Isaiah 7:8

Within threescore and five years. The meaning of this prediction is uncertain. According to the chronology of the kings followed tentatively in this commentary (see Vol. II, pp. 77, 143, 749), the prediction was made about 734 B.C., and no chronology places the accession of Ahaz earlier than 742. Yet by 722 Israel, the northern kingdom, had come to its end with the fall of Samaria to the Assyrians. Some modern scholars have concluded that the clause introduced by these words was inserted by a later hand. They point to the fact that this statement seems to interrupt the flow of thought between vs. 8 and 9. But there is no certain evidence that such an insertion was made.

Assuming that the number 65 was in the original text of Isaiah, and there is no conclusive reason for thinking that it was not, two possible fulfillments have been suggested. Sixty-five years after 734, inclusive, would be 670, when Esarhaddon (681—669) reigned over Assyria. It is a fact that Esarhaddon (and after him his successor Ashurbanipal, the Biblical Asnapper) had certain Mesopotamian peoples transported to the former territory of the northern kingdom (Ezra 4:2-10). This was long after Israel had come to its end as a nation (723/722 B.C.). The Assyrian policy of scattering subject peoples was designed to obliterate old national identities and loyalties. So many Israelites of the ten tribes were absorbed into the neighboring populations that they have frequently been referred to as “lost” tribes. It is probable that some of them later joined the captives from Judah and returned with them after the Exile, but as individuals in a Jewish community that was the continuation of the old kingdom of Judah, not of Israel.

Another interpretation has been suggested — that the 65 years may have begun about the time of the earthquake, during the reign of Uzziah or Jeroboam II. This earthquake was the token of the Lord’s judgments upon Israel mentioned by Amos. If so, Isaiah here merely refers to the fall of Samaria in 723/722. This is possible, but not provable, because the exact date of the earthquake is not known. Since no definite starting point of the 65 years is given, it is not possible today — nor is it necessary — to determine the meaning of the prediction. In all probability a specific prophecy such as this was clear and meaningful to the people in whose day it was given. Obviously, it was more important for them to understand it than it is for us.