Does Hezekiah's action in 2 Kings 18:14 show a lack of faith in God? Canonical Text “So Hezekiah king of Judah sent word to the king of Assyria at Lachish: ‘I have done wrong. Withdraw from me, and I will bear whatever you impose on me.’ And the king of Assyria imposed a tribute of three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold on Hezekiah king of Judah.” (2 Kings 18:14) Historical and Cultural Background Assyria, under Sennacherib, was the super-power of the late eighth century BC. Vassal states normally paid annual tribute. When Hezekiah came to the throne (c. 729 BC on a Usshurian timeline) he initially submitted, then joined a regional revolt encouraged by Egypt (2 Kings 18:7). Assyrian annals record Sargon II’s earlier subjugation of Samaria (722 BC) and Sennacherib’s later “third campaign” against Judah (701 BC). Hezekiah’s payment in 2 Kings 18:14 is historically plausible because the amounts match Assyria’s documented economic demands. Chronological Harmonization of the Assyrian Campaigns 1. Early reign: Hezekiah trusts the LORD, removes high places, stops paying tribute (2 Kings 18:3–7). 2. Assyrian retaliation: initial invasion, capture of 46 fortified cities, siege of Lachish (Taylor Prism). 3. Diplomacy/tribute: 2 Kings 18:14–16—the episode under discussion. 4. Second approach to Jerusalem: Sennacherib sends Rabshakeh with blasphemous threats (2 Kings 18:17-37; Isaiah 36). 5. Divine deliverance: the angel strikes 185,000 Assyrians; Sennacherib withdraws (2 Kings 19:35-36). Separating the tribute episode from the final siege explains why Hezekiah could both pay and later stand firm in faith—two distinct moments, not a contradiction. Hezekiah’s Character According to Scripture “He trusted in the LORD, the God of Israel; and after him there was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor among those who were before him” (2 Kings 18:5). The Chronicler echoes this verdict (2 Chron 32:32). Isaiah’s narrative portrays Hezekiah seeking God in the temple and receiving a miraculous sign (Isaiah 37-38). Scripture’s overall assessment is overwhelmingly positive; therefore any single action must be interpreted within that larger divine commendation. Motives Behind the Tribute: Possible Explanations 1. Repentance for Political Miscalculation: Hezekiah confesses, “I have done wrong,” not “I have sinned” against God. He may acknowledge imprudence in revolting without divine sanction (cf. Proverbs 24:6). 2. Diplomatic Delay: By paying, Hezekiah buys time to prepare Jerusalem’s defenses—e.g., diverting the Gihon spring through “Hezekiah’s Tunnel,” confirmed by the Siloam Inscription (2 Kings 20:20). 3. Pastoral Concern: Avoiding immediate bloodshed for his people is consistent with covenantal kingship (Deuteronomy 17:20). 4. Testing of Faith: God sometimes permits a crisis to expose the heart (2 Chron 32:31). The payment sets the stage for a greater deliverance that magnifies His glory. Prophetic Commentary and Divine Evaluation No prophet explicitly rebukes Hezekiah for the tribute. Isaiah confronts him only later about showing his treasury to Babylon (Isaiah 39). When Sennacherib’s second demand comes, Isaiah encourages steadfast faith (Isaiah 37:6-7). The silence of prophetic censure regarding 2 Kings 18:14 suggests a tactical concession rather than unbelief. Archaeological Corroboration and Its Implications for Faith • Taylor Prism (British Museum, column 3) corroborates the Assyrian campaign: “As for Hezekiah…like a bird in a cage I shut up in Jerusalem.” • Lachish Reliefs (Nineveh palace) depict the very siege recorded in 2 Kings 18:13-14. • Bullae bearing “Belonging to Hezekiah [son of] Ahaz, king of Judah” unearthed in the Ophel validate his historicity. These discoveries do not merely support historical details; they reinforce the reliability of the biblical narrative that frames the theological question of faith. Theological Assessment: Faith, Prudence, and Momentary Lapses Scripture distinguishes between a settled disposition of trust and episodic fear (Psalm 56:3-4). Hezekiah’s life displays covenant fidelity; a single political concession under duress does not negate saving faith. Even Abraham wavered (Genesis 20), yet was “strong in faith” (Romans 4:20). The LORD’s subsequent deliverance shows that divine faithfulness is not contingent on flawless human response (2 Timothy 2:13). Lessons for Contemporary Believers • Momentary concessions under pressure need not define one’s spiritual identity. • God can transform pragmatic choices into stages for greater testimony. • Confession of error (“I have done wrong”) is a healthy step toward renewed dependence on God. • Ultimate reliance must return to the LORD, who alone saves (2 Kings 19:34). Conclusion: Does 2 Kings 18:14 Demonstrate Lack of Faith? Hezekiah’s payment of tribute reveals a moment of political expediency, not a wholesale abandonment of trust. Scripture praises his overall faith, prophetic voices do not indict the act, and God’s ensuing miracle indicates continued divine favor. Therefore, 2 Kings 18:14 should be read as a tactical, temporary lapse under extreme threat—one that ultimately magnified God’s sovereign deliverance rather than discrediting the king’s faith. |
    |