GENERAL INTRODUCTION. CHAPTER I. ISRAEL AND ASSYRIA IN THE TIME OF ISAIAH. ISAIAH is the most distinguished of the remarkable group of prophets who enforced the lessons of the Assyrian crisis in the eighth century B.C. His public career, which covers the last 40 years of the century, was nearly co-extensive with the successive reigns of Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah; and during the greater part of that period he exercised a commanding political influence in Jerusalem. Of no other prophet can it be said with [ so much truth that his biography is the history of his time. In the case of his predecessors Amos and Hosea, or of his contemporary Micah, a general knowledge of the internal condition of the country and its foreign relations may suffice for the understanding of their writings; but for any profitable study of the work of Isaiah the indispensable preliminary is a somewhat minute acquaintance with the course of events both at home and abroad. It is all the more necessary that this should be briefly sketched here, because the biblical narrative has been so largely illustrated and supplemented from outside sources, especially through the decipherment of the Assyrian inscriptions. The great political fact of the time was the westward extension of the Assyrian Empire. This commenced in earnest, after a pause of 40 years, with the accession of Tiglathpileser III. in 745; and was thenceforward prosecuted by a succession of vigorous monarchs, till it reached its goal in the conquest of Egypt by Esarhaddon (672). It must have been evident to thoughtful observers, even before Isaiah's entrance on public life, that the independent existence of all the smaller nations of Western Asia was endangered by the steady advance of this new and formidable power. Singly, they were helpless against the solid and disciplined might of Assyria; while at the same time they possessed too little stability of purpose to present a united front to the common enemy. The two Israelitish kingdoms, from their geographical position, ought to have been amongst the last to come into collision with the Assyrian power, and if they had been wise enough to keep aloof from political entanglements they would at least have secured a breathing space in which much might have been accomplished for the furtherance of those moral and religious interests which the prophets had at heart. The short-sighted policy of their rulers, however, involved them in premature and compromising relations with the Assyrian Empire; and in both cases with disastrous results. Before we proceed to fill in the details of the narrative it is necessary to glance at the condition of the country at the opening of Isaiah's ministry. THE AGE OF UZZIAH. The death of Uzziah (or Azariah)1 after a successful reign of about 50 years, marks the close of a singularly brilliant chapter in the history of both North and South Israel. The crippling of Damascus in the Assyrian campaigns of 797 and 773 afforded to the kingdom of Samaria an opportunity of recovering from the long Syrian wars by which its strength had been exhausted. Under the strong rule of Jeroboam II. the bounds of the empire were extended almost to the utmost limits of David's conquests (2 Ki. xiv. 25; Am. vi. 14); and wealth no doubt began to flow in rapidly from the tribute of the subjugated states. Under Uzziah, Judah appears to have been nearly as prosperous. The conquest of Edom and the restoration of the Red Sea port of Elath (2 Ki. xiv. 22) secured the control of the caravan trade with Southern Arabia; and the revenue obtained from this source seems to have been 1 On the date of his death, see Chronological Note, p. lxxv f. wisely applied to develop the resources of the country and perfect its military efficiency (see 2 Chron. xxvi. 1-15). The result was that when Isaiah began his public work Judah had attained a degree of wealth, power and civilisation which must have placed it, along with Israel, in the front rank of the petty principalities that now separated Egypt from Assyria. "The land was full of silver and gold and there was no end of its treasures; the land was full of horses and there was no end of their chariots" (Is. ii. 7). But this remarkable outburst of material prosperity was attended in both kingdoms by an aggravation of the social evils which seem inseparable from every oriental system of government. The influx of wealth appears to have accelerated certain economic changes, affecting large masses of the population, against which the prophets at all times loudly protested. The spread of debauchery and luxury amongst the upper classes (Is. iii. 16—23; v. 11, 12, 22; xxviii. 1-8; xxxii. 