In the year 701 BC, Judah stood on the brink of annihilation. Sennacherib of Assyria, whose imperial power had already broken the back of the Northern Kingdom and subjugated the Levant, turned his forces against the tiny kingdom ruled by King Hezekiah. The Biblical record situates the crisis with remarkable specificity. Hezekiah fortified Jerusalem, strengthening defenses and securing water within the walls. The English Standard Version recounts, “He set to work resolutely and built up all the wall that was broken down, and raised towers upon it, and outside it he built another wall, and he strengthened the Millo in the city of David” and “he stopped the water of the springs that were outside the city” (2 Chronicles 32:5, 32:3). Isaiah notes the same engineering feat, while reproving Judah’s spiritual shortfall, “you saw that the breaches of the city of David were many. You collected the waters of the lower pool” and “you did not look to him who did it, or see him who planned it long ago” (Isaiah 22:9, 11, ESV). The historical and theological horizons converge. Hezekiah did what prudent rulers should do, yet Judah’s ultimate hope would not flow from stone walls or subterranean channels. Salvation would come from the Lord who governs the nations.
Into this crisis enters a surprising actor from the south. Both Isaiah 37:9 and 2 Kings 19:9 state that Sennacherib “heard concerning Tirhaqah king of Cush, ‘He has set out to fight against you’” (ESV). The Assyrian juggernaut suddenly faced a second front. The Biblical authors identify the figure as “Tirhaqah,” better known to Egyptologists as Taharqa, the great Nubian ruler of the Twenty–Fifth Dynasty, the most renowned king of the Napatan line. Who precisely was this Cushite king? Why does Scripture mention him at the decisive moment of Judah’s greatest peril, and what theological currents flow through the terse Biblical notice of his campaign? The answers illumine the faithfulness of God and the global scope of His redemptive purposes.
What follows is a spiritual blog essay that exegetes Isaiah 37:9 and 2 Kings 19:9 in their narrative setting, highlights key Hebrew words and phrases, situates Taharqa historically within the rise of Cush, and reflects on the theological significance of God’s sovereign orchestration of international events to preserve the Davidic line and, ultimately, to advance the Gospel.
Cush in the Canon
The land of Cush occupies a recurring place in the Biblical imagination. In the Table of Nations, “Cush” appears as a descendant of Ham (Genesis 10:6). The term typically denotes the region south of Egypt, roughly correlating with Nubia in what is today northern Sudan. Several prophetic and poetic texts hold Cush in view, often as a distant land of power and dignity. The Psalmist anticipates a day when “Nobles shall come from Egypt; Cush shall hasten to stretch out her hands to God” (Psalm 68:31, ESV). Isaiah promises, “From beyond the rivers of Cush my worshipers, the daughter of my dispersed ones, shall bring my offering” (Zephaniah 3:10, ESV). Isaiah 18 addresses a “land of whirring wings that is beyond the rivers of Cush,” signaling a watchful divine interest in the southern kingdoms that border the Nile. The prophetic canvass expands the stage upon which God vindicates His name. The God of Israel is not a territorial deity limited to a patch of hill country. He is the Creator who rules the ends of the earth.
Within this canonical frame, the mention of a Cushite king marching in defense of Judah resonates with the larger Biblical themes of God’s sovereignty over the nations and His intention to draw the nations to Himself. The Church later sees a foretaste of this global movement in Acts 8, where an official from Ethiopia, a term that in Greco–Roman usage often overlaps with Biblical Cush, encounters the Gospel through Philip. The Biblical storyline that begins with Cush at the margins bends toward the moment when a Cushite receives and rejoices in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the terse notice about Tirhaqah in Isaiah and Kings is not a historical aside only. It is a signpost, pointing to God’s providential weaving of distant peoples into His redemptive purposes.
