Sanctified Dirt


Author Michael S. Heiser

Elisha’s healing of Naaman the leper, commander of the army of the king of Syria, is a familiar story to many (2 Kgs 5:1–27). Naaman hears that Elisha, the prophet of Israel, can heal him, so he makes the trip. When the two meet, Elisha tells him rather dismissively that he needs to take a bath in the Jordan River. Naaman doesn’t take this well and prepares to go home. At the behest of some servants, he consents to dip himself in the Jordan. He is miraculously healed by the simple act. The display of power, so transparently without sacrifice or incantation, awakens Naaman to the fact that Yahweh of Israel is the true God. Here’s where the story usually ends in our telling, but that would result in the omission of one very odd detail—what Naaman asks to take back home.

In 2 Kgs 5:15–19 the elated Naaman returns to Elisha and begs him to take payment for healing him. Elisha repeatedly refuses. Finally, before embarking for Syria, Naaman makes a strange request: to load two mules with dirt to take back with him.

Dirt? I can think of a few favors I would ask of a prophet in a receptive mood, but dirt certainly isn’t one of them. The request is so odd that it’s hard to avoid wondering if Naaman needed some other kind of therapy. Why would he ask for dirt?

But Naaman was completely in his right mind. In 2 Kgs 5:17, Naaman follows the request with an explanation: “for from now on your servant will not offer burnt offering or sacrifice to any god but the Lord” (ESV). The dirt and Naaman’s new allegiance to the God of Israel are related. Naaman was a man with significant duties in his home country. He couldn’t stay in Israel, but he could take Israel with him. Why would he want to?

Naaman’s unusual request stems from the ancient—and biblical—conception that the earth is the locale for a cosmic turf war. Naaman wanted dirt from Israel because Israel was Yahweh’s territory. The dirt which is Yahweh’s domain is holy ground.

The idea of “holy ground” is an important element of Israelite theology. This phrase is used when Moses is in the presence of the Angel of the Lord and the God of Israel at the burning bush (Exod 3:1–5), and when Joshua meets the Angel of the Lord (Josh 5:15).[1] More broadly, the idea derives from Deut 32:8–9 (compare, Deut 4:19–20) where we learn that when God divided up the nations at the Tower of Babel, they were allotted to “the sons of God.”[2] The nations of the world were, in effect, disinherited by Yahweh as His own earthly family. Immediately after Babel, Yahweh called Abraham and the nation of Israel was created. Israel was therefore “Yahweh’s portion” (Deut 32:9), whereas all the other nations belong to the sons of God whom Israel was forbidden to worship. As a result, Israel was holy ground; the territory of every other nation was not. The rest of the Old Testament is the story of God’s intention to reclaim every nation on earth.

Elisha understood Naaman’s request and granted it without hesitation. He knew the request came from a sincere theological change of heart. Naaman believed that “There [was] no God in all the earth but in Israel” (5:15) and wanted to return to his homeland with holy ground. Even though he would still have to help his aged king bow before Rimmon, Naaman wanted Elisha to know his heart belonged only to the God of Elisha.


[1] The “captain of the Lord’s army” in Josh 5:13–15 can be identified with the Angel of the LORD on the basis of two observations: (1) The parallel with Exod 3:1–5; and (2) The description of the Captain standing before Joshua “with his sword drawn in his hand.” The Hebrew phrase behind this description is found in only two other places in the Old Testament: Num 22:23 and 1 Chr 21:16, both of which explicitly apply the phrase to the Angel of the LORD.

[2] This translation is based upon a correction of the Hebrew text in Deut 32:8 with material from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Most English bibles read “sons of Israel” in Deut 32:8, a reading that makes no sense, since Israel did not exist at the time of the tower of Babel, nor is Israel listed in the Table of Nations that resulted from the judgment at Babel. The ESV correctly incorporates the Dead Sea Scroll reading into Deut 32:8. For more information, see

Bible Study Magazine delivers tools and methods for Bible study, as well as insights from respected Bible teachers, professors, historians, and archaeologists. Take over 30% off the cover price—subscribe now!

Article courtesy of Bible Study Magazine published by Logos Bible Software. Originally published in print, Vol. 1 No. 3.

