Difference between revisions of "Prophecy to Achaz – Calamity or Consolation/2"
m (Neima moved page Prophecy of Calamity or Consolation/2 to Prophecy to Achaz – Calamity or Consolation?/2 without leaving a redirect) |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
<page type="Approaches"> | <page type="Approaches"> | ||
− | <h1>Prophecy | + | <h1>Prophecy to Achaz – Calamity or Consolation?</h1> |
<div><b><center><span class="highlighted-notice">This topic has not yet undergone editorial review</span></center></b></div> | <div><b><center><span class="highlighted-notice">This topic has not yet undergone editorial review</span></center></b></div> | ||
<div class="overview"> | <div class="overview"> | ||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
<p>The majority of sources understand the message to be one of comfort.  According to A. Chakham, all of Yeshayahu's words are aimed at reassuring Achaz that Aram and Yisrael are to be destroyed and he need not worry about their alliance. Any images of destruction used by the prophet relate to the fate of the enemy kingdoms, while images of comfort relate to Yehuda. Rashi, instead, suggests that Yeshayahu is speaking of two distinct threats to Yehuda.  After reassuring the king about Aram and Yisrael, he explains that a worse danger will be posed by Assyria, but that they, too, will be defeated and Yehuda saved. Since Yeshayahu assumes that peace and prosperity will only follow an initial period of devastation, the mixture of images is understandable.</p> | <p>The majority of sources understand the message to be one of comfort.  According to A. Chakham, all of Yeshayahu's words are aimed at reassuring Achaz that Aram and Yisrael are to be destroyed and he need not worry about their alliance. Any images of destruction used by the prophet relate to the fate of the enemy kingdoms, while images of comfort relate to Yehuda. Rashi, instead, suggests that Yeshayahu is speaking of two distinct threats to Yehuda.  After reassuring the king about Aram and Yisrael, he explains that a worse danger will be posed by Assyria, but that they, too, will be defeated and Yehuda saved. Since Yeshayahu assumes that peace and prosperity will only follow an initial period of devastation, the mixture of images is understandable.</p> | ||
<p>A last approach suggests that after Achaz's refusal to ask for a Divine sign, the tenor of Yeshayahu's words changed from consolation to rebuke.  Knowing that Achaz had decided to seek foreign assistance rather than rely on Hashem, Yeshayahu warned the king that the very nation whom he was trusting to help him, would turn into a foe and devastate his country.  Any descriptions of prosperity in this part of the chapter are reinterpreted and understood to be metaphors of destruction.</p></div> | <p>A last approach suggests that after Achaz's refusal to ask for a Divine sign, the tenor of Yeshayahu's words changed from consolation to rebuke.  Knowing that Achaz had decided to seek foreign assistance rather than rely on Hashem, Yeshayahu warned the king that the very nation whom he was trusting to help him, would turn into a foe and devastate his country.  Any descriptions of prosperity in this part of the chapter are reinterpreted and understood to be metaphors of destruction.</p></div> | ||
− | |||
<approaches> | <approaches> | ||
Line 21: | Line 20: | ||
<point><b>Mix of comfort and woe</b> – According to this position, the promises of blessing in the chapter are aimed at Yehuda, while the prophecies of destruction are directed at her enemies. Thus, despite the mixture of symbols, everything adds up to a message of consolation.</point> | <point><b>Mix of comfort and woe</b> – According to this position, the promises of blessing in the chapter are aimed at Yehuda, while the prophecies of destruction are directed at her enemies. Thus, despite the mixture of symbols, everything adds up to a message of consolation.</point> | ||