The Crisis of 701 BC
Assyrian annals and archaeology corroborate the scope of Sennacherib’s invasion. The ESV records Hezekiah’s extensive preparations in 2 Chronicles 32 and Isaiah 22. Archaeological investigation has identified a massive fortification commonly called the “Broad Wall” in Jerusalem, consistent with the Biblical picture of a rapid expansion of defensive works. Hezekiah’s Tunnel, also known as the Siloam Tunnel, still channels the waters of the Gihon Spring into the city, in harmony with the Biblical claim that Hezekiah “stopped the water of the springs that were outside the city” (2 Chronicles 32:3, ESV). Sennacherib’s account famously boasts that he hemmed in Hezekiah “like a bird in a cage,” and the palace reliefs from Nineveh depict the siege of the Judean city of Lachish in chilling detail. The empire’s military machinery is on full display. It is into the teeth of this assault that the prophet Isaiah speaks the word of the Lord and into which the name “Tirhaqah” unexpectedly appears.
The narrative progression in 2 Kings 18–19 and Isaiah 36–37 is well known. The Rabshakeh taunts Jerusalem, Hezekiah seeks Isaiah’s counsel, and the Lord promises deliverance. Sennacherib, upon hearing of Tirhaqah’s approach, redoubles his threats with a written message that mocks Judah’s trust in the Lord. The climax comes with Hezekiah’s prayer in the temple and the Lord’s astonishing intervention, “the angel of the Lord went out and struck down 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians” (Isaiah 37:36, ESV). Sennacherib withdraws. Jerusalem is spared. The Davidic line endures, and the promises of God stand.
Exegesis of Isaiah 37:9 and 2 Kings 19:9
Isaiah 37:9 reads in the ESV, “Now the king heard concerning Tirhaqah king of Cush, ‘He has set out to fight against you.’ And when he heard it, he sent messengers to Hezekiah, saying.” The parallel in 2 Kings 19:9 is very close, “Now the king heard concerning Tirhaqah king of Cush, ‘Behold, he has set out to fight against you.’ He sent messengers again to Hezekiah, saying.” The precise referent of “the king” is Sennacherib. The narrative hinge turns on what the king “heard” and how he responds. The report of a major southern army moving north disrupts Assyria’s rhythm and precipitates a rhetorical escalation rather than an immediate rush to battle. Instead of marching directly to engage the Cushite–Egyptian force, Sennacherib sends messengers to intimidate Jerusalem again, perhaps calculating that an inner collapse in Judah would obviate the need for a two–front campaign.
Several Hebrew terms are theologically and narratively significant. The verb שָׁמַע (shāmaʿ, “to hear”) appears twice in Isaiah 37:9, “he heard,” then “when he heard.” In narrative Hebrew the repeated wayyiqtol forms intensify temporal movement. The first wayyishmaʿ signals the reception of the military intelligence. The second wayyishmaʿ marks the king’s immediate processing of that intelligence. The king who previously heard the taunts of his own envoy and the defiance of Hezekiah now hears of a new threat. Human plans are contingent. The world changes in a sentence. In Isaiah’s theology, the Lord orchestrates what kings hear and do. He not only rules the outcome, He governs the inputs.
The name תִּרְהָקָה (Tirhāqāh) is a transliteration into Hebrew of the Nubian–Egyptian royal name known in Egyptological literature as Taharqa. The writer calls him מֶלֶךְ־כּוּשׁ (melekh–Kūsh, “king of Cush”) rather than “Pharaoh.” The noun כּוּשׁ (Kūsh) designates Nubia. The predicate phrase יָצָא לְהִלָּחֵם אִתָּךְ (yāṣāʾ lehilāḥēm ʾittāḵ, “has set out to fight against you”) features the common verb יָצָא (yāṣāʾ, “to go out, set out”) with an infinitive construct לְהִלָּחֵם from לָחַם in the Niphal stem, typically meaning “to fight.” The preposition אִתָּךְ (ʾittāḵ, “with you,” often idiomatically “against you” in martial contexts) clarifies the target of the campaign. The syntactic economy of the clause heightens the drama. A foreign king has already mobilized with hostile intent toward Assyria.
Finally, וַיִּשְׁלַח מַלְאָכִים (vayyishlaḥ malʾāḵîm, “and he sent messengers”) reprises the theme of mediated threats. Sennacherib resorts again to words. In Isaiah’s theology, this choice ironically places Sennacherib on the field where the Lord triumphs most decisively, the field of the word. God will answer threatening words with the true and final word that brings the empire down from its high place and exalts His name.