Born Again ... and Again and Again?

Author Michael S. Heiser

Was Jesus open to the idea of reincarnation? The question may seem odd, but it’s one that many people, even biblical scholars, contend has a positive answer.[1] The idea comes from a passage you’ve likely read dozens of times.

John 9:1–4 ESV

“As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but in order that the works of God might be made manifest in him (he was born blind). We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming when no one can work.”


Notice the disciples’ question: “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Many presume the question indicates that the disciples believed the man born blind really could have sinned before he was born, and that his pre-birth sins caused his congenital blindness. This presumption is followed by another: that Jesus’ answer wasn’t a categorical denial. Since Jesus doesn’t come out and say, “What a silly idea, don’t be ridiculous!” Some have argued that his response means that in this case the man born blind didn’t sin in a previous life, but perhaps that could have happened in another case. Could this interpretation be correct?

Reincarnation is the belief that the soul migrates from one body to another, different body, in a long (possibly endless) succession. The idea of the “migration of the soul” cannot be found in the Bible, or in other Jewish writers of antiquity,[2] which indicates the disciples were likely presuming something different: People can do good and evil while still in the womb. Paul addresses this misconception in Rom 9:9–13, when dealing with the case of Jacob and Esau. Even if a pre-born person could sin in the womb, this does not involve the migration of a soul.

Romans 9:9–13 ESV

“For this is what the promise said: ‘About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.’ And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’”

Matthew 16:13, where some people suggest that Jesus was John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the Old Testament prophets, is also no help to those who want to see reincarnation in John 9:3–4. Jesus and John were contemporaries, born six months apart (Luke 1:8–36), thus John’s soul could not have migrated into Jesus’ body. Elijah never died (2 Kgs 2:1–17), and so the migration of his soul is also not possible. If Jesus were one of the prophets, who had come back to life, then the prophet would be resurrected, not the prophet’s soul in another body. There are other, more technical flaws in this interpretation of John 9,[2] but from this examination alone, it should be apparent that the idea of Jesus approving of one being born again into another physical body,  is dead . . . again.


[1] The notion that Jesus embraced reincarnation is usually associated with New Age writers such as Elizabeth Clare Prophet and Dolores Cannon. However, J. D. M. Derrett, a highly-respected Greek New Testament scholar, recently promoted this view in a scholarly journal article, “The True Meaning of Jn 9, 3–4” (Filología Neotestamentaria xvi 2003), pgs. 103–106.

[2] See “Did Jesus Allow for Reincarnation? Assessing the Syntax of John 9:3–4” at

Bible Study Magazine delivers tools and methods for Bible study, as well as insights from respected Bible teachers, professors, historians, and archaeologists. Take over 30% off the cover price—subscribe now!

Article courtesy of Bible Study Magazine published by Logos Bible Software. Originally published in print, Vol. 1 No. 3.

God’s Word through Multiple Voices: Part 3

The Case of Sennacherib's Invasion of Judah

Author Craig C. Broyles

The case of Assyrian King Sennacherib’s invasion into Hezekiah’s Judah in 701 BC is one of the best-documented and most controversial events in the Bible and in archaeology.

In last week's post, Dr. Craig C. Broyles discussed the Greek Historian Herodotus’ account of Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah and the prophetic perspectives of Isaiah and Micah. This built upon his post on May 19th of the record of the events in 2 Kgs 18–19 and Sennacherib’s own account in a prism discovered in his palace. In this post, Dr. Broyles tells us how we should respond to these diverse, discrepant accounts, and reflects on what these events tell us about the prophetic word of God.

See an interactive map of this event here:

A Biblical Perspective on Hezekiah’s Decisions

Second Kings 18:7 (NRSV) appears to commend Hezekiah’s decision to join the rebellion (“The Lord was with him; wherever he went, he prospered. He rebelled against the king of Assyria and would not serve him”). The prophet Isaiah, however, condemns Jerusalem’s rulers for forming a coalition of rebellion with Egypt. Isaiah promotes the idea that Yahweh will “protect Jerusalem,” and cause “the Assyrian [to] fall by a sword, not of mortals” (Isa 31:5, 8; also see 30:31). Even though Judah has “deeply betrayed” the Lord, Isaiah promises their rescue (Isa 31:5–6). Meanwhile, Micah laments Sennacherib’s invasion as divine judgment (Mic 1:12).