9 ff.) was a natural consequence of the increased means of enjoyment which came to these classes from the improved position of the country. But still greater evils followed from the accumulation of capital in the hands of a few. The rise of great landed estates (Is. v. 8; Mic. ii. 2, 9) meant the expropriation of the old peasant proprietors, who had been the strength of the state, and the creation of a destitute and landless lower class. And if anything were wanting to enhance the indignation of the prophets at this glaring contrast between the extremes of poverty and luxury, it was found in the methods by which it was brought about. The eviction of the smaller land owners was largely effected by systematic abuses of the forms of justice, corrupt judges favouring the suit of the rich man against the poor, in return for a share of the spoils (Is. i. 23; iii. 14, 15; v. 23; x. 1, 2; xxix. 21). Hence the writings of the prophets abound in denunciations of the injustice and oppression, the avarice and licentiousness which prevailed in the higher ranks of society at this time (see also Is. i. 17; v. 7). And although it may be true that these were permanent features in the life of the Hebrew commonwealth, and would have attracted the attention of the prophets in any period, it cannot be doubted that they were all greatly aggravated by the peculiar social conditions of the age of Uzziah. In these evidences of national declension and disorder the prophets of the time read the sure premonition of a terrible day of judgment. But their anxiety was not shared by the governing classes either in Samaria or Jerusalem. In both capitals a spirit of optimism and careless security prevailed in political circles (Am. vi. I, 13). The strange lull in the conquering career of Assyria which preceded the accession of Tiglath-pileser appears to have fostered the delusion that all danger from that quarter had passed away. About the time when Isaiah appears on the scene, however, events took place which ought to have effectually dispelled that notion. The capture of Arpad (circa 740), and Hamath (738), and the intervention of Pul (Tiglath-pileser) in the reign of Menahem (2 Ki. xv. 19) brought the danger close to the doors of North Israel. If it be the case, as is held by some Assyriologists, that Uzziah himself, shortly before his death, suffered a defeat at the hands of Tiglath-pileser1, the lesson cannot have been altogether lost upon Judah. But no trace of such a disaster is found in the Old Testament; nor do the earliest writings of Isaiah suggest that there was any general uneasiness with regard to the immediate prospects of the country. THE SYRO-Ephraimitic WaR (c. 735). Perhaps the event which first roused the politicians of Jerusalem from their dream of security was an indirect consequence of the forward movement of Assyria. In 735, shortly after Ahaz ascended the throne, a combined attack on Judah was planned by Rezin and Pekah the kings of Syria and Ephraim. The war, indeed, seems to 1 In two passages of the annals of Tiglath-pileser, referring apparently to the year 739 or 738, an Azria'u of Ja-udi is mentioned as the leading member of a strong coalition formed for the defence of Hamath. The question that divides Assyriologists is of course whether this prince is identical with Uzziah (Azariah) of Judah, or whether he was the otherwise unknown ruler of a kingdom in North Syria, which is alluded to in other inscriptions. If the former view be correct it can hardly mean less than that Judah was the foremost military power in Western Asia at the time. The arguments on both sides are succinctly given by McCurdy, History Prophecy and the Monuments, pp. 413 f. have commenced before the death of Jotham1 (2 Ki. xv. 37); but it is clear from Is. vii. 1, 2 that some fresh and startling development followed the accession of Ahaz, causing the utmost consternation in Jerusalem. From all we know of the character of Ahaz he was a man little fitted to cope with a crisis of this magnitude. In his panic-stricken imagination, the immediate peril overrode all considerations of national honour and political prudence, and he resolved to throw himself on the protection of the king of Assyria. This decision has been defended by some modern historians, as that which would have recommended itself to any statesman in similar circumstances. It is safer to trust the unerring political sagacity of Isaiah, in whose judgment Ahaz at this juncture played the part of a craven. A calmer view of the situation would have convinced the king that the danger was not so great as to justify what was on the face of it a counsel of despair. Nor is it clear that he gained any substantial advantage in return for his tribute and his offer of submission. For although Tiglathpileser promptly responded to his appeal by ravaging the Northern and Eastern districts of Israel (2 Ki. xv. 29)2, this was probably no more than he would have done of his own initiative. He was not likely to permit his feudatories to carry on wars of conquest on their own account, and if Ahaz had but shared the courage and faith of Isaiah, deliverance would have come without the degrading and dangerous conditions implied by the Assyrian suzerainty. (See Introductory Note on ch. vii., p. 49 f.) THE FALL OF Samaria (c. 721). Judah had thus, by the deliberate act of her sovereign, passed under the hard yoke of the king of Assyria. It was long, however, before the evil consequences of this fatal step became fully apparent. Ahaz appears to have remained steadfast in his allegiance to Tiglath-pileser, and he 1 Whose independent reign, however, must have been very short. See Chronological Note. 2 The Assyrian monuments shew that this expedition took place in 734; and this fixes approximately the date of the Syro-Ephraimitic war. The chastisement of Damascus (2 Ki. xvi. 9) took place about two years later. |