The King's account adds עוֹד (ʿôḏ, “again”) to the sending of messengers: “He sent messengers again to Hezekiah.” The adverb underscores the persistence of Assyria’s propaganda. Empires often double down on psychological operations when their plans are frustrated. The Biblical narrator draws attention to the irony. The world’s most formidable military machine pivots from war to words because it hears that the king of Cush is on the move.
Why “King of Cush” and Not “Pharaoh” A Proleptic Designation
A perennial question arises. The Taharqa, known to history, reigned as Pharaoh from approximately 690 to 664 BC. How, then, do Isaiah and Kings speak of “Tirhaqah king of Cush” at the time of the 701 campaign, more than a decade before his formal accession? Several interlocking observations resolve the chronological tension without resorting to skepticism about the Biblical text.
First, the designation “king of Cush” is not identical to “Pharaoh of Egypt.” The Biblical writers may be identifying Taharqa in relation to his domain in Nubia rather than to his later authority in Memphis. The Hebrew מֶלֶךְ־כּוּשׁ captures this nuance. During the Twenty–Fifth Dynasty, Nubian rulers held a dual kingship, exercising authority from Napata in Cush while asserting pharaonic claims in Egypt. A younger royal, invested with substantial military command in the south, could reasonably be called the “king of Cush,” even if the supreme Egyptian kingship resided temporarily in an elder relative at Memphis.
Second, the Biblical narrative as a whole situates the events within a literary horizon that includes Sennacherib’s later assassination in 680 BC (2 Kings 19:37; Isaiah 37:38). The author writes with knowledge that extends beyond 701, and therefore identifies the Cushite leader in a manner that is immediately recognizable to later readers. The use of “Tirhaqah” functions proleptically. It names the figure by the title that best situates him within the memory of the audience. Ancient historians frequently deploy such retrospective identifiers.
Third, historical sources from Nubia report that Taharqa held high military responsibility before his coronation, likely under his brother Shebitku. This would fit the inference that the advancing levy was commanded by the very man later known ubiquitously as Taharqa the Pharaoh. The Biblical description accords with a situation in which a young but capable royal prince marshaled a joint force of Egyptian and Cushite troops to challenge Assyria’s encroachment into the Philistine–Judean theater.
The upshot is straightforward. The inspired Biblical authors do not commit a historical error. They identify Taharqa accurately within a framework that their audience would grasp. More importantly, they keep the theological focus squarely on the Lord who turns imperial designs to His own purposes.
Linguistic and Literary Notes
The small cluster of verbs in Isaiah 37:9 and 2 Kings 19:9 carries considerable freight.
שָׁמַע (shāmaʿ, “to hear”). The motif of hearing and sending frames the conflict. The Rabshakeh hears, Hezekiah hears, Sennacherib hears, and the Lord hears. Hezekiah prays, “Incline your ear, O Lord, and hear” (Isaiah 37:17, ESV). Human hearing leads to anxious action or to arrogant boasting. Divine hearing leads to deliverance. The repetition of shāmaʿ creates an auditory theology. Nations cannot control what they will hear. God can, and He does. The news of a southern army becomes a trumpet of providence.
יָצָא לְהִלָּחֵם (yāṣāʾ lehilāḥēm, “has set out to fight”). The infinitive of purpose places Sennacherib under threat. He is no longer the sole agent. Until this line, Assyria initiates, invades, and insults. Now, a rival initiative surfaces. In the economy of Biblical narrative, this shift signals that the Lord is multiplying instruments for His own ends. He can save by many or by few, by angels or by armies, by plague in the night or by panic in a royal camp. The text leaves the precise tactical outcome of the Cushite approach unelaborated. That silence is hermeneutically instructive. The central point is that God stands behind both the rumor and the rescue.
וַיִּשְׁלַח (vayyishlaḥ, “and he sent”). The empire’s reflex to speak rather than to fight indicates fear in the heart of a tyrant. The narrative constructs irony through verbs. The one who boasted that no god has delivered any nation from his hand now sends messengers because he has heard of a human king who dares to challenge him. Isaiah intends that readers juxtapose this sending with Hezekiah’s sending to Isaiah earlier, “when King Hezekiah heard it, he tore his clothes and covered himself with sackcloth and went into the house of the Lord” and “sent Eliakim” to the prophet (Isaiah 37:1–2, ESV). One sending is an act of pride. The other sending is an act of faith. One issues threats. The other seeks a word. Only one posture receives deliverance.