How should we respond to this diversity and these discrepancies? Should we call them contradictions and dismiss the Bible as merely a human document? Or should we assert more forcefully that the Bible is God’s Word and concede that the resolution is simply unknown to us? First, we must not get defensive but rather take courage. If we have the conviction that the Bible is the word of God then we should believe that it is fully trustworthy—when properly interpreted—and can endure any legitimate scrutiny. Second, we should endeavor to be “noble-minded” like the Jews in Berea who were “examining the Scriptures daily” (Acts 17:11 NASB).

To come to terms with the perspective of 2 Kings we must examine the basis of the narrator’s claims more closely.

1. Scholars often call the writer of 2 Kings the Deuteronomistic Historian because his judgments of the kings of Israel and Judah are based on the book of Deuteronomy, especially chapter 12. His assessment that Hezekiah “did what was right in the sight of the Lord” is because he “broke down the pillars, and cut down the sacred pole” (2 Kgs 18:3–4; compare 18:22), just as prescribed in Deut 12:3.

2. His comment that Hezekiah “rebelled against the king of Assyria and would not serve him” (2 Kgs 18:7) is contrasted with the failure of his predecessor, King Ahaz, who constructed a pagan altar for the Jerusalem temple in deference to “the king of Assyria” (2 Kgs 16:10–18). From this Deuteronomic perspective, resistance to pagan idolatry becomes fused with independence from a foreign, pagan state.

3. The claim that Hezekiah “prospered” (literally, “succeeded;” 2 Kgs 18:7), even when “he rebelled against the king of Assyria,” must be seen in comparison to the king of northern Israel, Hoshea, who likewise rebelled. In Hoshea’s case, “the king of Assyria carried the Israelites away to Assyria” (2 Kgs 18:11); whereas, in Hezekiah’s case, his refusal to serve under Assyrian control and insistence on maintaining his throne and most of his people, was followed by the Assyrian repulsion from Jerusalem.  This insertion of 18:9–12, which is repetition from 17:5–8, into the story of Hezekiah confirms this interpretation.

Hezekiah’s “success” is mitigated just a verse later: “In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, King Sennacherib of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them” (2 Kgs 18:13 NRSV). Hezekiah then apologizes to the Assyrian king and agrees to pay whatever tribute is imposed, including “silver” and “gold” from “the temple of the Lord” (2 Kgs 18:14–15). In addition, both Hezekiah himself (2 Kgs 19:4) and Isaiah (2 Kgs 19:30–31) refer to “the surviving remnant of the house of Judah.” Although the storyline in 2 Kings precedes the miraculous rescue of Jerusalem in center stage (2 Kgs 18:17–19:37), 2 Kgs 18:13–16 are important verses that might go overlooked. But other passages elsewhere in the Bible, namely Micah’s lament for these destroyed cities of Judah, make sure that the readers of the Bible do not forget those outlying towns that were not as fortunate as the capital city of Jerusalem (Mic 1:1–16). Sennacherib’s Prism claims that he had taken captive “200,150 people” and had “diminished his land.” And the wall relief of the siege of Lachish in Sennacherib’s palace in Nineveh graphically illustrates the cruel terror with which the Assyrians repay their rebels, as does the archaeology of Lachish itself.

Theological Reflections on Hezekiah’s Decisions

Our “examining of the Scriptures” brings into sharp relief an essential point for responsible interpretation of the Bible. If we merely quote chapter and verse, presuming this represents God’s entire perspective on any given issue, then we misrepresent the Word of God which is often presented through many words, as well as diverse passages in the Holy Scriptures.

The events surrounding Hezekiah’s rebellion against the Assyrian Empire and Sennacherib’s invasion testify powerfully to the consequences of ignoring Yahweh’s prophetic word, on the one hand, and to Yahweh’s faithfulness during the eleventh hour, on the other hand. We can well imagine Hezekiah’s dilemma. On the one side he has his political and military advisers, and on the other, the prophet Isaiah. At stake are the lives and territory of the kingdom of Judah. Trusting in Yahweh may seem the obvious choice while reading the Bible, but if we were living in the midst of the realities and complexities of a vassal state rebelling against a ruthless empire—with its siege machines and threats of mass burials—we too may have made the decisions Hezekiah did. As today, the decision that befits faith and common-sense wisdom may not be clear.