<point><b>Anger regarding the sign</b> – According to A. Chakham, Achaz's refusal to request a sign stemmed from a total disbelief in Yeshayahu' words. Despite this, however,  Yeshayahu continues to promise Hashem's aid and encourage the king that he has nothing to fear from his enemies. Against his will, the king will learn that the prophetic promise is true.</point> | <point><b>Anger regarding the sign</b> – According to A. Chakham, Achaz's refusal to request a sign stemmed from a total disbelief in Yeshayahu' words. Despite this, however,  Yeshayahu continues to promise Hashem's aid and encourage the king that he has nothing to fear from his enemies. Against his will, the king will learn that the prophetic promise is true.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>"יָבִיא י"י עָלֶיךָ... יָמִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא בָאוּ לְמִיּוֹם סוּר אֶפְרַיִם מֵעַל יְהוּדָה"</b> – Despite first impressions, these words need not connote that calamity is to befall Yehuda, as the term "יָבִיא י"י עָלֶיךָ" can relate to good tidings as well as bad.<fn>See, for instance, Bereshit 18:19 where Hashem speaks of bringing blessing to Avraham, or Devarim 28:2 where Hashem promises rewards for obedience, " וּבָאוּ עָלֶיךָ כׇּל הַבְּרָכוֹת הָאֵלֶּה".</fn>  Yeshayahu prophesies that Yisrael will be attacked by Assyria, and with its fall,<fn>Even though the Northern Kingdom is not totally exiled in this period, Tiglat | + | <point><b>"יָבִיא י"י עָלֶיךָ... יָמִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא בָאוּ לְמִיּוֹם סוּר אֶפְרַיִם מֵעַל יְהוּדָה"</b> – Despite first impressions, these words need not connote that calamity is to befall Yehuda, as the term "יָבִיא י"י עָלֶיךָ" can relate to good tidings as well as bad.<fn>See, for instance, Bereshit 18:19 where Hashem speaks of bringing blessing to Avraham, or Devarim 28:2 where Hashem promises rewards for obedience, " וּבָאוּ עָלֶיךָ כׇּל הַבְּרָכוֹת הָאֵלֶּה".</fn>  Yeshayahu prophesies that Yisrael will be attacked by Assyria, and with its fall,<fn>Even though the Northern Kingdom is not totally exiled in this period, Tiglat Pileser's attack marks the beginning of the end.</fn> the state of the nation will revert to what it had been before the split of the kingdom (לְמִיּוֹם סוּר אֶפְרַיִם מֵעַל יְהוּדָה), when there was just one monarch who ruled over the entire country.<fn>This reading would work better had the verse not ended with the words "אֵת מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר" which suggest that Hashem is not only bringing upon Yehuda an era comparable to that of the United Monarchy, but also bringing upon him Assyria.  This position would respond that the words "אֵת מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר" come to explain how the revolutionary change is to take place.  When Assyria conquers Yisrael, there will be an opportunity to revert back to the conditions that existed before the split of the kingdom.  <br/>It is also possible that the term "יָבִיא י"י עָלֶיךָ" simply means that tumultuous events are to occur which Yehuda will be witness to and affected by. Assyria is to decimate and exile Ephraim, an event which will be similar in gravity to the split of the kingdom (even if it won't bring full control back to Yehuda).</fn> This might reflect hopes that Chizkiyahu was to revive the Davidic dynasty of old,<fn>This would explain why Yeshayahu says that events are to affect not only Achaz and the nation ("עָלֶיךָ וְעַל עַמְּךָ"), but also "בֵּית אָבִיךָ", his individual line and dynasty .</fn> take control of the Northern kingdom, and be a Messianic type of figure.<fn>See R. Moshe ibn Chiquitilla and Shadal who understand Yeshayahu 11 and the promises there to refer to Chizkiyahu.</fn></point> |
<point><b>Flies of Egypt and bees of Assyria</b> – This approach could suggest that Egypt joined forces with Assyria to attack Aram and Yisrael (even though there is no mention of them in Sefer Melakhim.) Alternatively, the mention of the "זְּבוּב אֲשֶׁר בִּקְצֵה יְאֹרֵי מִצְרָיִם" is simply a metaphor for a vast army, and does not refer to Egypt itself.  If so, the image of both the flies and the bees refer to the swarms of Assyrian soldiers who were to fall upon the two kingdoms.</point> | <point><b>Flies of Egypt and bees of Assyria</b> – This approach could suggest that Egypt joined forces with Assyria to attack Aram and Yisrael (even though there is no mention of them in Sefer Melakhim.) Alternatively, the mention of the "זְּבוּב אֲשֶׁר בִּקְצֵה יְאֹרֵי מִצְרָיִם" is simply a metaphor for a vast army, and does not refer to Egypt itself.  If so, the image of both the flies and the bees refer to the swarms of Assyrian soldiers who were to fall upon the two kingdoms.</point> | ||