Literarily, Isaiah 36–37 and 2 Kings 18–19 exhibit deliberate parallelism. The double mention of Tirhaqah in both histories confirms a shared source or mutually reinforcing tradition. The evangelically responsible reading does not flatten the uniqueness of each narrator but honors the Spirit’s purpose in repeating the testimony. God established the deliverance of Jerusalem by the mouth of two witnesses. Jerusalem was saved because the Lord kept His covenant with David, and the text twice situates that salvation within an international scheme in which a Cushite king’s movements serve God’s design.
Taharqa in Historical Perspective: The Rise of the Napatan Kings
The long arc of Nubian history clarifies Taharqa’s stature. After centuries under Egyptian control, Cush rose to prominence during the early first millennium BC. From Napata near Jebel Barkal, a vigorous royal line emerged, venerating Amun and appropriating Egyptian forms while maintaining a distinctive Nubian identity. The dynasty established control over Upper Egypt and ultimately Lower Egypt, forming what modern historians call the Twenty–Fifth Dynasty. Piankhy, the great unifier, appears as the progenitor of the dynasty’s imperial aspirations. Subsequent kings, including Shabaka and Shebitku, consolidated and extended power.
Taharqa, the younger son of Piankhy, reigned with distinction for more than two decades. He built extensively in Nubia and Egypt, including impressive additions at Thebes and Napata. He relocated the royal burial complex from el–Kurru to Nuri and left a monumental pyramid. This is not antiquarian trivia. It reminds readers that the Biblical mention of “Tirhaqah king of Cush” refers to a figure with real historical heft. The God of Scripture moved in the midst of concrete geopolitics. He preserved His people at a time when two superpowers, Assyria in the north and Cush–Egypt in the south, contested the corridor in which Judah lay.
A common historical reconstruction posits that in 701 BC, Shebitku held the Egyptian throne in Memphis. At the same time, Taharqa, as a vigorous young royal, commanded forces in Cush and possibly Egypt’s south, in part to blunt Assyrian pressure on Egypt’s approaches. The Biblical choice to call him “king of Cush” likely reflects this southern base. The desired theological reading is that the Lord enlisted the ambitions of a Nubian dynasty to set the table for His deliverance of Zion.
Archaeology and the Bible: Illumination, Not Foundation
The spectacular corroborations of Hezekiah’s works and Sennacherib’s campaign encourage faith. The Broad Wall, Hezekiah’s Tunnel, the Siloam Inscription, the Lachish reliefs, and the royal prisms that list conquered cities and tribute given by Hezekiah all reinforce the historical trustworthiness of the Biblical narrative. Yet the Church must never invert the order of authority. Archaeology illuminates but does not authorize the Bible. The authority rests in the God who speaks. Readers should receive the record of Tirhaqah’s intervention as inspired Scripture rather than as a footnote to imperial annals. The annals corroborate that an Egyptian–Cushite force assembled. Scripture tells us what matters most. The Lord saved for the sake of His name and for the sake of His servant David.
Sovereignty, Means, and Mission
The Lord’s Sovereignty Over International Events. The Tirhaqah notice is one cog in a vast wheel that the Lord turns. He raises up and brings down empires. He calls Assyria “the rod of my anger” (Isaiah 10:5, ESV) and yet rebukes the arrogance of that very rod. He stirs Cush to march at precisely the moment that He intends to humble Sennacherib. He ordains that the king of Assyria will hear certain words at certain times, and that those words will trigger choices that fit the Lord’s designs. The timing in Isaiah 37:9 is theologically exquisite. The rumor about the Cushite king arrives just before the angel of the Lord strikes the Assyrian camp. God hems the proud in behind and before, by rumor and by retribution.