Article courtesy of Bible Study Magazine published by Logos Bible Software. Originally published in print, Vol. 1 No. 3.

God’s Word through Multiple Voices: Part 2

The Case of Sennacherib's Invasion of Judah

Author Craig C. Broyles

The case of Assyrian King Sennacherib’s invasion into Hezekiah’s Judah in 701 BC is one of the best-documented and most controversial events in the Bible and in archaeology.

 In last week's post, Dr. Craig C. Broyles discussed the differences between how Sennacherib's invation of Judah is recorded in 2 Kgs 18-19 and Sennacherib's own account. In this post, Dr. Broyles analyzes the Greek Historian Herodotus’  third-party account of Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah (2 Kgs 18–19), as well as Isaiah and Micah’s prophetic perspectives on the event.

 A Historian’s Voice from Greece: Herodotus’ Histories

Herodotus was a Greek historian of the fifth century BC. Regarding his narrative about Sennacherib, he claims to “have relied on the accounts given … by the Egyptians.” Both Isaiah’s prophecy and the narrative of 2 Kings are in agreement that what causes Sennacherib to “turn” and withdraw from Jerusalem is a “report” that Egyptian forces were approaching him (2 Kgs 19:6–9a; compare, 2 Kgs 19:28, 33). The Assyrian account and this one from Herodotus agree that during Sennacherib’s campaign he engaged in battle with Egypt. Both the Bible and Herodotus’ Egyptian source concur that the Assyrians suffered a dramatic and unexpected setback, so that “they abandoned their position and suffered severe losses during their retreat” (Herodotus). The Bible attributes this setback to “the angel of the Lord” (2 Kgs 19:35), Herodotus to “thousands of field-mice.” While acknowledging the ultimate agent of this reversal, it is tempting to think of some sort of plague befalling Sennacherib’s troops as its immediate cause. Though based only on circumstantial evidence, such an event would also help us to fill in the apparent gaps in Sennacherib’s own account, wherein his failure to take Jerusalem and depose Hezekiah is inconsistent with his treatment of other rebels.

Herodotus on the Egyptians and Sennacherib: From Herodotus, Histories 2.141

Next on the throne after Anysis was Sethos, the High priest of Hephaestus. He is said to have neglected the warrior class of the Egyptians and to have treated them with contempt, as if he had been unlikely to need their services. He offended them in various ways, not least by depriving them of the twelve acres of land which each of them had held by special privilege under previous kings. As a result, when Egypt was invaded by Sennacherib, the king of Arabia and Assyria, with a great army, not one of them was willing to fight. The situation was grave; not knowing what else to do, the priest-king entered the shrine and, before the image of the god, complained bitterly of the peril which threatened him. In the midst of his lamentations he fell asleep, and dreamt that the god stood by him and urged him not to lose heart; for if he marched boldly out to meet the Arabian army, he would come to no harm, as the god himself would send him helpers. By this dream the king’s confidence was restored; and with such men as were willing to follow him—not a single one of the warrior class, but a mixed company of shopkeepers, artisans, and market-people—he marched to Pelusium, which guards the approaches to Egypt, and there took up his position. As he lay here facing the Assyrians, thousands of field-mice swarmed over them during the night, and ate their quivers, their bowstrings, and the leather handles of their shields, so that on the following day, having no arms to fight with, they abandoned their position and suffered severe losses during their retreat. There is still a stone statue of Sethos in the temple of Hephaestus; the figure is represented with a mouse in its hand, and the inscription: “Look upon me and learn reverence.” Up to this point I have relied on the accounts given me by the Egyptians and their priests.

—Translation from Herodotus, The Histories. Translated by Aubrey de Selincourt (Penguin Books, 1954).