<point><b>"תַעַר הַשְּׂכִירָה"</b> – According to this position, the words "מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר" serve to identify the "תַעַר הַשְּׂכִירָה".  Assyria is likened to a "razor" as it is about to raze the lands of Aram and Yisrael until not a hair is left.  This approach might agree with <multilink><a href="RashiYeshayahu7-15-25" data-aht="source">Rashi </a><a href="RashiYeshayahu7-15-25" data-aht="source">Yeshayahu 7:15-25</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink>that "הַשְּׂכִירָה" refers to an honored or important person (or nation),<fn>In support of such usage, he points to <a href="Yirmeyahu46-21" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 46:21</a>.</fn> rather than a hired hand.</point> | <point><b>"תַעַר הַשְּׂכִירָה"</b> – According to this position, the words "מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר" serve to identify the "תַעַר הַשְּׂכִירָה".  Assyria is likened to a "razor" as it is about to raze the lands of Aram and Yisrael until not a hair is left.  This approach might agree with <multilink><a href="RashiYeshayahu7-15-25" data-aht="source">Rashi </a><a href="RashiYeshayahu7-15-25" data-aht="source">Yeshayahu 7:15-25</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink>that "הַשְּׂכִירָה" refers to an honored or important person (or nation),<fn>In support of such usage, he points to <a href="Yirmeyahu46-21" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 46:21</a>.</fn> rather than a hired hand.</point> | ||
Line 57: | Line 56: | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>Tiglat Pileser's invasion</b> – According to Shadal, Yeshayahu is speaking of Tiglat Pileser, who attacked not only Aram and Yisrael but Yehuda as well. As <a href="DivreiHaYamimII28-1-22" data-aht="source">Divrei HaYamim</a> shares, "וַיָּבֹא עָלָיו תִּלְּגַת פִּלְנְאֶסֶר מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר וַיָּצַר לוֹ וְלֹא חֲזָקוֹ".‎</li> | <li><b>Tiglat Pileser's invasion</b> – According to Shadal, Yeshayahu is speaking of Tiglat Pileser, who attacked not only Aram and Yisrael but Yehuda as well. As <a href="DivreiHaYamimII28-1-22" data-aht="source">Divrei HaYamim</a> shares, "וַיָּבֹא עָלָיו תִּלְּגַת פִּלְנְאֶסֶר מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר וַיָּצַר לוֹ וְלֹא חֲזָקוֹ".‎</li> | ||
− | <li><b>Sancheriv's campaign </b>– R"E of Beaugency, in contrast, assumes that Yeshayahu is referring to Sancheriv's campaign against Yehuda in the time of Chizkiyahu. The prophet speaks of a future rather than immediate punishment.<fn>The dispute might relate to differing evaluations of the level of destruction wrought during the two periods.  Does the description of invasion and destruction at the end of the chapter better match the invasion of Tiglat | + | <li><b>Sancheriv's campaign </b>– R"E of Beaugency, in contrast, assumes that Yeshayahu is referring to Sancheriv's campaign against Yehuda in the time of Chizkiyahu. The prophet speaks of a future rather than immediate punishment.<fn>The dispute might relate to differing evaluations of the level of destruction wrought during the two periods.  Does the description of invasion and destruction at the end of the chapter better match the invasion of Tiglat Pileser or the campaign of Sancheriv?</fn></li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Biblical parallels</b> – Elsewhere in Tanakh, as well, there are similar warnings that seeking foreign aid rather than trusting in Hashem will result in catastrophe (especially when one invites a foreigner to attack one's own brother):<br/> | <point><b>Biblical parallels</b> – Elsewhere in Tanakh, as well, there are similar warnings that seeking foreign aid rather than trusting in Hashem will result in catastrophe (especially when one invites a foreigner to attack one's own brother):<br/> | ||
