a reward for his last-minute
— Baruch A. Levine —