A Prophetic Voice from Jerusalem: Isaiah

The accounts surrounding Hezekiah’s rebellion against the Assyrian Empire and Sennacherib’s invasion powerfully testify to the consequences of ignoring Yahweh’s prophetic Word, as well as to Yahweh’s faithfulness in the eleventh hour. 2 Kings 19:6–7 and 19:20–34 (and the parallel accounts in Isa 37:6–7 and 37:21–35) contain some of Isaiah’s prophetic oracles embedded in a narrative context, datable to the crisis of Sennacherib’s invasion, which testify to this.

Essential to Hezekiah’s attempt to “rebel” against “Assyria” is his prior coalition with “Egypt,” as noted in the Assyrian official’s speech in the historical narrative of 2 Kgs 18:19–24. Thus, we should search for passages in Isa 1–39 which use both the proper nouns “Assyria” and “Egypt.”  When we do, we discover a key oracle in Isa 31 (also see Isa 30:1–7).

Isaiah on Hezekiah and the Assyrian King

When we turn to Isaiah’s datable oracles in 2 Kgs 19 (compare Isa 37) we step chronologically forward into the midst of the crisis.

2 Kings 19:6-7 NRSV (compare, Isaiah 37:6–7):

“Isaiah said to them [the servants of king Hezekiah], “Say to your master, ‘Thus says the Lord: Do not be afraid because of the words that you have heard, with which the servants of the king of Assyria have reviled me. 7 I myself will put a spirit in him, so that he shall hear a rumor and return to his own land; I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land.’”

2 Kings 19:22, 32–34 NRSV (compare, Isaiah 37:23, 33–35):

“Whom have you mocked and reviled? Against whom have you raised your voice and haughtily lifted your eyes? Against the Holy One of Israel! …” 32Therefore thus says the Lord concerning the king of Assyria: He shall not come into this city, shoot an arrow there, come before it with a shield, or cast up a siege ramp against it. 33By the way that he came, by the same he shall return; he shall not come into this city, says the Lord. 34For I will defend this city to save it, for my own sake and for the sake of my servant David.”

The interests of this oracle closely match those of the narrative in 2 Kgs 18–19:

1. The downfall of Assyria

2. The rescue of Jerusalem

3. A military coalition with Egypt

Our searching of the Scriptures thus yields a significant discovery: we have gained a decidedly different perspective on King Hezekiah from his portrayal in 2 Kings. There the general assessment is that “he did what was right in the sight of the Lord” (2 Kgs 18:3), but here he is among those who “have deeply betrayed” the Lord by seeking to ensure national security by means of a military alliance, rather than by trusting in the Lord.

In several other oracles collected in Isa 28-33 the prophet pronounces “the word of the Lord” that soundly condemns “the rulers of this people in Jerusalem” (including Hezekiah, though not named) for engaging in a “treaty” of alliance with “Egypt” (Isa 28:14–15; 38:8). A similar condemnation is found in Isa 22:8–11: while Jerusalem “collected the waters of the lower pool,” “made a reservoir,” and “broke down the houses to fortify the wall,” they “did not look to” the Lord. These oracles appear to precede Sennacherib’s actual invasion and the datable oracles of Isaiah contained in 2 Kgs 18–19 and Isa 36–37, which are pronounced in the midst of the crisis. The prophet’s reasons for condemning attempts at forming a “rebel coalition” are clear.

1. Rebellion against the powerful Assyrian empire is impractical: “Egypt’s help is worthless” (Isa 30:7).

2. The rulers of Jerusalem have misguided theological priorities: they act “without asking for my counsel” (Isa 30:2), and they “do not look to the Holy One of Israel” (Isa 31:1).

3. They lack theological vision: “the Lord of hosts will come down to fight upon Mt. Zion and … protect Jerusalem … The Assyrian shall fall by a sword, not of mortals” (Isa 31:4–5, 8).