Line 66: | Line 65: | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>"תַעַר הַשְּׂכִירָה"</b> – The image of a "תַעַר הַשְּׂכִירָה" refers to Assyria, so called because he had been "hired" by Achaz to attack Aram and Yisrael.<fn>Even if one assumes that Yeshayahu is speaking of Sancheriv, who had not been bribed and "hired" to attack, it is still possible that the prophet intentionally uses the image to highlight that the invasion is due to the initial hiring of Assyria.</fn> The prophet points out that Assyria will not stop there, but move on to Yehuda as well.</point> | <point><b>"תַעַר הַשְּׂכִירָה"</b> – The image of a "תַעַר הַשְּׂכִירָה" refers to Assyria, so called because he had been "hired" by Achaz to attack Aram and Yisrael.<fn>Even if one assumes that Yeshayahu is speaking of Sancheriv, who had not been bribed and "hired" to attack, it is still possible that the prophet intentionally uses the image to highlight that the invasion is due to the initial hiring of Assyria.</fn> The prophet points out that Assyria will not stop there, but move on to Yehuda as well.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>"אֶת הָרֹאשׁ וְשַׂעַר הָרַגְלָיִם וְגַם אֶת הַזָּקָן תִּסְפֶּה"</b> – The image of razing from head to feet implies almost total destruction.  This would fit the campaign of Sancheriv when all of the fortified cities of Yehuda were conquered and only Yerushalayim remained, but would appear not to be an appropriate description of the invasion of Tiglat Pileser.  This leads Shadal to suggest that the image of "shaving" is intentionally used because it implies a cutting of the hair, but not the skin. Tiglat Pileser's soldiers plundered and ravaged the land, but did not actually battle and cause bloodshed.<fn>He understands the phrase "וַיָּבֹא עָלָיו תִּלְּגַת פִּלְנְאֶסֶר מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר וַיָּצַר לוֹ <b>וְלֹא חֲזָקוֹ</b>" to mean that Tiglat | + | <point><b>"אֶת הָרֹאשׁ וְשַׂעַר הָרַגְלָיִם וְגַם אֶת הַזָּקָן תִּסְפֶּה"</b> – The image of razing from head to feet implies almost total destruction.  This would fit the campaign of Sancheriv when all of the fortified cities of Yehuda were conquered and only Yerushalayim remained, but would appear not to be an appropriate description of the invasion of Tiglat Pileser.  This leads Shadal to suggest that the image of "shaving" is intentionally used because it implies a cutting of the hair, but not the skin. Tiglat Pileser's soldiers plundered and ravaged the land, but did not actually battle and cause bloodshed.<fn>He understands the phrase "וַיָּבֹא עָלָיו תִּלְּגַת פִּלְנְאֶסֶר מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר וַיָּצַר לוֹ <b>וְלֹא חֲזָקוֹ</b>" to mean that Tiglat Pileser did not attack with "חזקה", with excessive force.</fn></point> |
<point><b>Flies of Egypt</b> – This approach might suggest that Egypt is mentioned, not because they joined forces with Assyria against Yehuda, but because they were another enemy country which Judean kings relied upon and turned to for assistance when dealing with foreign affairs.<fn>See above, that in <a href="Yeshayahu20" data-aht="source">Yeshayahu 20</a> and <a href="Yeshayahu31-1-3" data-aht="source">Yeshayahu 31:1-3</a> the prophet warns the people against trusting in Egypt for aid.</fn>  Yeshayahu tells Achaz that any empire in whom he will trust rather than Hashem will ultimately not only fail him, but turn into a foe.<fn>Shadal, instead, suggests that the "flies of Egypt" is simply an analogy, meant to convey a huge army. Since the Nile bred many insects, such swarms were common in Egypt, and served as an apt metaphor for Assyria's army.</fn></point> | <point><b>Flies of Egypt</b> – This approach might suggest that Egypt is mentioned, not because they joined forces with Assyria against Yehuda, but because they were another enemy country which Judean kings relied upon and turned to for assistance when dealing with foreign affairs.<fn>See above, that in <a href="Yeshayahu20" data-aht="source">Yeshayahu 20</a> and <a href="Yeshayahu31-1-3" data-aht="source">Yeshayahu 31:1-3</a> the prophet warns the people against trusting in Egypt for aid.</fn>  Yeshayahu tells Achaz that any empire in whom he will trust rather than Hashem will ultimately not only fail him, but turn into a foe.<fn>Shadal, instead, suggests that the "flies of Egypt" is simply an analogy, meant to convey a huge army. Since the Nile bred many insects, such swarms were common in Egypt, and served as an apt metaphor for Assyria's army.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Butter and honey</b> – According to Shadal, the same image is used to connote opposite concepts in verses 15 and 22.  