The Lord’s Use of Ordinary and Extraordinary Means. Hezekiah’s tunnels, walls, and towers are ordinary means. The angel that slays in a night is an extraordinary means. A foreign army marching from Cush is a hybrid means. It is ordinary in the sense that it is a human army led by a human commander. It is extraordinary in the sense that God puts it in motion at the very moment that serves His saving counsel. The Church sometimes labors under the false dichotomy that faith eschews prudence. The Biblical picture shows that faithful kings build walls and pray, that God sends rumors and angels, that He employs both tools and miracles. The operative principle is trust. Hezekiah confesses, “O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, enthroned above the cherubim, you are the God, you alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; you have made heaven and earth” and pleads, “So now, O Lord our God, save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you alone are the Lord” (Isaiah 37:16, 20, ESV). God answers with a deliverance that enlists both geopolitics and glory.
The Lord’s Missionary Heart for the Nations. The appearance of a Cushite king on the pages of Israel’s history is not incidental. The prophets foresee the day when Egypt, Assyria, and Israel together will be called a blessing in the midst of the earth, “whom the Lord of hosts has blessed, saying, ‘Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel my inheritance’” (Isaiah 19:25, ESV). The streets that saw chariots of war will one day see pilgrims bearing offerings. Psalm 68:31 anticipates Cush’s hands outstretched to God. Acts 8 narrates the firstfruits of that promise. A royal official of the queen of the south hears Isaiah 53 and believes the Gospel. The march of Tirhaqah’s army and the joy of the Ethiopian eunuch’s baptism, centuries apart, belong to one story. God is the Lord of Cush. The Church should therefore rejoice at and labor for the advance of the Gospel in Africa and throughout the Global South, knowing that the Scriptures have long held these peoples in view and that the Spirit delights to fulfill the promises spoken long ago.
A Closer Look at Hezekiah’s Prayer and the Word of the Lord
The mention of Tirhaqah interrupts the narrative to deepen the contrast between human power and divine promise. Sennacherib sends a letter that catalogs the failures of other nations’ gods and challenges Judah’s trust. Hezekiah takes the letter and “went up to the house of the Lord and spread it before the Lord” (Isaiah 37:14, ESV). The king’s action is the pastoral center of the story. The faithful response to a world–devouring empire is not panic but prayer. Hezekiah’s address grounds the petition in theology. The Lord is enthroned above the cherubim, meaning He is the living God present with His people. He is the Creator, meaning He rules over the kingdoms that Sennacherib claims as his own. Hezekiah does not deny the data of Assyrian success. He concedes that the nations fell because their gods were “no gods” but “the work of men’s hands, wood and stone” that “were destroyed” (Isaiah 37:19, ESV). The conclusion follows. Only the living God can deliver. Only the God who made heaven and earth can act decisively in the earth.
Isaiah’s oracle embeds the Tirhaqah moment within the larger judgment on Assyrian pride. The Lord promises to put His hook in Sennacherib’s nose and to turn him back by the way he came. The sign to Judah includes agricultural restoration, “this year you shall eat what grows of itself” and “the remnant of the house of Judah… shall again take root downward and bear fruit upward” (Isaiah 37:30–31, ESV). The theological point is that deliverance is not merely the survival of one night. It is the reconstitution of a people who will live before God in the land and bear fruit. The safeguarding of the Davidic line in 701 anticipates the arrival of David’s greater Son, Jesus the Messiah, through whom the Gospel of the Kingdom will bless all nations, including Cush.
Cushites Across Scripture: A Thread of Grace
The Bible’s attention to Cush is broader than the Tirhaqah episode. Moses’s marriage to a Cushite woman is the setting for a rebuke of Miriam and Aaron’s pride and for a vindication of Moses’s unique prophetic commission (Numbers 12:1–8). Psalm 87 counts those born in Zion and strangely includes figures from far–off peoples, signaling a widened covenantal census. The prophet Jeremiah recounts the courageous intervention of Ebed–melech the Cushite, who rescued Jeremiah from the cistern, for which the Lord promises him deliverance, “because you have put your trust in me” (Jeremiah 39:18, ESV). Zephaniah, likely of Cushite heritage himself according to some interpreters, proclaims the gathering of worshipers from beyond the rivers of Cush. These texts collectively form a background against which Isaiah 37:9 and 2 Kings 19:9 take on added richness. The God of the Bible is not tribal. He saves and enlists Cushites in His purposes, and He secures the line through which the Savior of the world will come.