Isaiah on Making Allies with Egypt

Isaiah 31:1–8 NRSV

“‘Alas for those who go down to Egypt for help and who rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many and in horsemen because they are very strong, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel or consult the Lord! … 3The Egyptians are human, and not God; their horses are flesh, and not spirit. When the Lord stretches out his hand, the helper will stumble, and the one helped will fall, and they will all perish together. … 5the Lord of hosts will protect Jerusalem; he will protect and deliver it, he will spare and rescue it.’ 6Turn back to him whom you have deeply betrayed, O people of Israel. … 7Then the Assyrian shall fall by a sword, not of mortals.”¹

By searching the Scriptures, and by comparing Scripture with Scripture, we learn something remarkable. Although Isaiah had staunchly opposed Jerusalem’s political maneuvers to ally with Egypt, he now—in the eleventh hour—pronounces an oracle for Jerusalem’s rescue! While God may have His ideal will that His people trust Him to deal with Assyria in His own way and in His own time, He does not abandon them when they choose a political expedient. In spite of their distrust, He comes to their rescue.

A Prophetic Voice from an Outlying Town: Micah

Micah’s account of this story is quite different from Isaiah’s. In Mic 1:8–16, the prophet laments the devastation that has come to twelve cities of Judah, several of which lie in the Shephelah region, including his own hometown of Moresheth (Mic 1:1). While the historical context is not specified, the echoes of Sennacherib’s invasion are suggestive. It is apparent for several of the cities that a “conqueror” (literally, a “dispossessor”) has overrun them, giving reason for “lamentation” and “wailing.” But the reference that “disaster has come down … to the gate of Jerusalem” implies that the capital has only suffered a blockade. The closing words, “for they [i.e., the inhabitants of these cities] have gone from you into exile,” make perfect sense in light of Sennacherib’s own claims: “I took out 200,150 people … His cities which I had despoiled I cut off from his land and gave them to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, Padi, king of Ekron and Ṣilli-bel, king of Gaza, and thus diminished his land.”

What is particularly striking is Micah’s theological perspective on these events: “disaster has come down from the Lord.” He regards Sennacherib’s invasion as divine judgment! His theological viewpoint is as different from Isaiah’s (where Sennacherib is portrayed as an arrogant mocker of the Lord; e.g., 2 Kgs 19:22–23, 27–28) as is his social location. Perhaps this is because Isaiah’s hometown is spared during the invasion, but Micah’s is not.

Some Reflections on the Perspectives

To appreciate God’s panoramic perspective of people and events we must view them through the variety of human perspectives in the Bible. The narrator in 2 Kings approves of Hezekiah’s rebellion against the Assyrian empire and portrays its climax as Jerusalem’s deliverance. Isaiah of Jerusalem strongly condemns his political maneuvers and instead promotes faith in Yahweh. In the end, he prophesies Jerusalem’s deliverance. The prophet Micah of Moresheth, whose hometown lies near Lachish and shared its captive fate, laments Sennacherib’s devastation of Judah and perceives in it that “disaster has come down from the Lord.”

God has His “ideal will” (as exemplified in Isaiah’s initial oracles in Isa 28–33), which offers much promise and a better way. God’s people may fall short of His “ideal will” and forfeit the blessings associated with it. But even so, God does not simply leave them to their own devices. He also has his “concessionary will,” which offers a measure of blessing and may even save them from some of the consequences of their wrong decisions (as exemplified in Isaiah’s later oracles in 2 Kgs 19; compare, Isa 37).

Next Week: In God’s Word through Multiple Voices, Part 3

-How we should respond to these diverse, discrepant accounts.

-Conclusions about what these events tell us about the prophetic word of God.


¹The emphasis in this translation was placed by Craig C. Broyles.

Article courtesy of Bible Study Magazine published by Logos Bible Software. Originally published in print, Vol. 1 No. 2.

God's Word through Multiple Voices: Part 1

The Case of Sennacherib's Invasion of Judah

Author Craig C. Broyles

The Bible has been the world’s bestseller not only because it discloses God and gives meaning to our lives, but also because it's good reading. One of the greatest personal discoveries for readers of the Bible is to step beyond favorite verses and stories and start comparing Scripture with Scripture. To gain God’s panoramic perspective on any biblical event or issue, we must search the Scriptures to assemble the various historical snapshots. In doing so, we appreciate the complexity of biblical events and begin to understand God’s role in them—an intricacy that matches our experience in the 21st-century.