In verse 15, the promise that Emanuel will eat fat and honey is a sign of the upcoming salvation from Aram and Yisrael, while in verse 22 it signifies the devastation to be wrought on Yehuda. Since all the agricultural land will be laid barren by the Assyrian forces,<fn>See verses 23-25.</fn> the only thing that will be left to eat will be the milk produced by cattle. It is possible that the prophet intentionally used the same image in both verses to highlight how Achaz's lack of belief turned a promise of blessing into a curse.</point> | <point><b>Butter and honey</b> – According to Shadal, the same image is used to connote opposite concepts in verses 15 and 22.  In verse 15, the promise that Emanuel will eat fat and honey is a sign of the upcoming salvation from Aram and Yisrael, while in verse 22 it signifies the devastation to be wrought on Yehuda. Since all the agricultural land will be laid barren by the Assyrian forces,<fn>See verses 23-25.</fn> the only thing that will be left to eat will be the milk produced by cattle. It is possible that the prophet intentionally used the same image in both verses to highlight how Achaz's lack of belief turned a promise of blessing into a curse.</point> |
Latest revision as of 21:57, 31 July 2019
Prophecy to Achaz – Calamity or Consolation?
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Yeshayahu's prophecy to Achaz, and the apparently contradictory images of calamity and consolation contained therein, has been understood in opposing ways by commentators.
The majority of sources understand the message to be one of comfort. According to A. Chakham, all of Yeshayahu's words are aimed at reassuring Achaz that Aram and Yisrael are to be destroyed and he need not worry about their alliance. Any images of destruction used by the prophet relate to the fate of the enemy kingdoms, while images of comfort relate to Yehuda. Rashi, instead, suggests that Yeshayahu is speaking of two distinct threats to Yehuda. After reassuring the king about Aram and Yisrael, he explains that a worse danger will be posed by Assyria, but that they, too, will be defeated and Yehuda saved. Since Yeshayahu assumes that peace and prosperity will only follow an initial period of devastation, the mixture of images is understandable.
A last approach suggests that after Achaz's refusal to ask for a Divine sign, the tenor of Yeshayahu's words changed from consolation to rebuke. Knowing that Achaz had decided to seek foreign assistance rather than rely on Hashem, Yeshayahu warned the king that the very nation whom he was trusting to help him, would turn into a foe and devastate his country. Any descriptions of prosperity in this part of the chapter are reinterpreted and understood to be metaphors of destruction.
Consolation
Yeshayahu's words constitute a prophecy of consolation and encouragement. This approach subdivides regarding the event about which Achaz is being comforted:
The Aramean-Israelite Threat
All of Yeshayahu's words relate to the threat posed by the Aramean-Israelite alliance. Yeshayahu tells Achaz that he need not worry since both countries are soon to be destroyed by Assyria.
- Blessing of prosperity – In both verses 15 and 22, the eating of "butter and honey" is a metaphor for blessings which will benefit Yehuda. Yeshayahu declares that after Aram and Yisrael are defeated, there will be a period of prosperity and the cattle of the Judeans8 will give forth so much milk that butter will be made from the leftovers. This positive understanding of the image might be supported by its similarity to the phrase "אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ", a description which consistently has a positive connotation in Tanakh.
- Prosperity and desolation – Alternatively, while the image in verse 15 connotes blessing, in verse 22 the excessive butter signifies the desolation in Aram and Yisrael. Yeshayahu tells Achaz that due to the Assyrian invasion, all agricultural produce in his enemies' countries will be ruined, so that any survivors will have only milk to consume.9 The prophet might intentionally use the same image in contrasting ways because the desolation brought to Yehuda's enemies is what will allow Achaz' own land to thrive.10
Both the Aramean-Israelite and the Assyrian Threat
Yeshayahu tells Achaz that he has nothing to fear from Aram and Yisrael, since Assyria is soon to ravage both countries. Assyria will invade Yehuda as well, but Yehuda will survive and Sancheriv's army will be defeated.