Faith, Prudence, and the Providence of God
Hezekiah’s story invites the Church to hold together faith and prudence. The Bible honors Hezekiah’s engineering acumen and administrative decisiveness. It also reproves Judah for fixing eyes on fortifications rather than on the Lord, who planned history long before Jerusalem’s walls were laid. The ethical lesson for Christian leadership is that wise preparation and humble dependence are not competitors. Pastors and Christian executives, parents and public servants, build the “walls” within their stewardship, yet they spread the threatening letters before the Lord and plead for His glory to be known. The Church should not despise ordinary means, nor should it idolize them. The Church trusts in the God who can send a rumor to slow an army and an angel to end a siege.
Hezekiah’s prayer also directs us to God’s ulterior motive in deliverance. He pleads, “that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you alone are the Lord” (Isaiah 37:20, ESV). The aim is doxological and missional. The Tirhaqah interlude, therefore, serves the mission of God. The Lord bends the advance of a Nubian army into a testimony to His supremacy, so that Egypt, Cush, Assyria, Judah, and every nation might come to the knowledge of the living God. The Church’s prayers should therefore be expansive, asking not only for relief but for revelation, not only for safety but for sanctification that bears witness to the nations. The deliverance of Jerusalem was a sign and a summons.
Is the Tirhaqah Reference Anachronistic
Some readers worry that calling Taharqa “king of Cush” in 701 creates an anachronism since his formal reign as Pharaoh falls later. The Biblical text, however, neither calls him “Pharaoh” in this moment nor requires that the title “King of Cush” denote the whole of Egypt. The designation suits the geopolitical reality in which a royal from Napata commanded forces and projected power northward in defense of Egypt’s interests. The subsequent fame of Taharqa provides the retrospective label by which the audience recognizes him. The Scriptural account, therefore, is historically credible and literarily elegant. It distills complex geopolitics into a theological portrait in which the God of Israel controls the hearing and the sending, the marching and the striking.
From Hezekiah to the Messiah, From Cush to the Ends of the Earth
Evangelical interpretation reads the Old Testament not only in its historical sense but also in its canonical shape that converges upon Christ. The preservation of Jerusalem in 701 preserves the Davidic line that culminates in Jesus. The nations gathered on the periphery in Isaiah 36–37 spiral into the center in the Great Commission. Jesus, greater than Hezekiah, prays in the garden amid threats of a different sort and yields to the Father’s will for the salvation of sinners from every tribe and people. The angel that struck Assyria in the night prefigures, in a remote way, the decisive victory Christ wins at the Cross, where the demonic powers are disarmed. The rumor that distracted Assyria foreshadows the scandal of the Gospel that upends the wise of this age. In this trajectory, Cush’s place is secure. The Church sees the joy of the Ethiopian official as the first fruits of the prophetic promises that Egypt and Cush will be counted among the worshipers of the Lord. Tirhaqah’s march is not saving in itself. It is instrumental in a providential chain whose end is Christ.
Hebrew Word Study: Cush, Fight, and Messengers
A brief word study can deepen exegesis.
כּוּשׁ (Kūsh). The noun can refer to the people, land, or kingdom south of Egypt. In poetic texts, it often represents a distant land at the margins of Israel’s knowledge, hence a synecdoche for the nations at large. In Isaiah 20:3–5, Cush appears alongside Egypt in a warning about trusting foreign alliances. The Tirhaqah moment should therefore not be construed as a call to rely on Cush rather than on the Lord. The theology of Isaiah is consistent. Alliances cannot save. Isaiah 37:9 does not teach Judah to place confidence in the south. It displays the God who can even turn the south to His service when and how He pleases.
לָחַם (lāḥam, “to fight”). In the Niphal, the verb often functions with the meaning “to engage in combat.” The construction לְהִלָּחֵם with יָצָא forms an idiom for setting out for battle. The force of the idiom is intentionality. Taharqa’s movement is not reconnaissance. It is offensive. The theological implication is that God’s providence reaches to the intentions of kings and generals.