How can we identify God’s activity in our lives? If things go in our favor, do they indicate God’s favor? If life brings us hardships, do they indicate His judgment or discipline? Or, should we trace these circumstances to human choices? God’s revelation does not give us pat answers. Instead, this canonical anthology reflects a complexity of perspectives on divine intervention, which allows us to appreciate God’s panoramic perspective.

The invasion of Sennacherib, king of Assyria, into Hezekiah’s Judah in 701 BC serves as a wonderful illustration of this web of perspectives. The story of King Hezekiah, the prophet Isaiah, and the Assyrian King Sennacherib, should be put on Hollywood’s big-screen, because it is full of drama, intrigue, big battle scenes, and surprising twists of plot.

This crisis is one of the best-documented and most controversial events in the Bible and in archaeology.

A Narrator’s Voice from the Bible: 2 Kings 18–19


Between 735 and 733 BC, a coalition from Damascus and northern Israel threatened to invade Judah (2 Kgs 16:5–18). Judah’s King Ahaz responded by appealing for help from the king of Assyria, Tiglath-pileser iii. In doing so, he made Judah a vassal to Assyria. Shortly thereafter when the kingdom of northern Israel attempted rebellion against the Assyrian Empire, “the king of Assyria invaded all the land and … captured Samaria and carried the Israelites away to Assyria” (2 Kgs 17:5–6; 722 BC). The rebellion had failed, but when the Assyrian king Sargon II died in battle in 705 BC, a widespread revolt again erupted in the empire. Among the insurgents was Hezekiah, king of Judah: “He rebelled against the king of Assyria and would not serve him” (2 Kgs 18:7).

Hezekiah “saw that there were many breaches in the city of David and . . . counted the houses of Jerusalem, and . . . broke down the houses to fortify the wall” (Isa 22:10). The archaeology of Jerusalem confirms this biblical claim. “When Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib [the Assyrian successor to Sargon II] had come and intended to fight against Jerusalem . . . Hezekiah set to work resolutely and built up the entire wall that was broken down, and raised towers on it, and outside it he built another wall” (2 Chr 32:2, 5). Hezekiah also “closed the upper outlet of the waters of Gihon and directed them down to the west side of the city of David,” so that the people fortified in Jerusalem could have enough water to get them through the battle (2 Chr 32:3–4; compare 2 Kgs 20:20). This is a reference to “Hezekiah’s Tunnel”—a remarkable piece of engineering that channeled water from the Gihon Spring to within the city walls.

Both the Bible and Assyrian records agree that in 701 BC Sennacherib marched west to subdue the rebel alliance, which included the Phoenician city of Sidon, the Philistine cities of Ashkelon and Ekron, and the kingdom of Judah. “In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, King Sennacherib of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them (2 Kgs 18:13). As a result, Hezekiah apologizes to Sennacherib: “I have done wrong (literally, I have sinned); withdraw from me; whatever you impose on me I will bear” (2 Kgs 18:14). He eventually pays the demanded tribute, but Sennacherib does not stop here. The full punishment for rebellion against Assyria (2 Kgs 18:7, 20) would mean the removal of Hezekiah from his throne and the deportation of Jerusalem’s citizens from their land (2 Kgs 18:31–32; 19:13). Hezekiah prays (2 Kgs 19:14–19), and Isaiah prophesies that Sennacherib and his army will withdraw and return to their own land (2 Kgs 19:6–7, 32–34). Sennacherib and his army are decimated. The Bible attributes this to “the angel of the Lord” (2 Kgs 19:35). Twenty years later, Sennacherib was assassinated by his son, Adrammelech (19:35–37; 681 BC), an event confirmed by Assyrian records (Context of Scripture 3.95).

Sennacherib on Hezekiah: From Sennacherib’s Prism

“The officials, the nobles, and the people of Ekron who had thrown Padi, their king, (who was) under oath and obligation to Assyria, into iron fetters and handed him over in a hostile manner to Hezekiah, the Judean, took fright because of the offense they had committed. The kings of Egypt, (and) the bowmen, chariot corps and cavalry of the kings of Ethiopia assembled a countless force and came to their (i.e. the Ekronites’) aid. In the plain of Eltekeh, they drew up their ranks against me and sharpened their weapons. Trusting in the god Ashur, my lord, I fought with them and inflicted a defeat upon them. The Egyptian charioteers and princes, together with the charioteers of the Ethiopians, I personally took alive in the midst of the battle. I besieged and conquered Eltekeh and Timnah and carried off their spoil. I advanced to Ekron and slew its officials and nobles who had stirred up rebellion and hung their bodies on watchtowers all about the city. The citizens who committed sinful acts I counted as spoil, and I ordered the release of the rest of them, who had not sinned. I freed Padi, their king, from Jerusalem and set him on the throne as king over them and imposed tribute for my lordship over him.