- Radak suggests to read verses 23-24 as if inverted: all the sites which today are full of bramble, and to which one will approach only with bow and arrow, will be filled with valuable vines.14
- Abarbanel, in contrast, asserts that verses 23-24 depict the harsh situation during Sancheriv's campaign, while verse 25 depicts the blessings in its aftermath.15 Though there will be "שָׁמִיר וָשָׁיִת" during the war, afterwards: "לֹא תָבוֹא שָׁמָּה יִרְאַת שָׁמִיר וָשָׁיִת"; there will no longer be fear of overgrowth or thorns.16 At that point, even the hilly lands will be worked, and due to the peaceful climate, the areas will be open to roaming oxen and sheep.17
Rebuke
Yeshayahu's words constitute a rebuke to Achaz for not trusting in Hashem's promise that Yehuda would be saved. As punishment for seeking human (rather than Divine) assistance, Achaz is told that Assyria will smite not only Aram and Yisrael, but Yehuda as well.
- Tiglat Pileser's invasion – According to Shadal, Yeshayahu is speaking of Tiglat Pileser, who attacked not only Aram and Yisrael but Yehuda as well. As Divrei HaYamim shares, "וַיָּבֹא עָלָיו תִּלְּגַת פִּלְנְאֶסֶר מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר וַיָּצַר לוֹ וְלֹא חֲזָקוֹ".
- Sancheriv's campaign – R"E of Beaugency, in contrast, assumes that Yeshayahu is referring to Sancheriv's campaign against Yehuda in the time of Chizkiyahu. The prophet speaks of a future rather than immediate punishment.19
- Turning to Aram – The closest parallel to our chapter is Divrei HaYamim II 16. Asa seeks Aram's help to fight against Basha and is rebuked by the prophet Chanani, "בְּהִשָּׁעֶנְךָ עַל מֶלֶךְ אֲרָם וְלֹא נִשְׁעַנְתָּ עַל י"י אֱלֹהֶיךָ עַל כֵּן נִמְלַט חֵיל מֶלֶךְ אֲרָם מִיָּדֶךָ".20
- Turning to Egypt – Yeshayahu speaks out against going to Egypt for aid in Yeshayahu 20 and Yeshayahu 30 - 31, promising "וּמִצְרַיִם אָדָם וְלֹא אֵל וְסוּסֵיהֶם בָּשָׂר וְלֹא רוּחַ וַי"י יַטֶּה יָדוֹ וְכָשַׁל עוֹזֵר וְנָפַל עָזֻר וְיַחְדָּו כֻּלָּם יִכְלָיוּן".21
- Turning to Bavel – Chizkiyahu's showing of his treasures to Merodakh Baladan of Bavel has been understood as an attempt to join an alliance against Assyria.22 Yeshayahu reacts in anger, warning Chizkiyahu, "הִנֵּה יָמִים בָּאִים וְנִשָּׂא כׇּל אֲשֶׁר בְּבֵיתֶךָ וַאֲשֶׁר אָצְרוּ אֲבֹתֶיךָ עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה בָּבֶלָה".
- Era of Achaz – Chizkiyahu says of his father's reign: "וַיְהִי קֶצֶף י"י עַל יְהוּדָה וִירוּשָׁלִָם וַיִּתְּנֵם [לְזַעֲוָה] (לזועה) לְשַׁמָּה וְלִשְׁרֵקָה" (Divrei HaYamim II 29:8), parallel to the description of "לַשָּׁמִיר וְלַשַּׁיִת יִהְיֶה" mentioned here.
- Era of Chizkiyahu – Sancheriv campaigned throughout Yehuda so it is natural that, in his wake, the land would be barren. Many suggest that Yeshayahu's words in Chapter1:7 refer to the aftermath of his attack: "אַרְצְכֶם שְׁמָמָה עָרֵיכֶם שְׂרֻפוֹת אֵשׁ אַדְמַתְכֶם לְנֶגְדְּכֶם זָרִים אֹכְלִים אֹתָהּ וּשְׁמָמָה כְּמַהְפֵּכַת זָרִים".29