מַלְאָךְ (malʾāḵ, “messenger”). The word plays on a spectrum from human envoy to angelic minister. In this narrative complex, the messengers of Sennacherib and Hezekiah contrast with the angel of the Lord who executes judgment. The human malʾāḵîm carry blasphemy or supplication. The divine malʾākh carries out the sentence. The play of words underscores that God’s messenger will have the last word.
Pastoral Application: When You Hear Troubling News
Isaiah 37:9 begins, “Now the king heard.” Faithful believers and leaders likewise receive reports that reconfigure plans. Budgets implode, diagnoses arrive, markets shift, opponents mobilize. The lesson is not to deny the hearing. The lesson is to make the house of prayer the next movement. The Church spreads the letter before the Lord. She prays the theology of Isaiah 37:16-20. She pleads for deliverance for the sake of God’s glory. She does not despise ordinary fortifications. She does not idolize them either. She waits for the God who can send a rumor and an angel in a single night.
The Church also remembers that God’s purposes are global. When the Lord saves a congregation from a crisis, He does so partly so that “the kingdoms of the earth may know” His name. Therefore, the Church that rejoices at local deliverance should recommit to the mission among the nations, including the peoples of Africa who stand within the long Biblical horizon of God’s saving work. The Gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes. The God who once turned a Cushite king into an unwitting instrument of deliverance now turns Cushite believers into joyful heralds of the Gospel.
Who Was This Cushite King
Who, then, was this “Tirhaqah king of Cush” who set out to fight against Assyria while Judah trembled in 701 BC? He was Taharqa, a royal from the Napatan dynasty, at that moment likely exercising command and authority in Cush and Upper Egypt under his elder kinsman’s broader rule, later to reign as Pharaoh in his own right. He was a builder and a warrior, a namesake of temples and pyramids, a figure of sufficient magnitude that the Biblical authors could identify him proleptically for the clarity of later readers. More importantly, he was an instrument in the hand of the Lord. His approach toward the theater of conflict served to unsettle Assyria and to set the table for the Lord’s final act of deliverance. The Bible does not magnify him beyond this role. It gives him a sentence and gives God the glory.
The Cushite king’s identity also narratively reinforces Isaiah’s repeated warning against misplaced alliances. The Church is not to infer that Judah was saved because a foreign ally proved faithful. The text explicitly emphasizes that Judah was saved because the Lord alone is God and He acted for the sake of His name and His promises to David. The appearance of Tirhaqah shows that God can marshal whomever He pleases from wherever He pleases to accomplish His counsel. Therefore, the believer can rest.
The Lord Who Hears, Sends, and Saves
Isaiah 37:9 and 2 Kings 19:9 are brief, but their theological and spiritual weight is dense. They show a king who hears news and scrambles for propaganda, a young Cushite ruler on the move, and a beleaguered Judean city awaiting a verdict. They invite readers to attend to verbs and names, to the grammar of hearing, going out, fighting, and sending. They point back to Hezekiah’s tunnels and walls, forward to a night of angelic judgment, and beyond to a world where Cush stretches out her hands to God.
Above all, they bear witness to the God who governs history for the sake of His covenant and for the fame of His name, the God who preserves the line of David so that the Messiah would come, the God who draws the nations into worship, including the peoples of Cush. In times of crisis, the Church should emulate Hezekiah’s resolve and his prayer. Build what you must. Secure the water. Post the guard. Then carry the letter into the sanctuary and say, “O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, enthroned above the cherubim, you are the God, you alone” and “save us… that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you alone are the Lord” (Isaiah 37:16, 20, ESV). The Lord who once turned a rumor into salvation can do so again. The Lord who once moved a Cushite king can move the powers of today, not to eclipse His glory but to reveal it.
The identity of “Tirhaqah, King of Cush” is therefore significant, but it is penultimate. His march is a means. God’s glory is the end. The same Lord who ruled the hearing and sending of kings in 701 BC still reigns, and the Gospel that went forth in power to a Cushite official in Acts 8 continues to gather worshipers from beyond the rivers of Cush. May the Church behold the God of Isaiah and Kings with renewed confidence, and may she labor in prayer and mission with the assurance that history bends under the hand of the One who hears, sends, and saves.
No comments:
Post a Comment