As for Hezekiah, the Judean,  I besieged forty-six of his fortified walled cities and surrounding smaller towns, which were without number. Using packed-down ramps and applying battering rams, infantry attacks by mines, breeches, and siege machines, I conquered (them). I took out 200,150 people, young and old, male and female, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, cattle, and sheep, without number, and counted them as spoil. He himself, I locked up within Jerusalem, his royal city, like a bird in a cage. I surrounded him with earthworks, and made it unthinkable for him to exit by the city gate. His cities which I had despoiled I cut off from his land and gave them to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, Padi, king of Ekron and Silli-bel, king of Gaza, and thus diminished his land. I imposed dues and gifts for my lordship upon him, in addition to the former tribute, their yearly payment.

He, Hezekiah, was overwhelmed by the awesome splendor of my lordship, and he sent me after my departure to Nineveh, my royal city, his elite troops (and) his best soldiers, which he had brought in as reinforcements to strengthen Jerusalem, with 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver …. He (also) dispatched his messenger to deliver the tribute and to do obeisance.”

—Translation from The Context of Scripture 2.119B, Edited by William W. Hallo & K. Lawson Younger, Jr. (Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill, 2000).

A Narrator’s Voice from Assyria: Sennacherib’s Prism

In many regards, the Assyrian accounts confirm the biblical accounts. Sennacherib’s Prism is narrated topically, not chronologically. In the climax, Sennacherib makes this claim regarding Hezekiah: “He himself, I locked up within Jerusalem, his royal city, like a bird in a cage.” The claims and literary style of the Assyrian records are similar to those in 2 Kgs 18:13–14.

While the biblical and Assyrian accounts agree in many details, Sennacherib casts a different spin on the events. Not surprisingly, Sennacherib attributes unqualified victory to himself. How should we respond to these seemingly contradictory claims of who won and who lost? Should we simply claim that the Bible is God’s Word and therefore the more trustworthy source? That is not enough. If we claim that the God of the Bible acts in human history and experience, then those acts should be verifiable on historical grounds, insofar as data is available. Before we draw any conclusions, we must examine the rest of the evidence.

Some Reflections on the Narrators’ Perspectives

Closer analysis of the Assyrian accounts reveals a pattern in Sennacherib’s treatment of rebellious kings:

  1. They are deposed (and sometimes humiliated).
  2. They are replaced.
  3. Tribute is imposed.

Both the biblical and Assyrian accounts agree that Jerusalem, the capital of the rebellious vassals, is not taken, nor is Hezekiah deposed. Hezekiah pays tribute to Assyria, but it is not delivered personally. The tribute is dispatched by a messenger after Sennacherib’s return to Nineveh. These inconsistencies suggest there is something Sennacherib is not telling us.*

While Hezekiah and the people of Judah were in some measure faithful to the Lord, they also trusted in their own resources, much to the detriment of their faith in Lord. They suffered severe consequences as a result, but in the end, the Lord proved Himself faithful by delivering his holy city from human rage.

Studying the Bible is an adventure, which means it is exciting, but it also means it takes courage. When we defer to the Bible, we deliberately allow it to lead and guide us on a journey we may never have anticipated.

*What Sennacherib is not telling us will be discussed in part two of this article.

Next Week: In God’s Word through Multiple Voices, Part 2

-The Greek historian, Herodotus, presents us with a third-party account.

-Both Isaiah, whose city of Jerusalem is delivered, and Micah, whose hometown in the countryside is not, present two prophetic perspectives.

Article courtesy of Bible Study Magazine published by Logos Bible Software. Originally published in print, Vol. 1 No. 1.