Isaiah 36

The next four chapters contain a historical appendix to the first part of Isaiah’s prophecies, which is at the same time a historical preface to the last part. The principal topics are Sennacherib’s invasion and the slaughter of his host, Hezekiah’s sickness and miraculous recovery, and the intercourse between him and the king of Babylon. The same narrative is found substantially in the second book of Kings (chs. 18-20), and a different account of the same matters in the second book of Chronicles (ch. 32). From the strong resemblance of the passages, and the impossibility of fixing upon either as the more ancient and authentic of the two, the natural inference would seem to be, that they are different drafts or copies of the same composition, or at least that they are both the work of the same writer, and that this writer is Isaiah. That the prophets often acted as historiographers, and that Isaiah in particular discharged this office, are recorded facts. Nothing can be more natural, therefore, than the supposition that he inserted the same narrative in one book as a part of the chronicle of Judah, and in the other as an illustrative appendix to his earlier prophecies. As to the variations of the two from one another, they are precisely such as might have been expected in the case supposed, that is to say, in the case of the same writer twice recording the same facts, especially if we assume an interval between the acts, and a more specific purpose in the one case than the other. It must also be considered that on this hypothesis, the writer expected both accounts to be within the reach of the same readers, and might therefore leave them to illustrate and complete each other. That there is nothing in these variations to forbid the supposition of their being from the same pen, is evinced by the circumstance that each of the parallels has been declared, for similar reasons and with equal confidence, to be a transcript of the other. The specific end, for which the narrative is here recorded, appears to be that of showing the fulfillment of certain prophecies which had relation to a proximate futurity, and thereby gaining credence and authority for those which had a wider scope and a remoter consummation.

Isaiah 36:1

6:1 “And it was (or came to pass) in the fourteenth year of the king Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fenced (or fortified) cities of Judah, and took them.” The parallel passage in Kings is immediately preceded by a summary account of the earlier events of Hezekiah’s reign, with particular mention of his religious reformations and his extirpation of idolatry, to which is added an account of the deportation of the ten tribes by Shalmaneser (2 Kings 18:1-12). This visitation is referred to the apostasy of Israel as its meritorious cause, and contrasted with the favor of the Lord to Hezekiah as a faithful servant. While Ephraim was carried away never to return, Judah was only subjected to a temporary chastisement, the record of which follows. Sennacherib is mentioned, under nearly the same name, by Herodotus, who calls him the king of Assyria and Arabia. This may either be accounted for, as an example of the loose geographical distinctions of the ancient writers, or as implying that the Assyrian conquests really included certain portions of Arabia. Between this verse and the next, as they stand in Isaiah, the narrative in Kings inserts three others, which relate what immediately followed the invasion of the country and preceded the attack upon Jerusalem. The substance of this statement is that Hezekiah sent to Sennacherib at Lachish, saying, I have offended (i.e., in renouncing his allegiance to Assyria), return from me, that which thou puttest on me I will bear; that Sennacherib accordingly imposed a tribute of three hundred talents of Silver and thirty of gold, to pay which Hezekiah gave him all the treasures of the palace and the temple, not excepting the metallic decorations of the doors and pillars (2 Kings 18:14-16). There is nothing, either in the case before us, or in the general analogy of Scripture, to forbid the supposition, that the narrative was intended to exhibit the weakness no less than the strength of Hezekiah’s faith, in which case there is no need of laboriously vindicating all his acts as perfectly consistent with a strong and lively faith, although his general sincerity and godliness cannot be questioned. Another addition to the narrative is found in the second book of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 32:1-8) where we read that Hezekiah, when he saw that Sennacherib was come, and that his face was towards Jerusalem for war, took measures to strengthen the defenses of the city, and to cut off the supply of water from the enemy, while at the same time he encouraged the people to rely upon Jehovah and not to be afraid of the Assyrian host.

All this is spoken of as having taken place before what is recorded in the next verse of the chapter now before us. If we suppose it to have followed Hezekiah’s message to Sennacherib and payment of the tribute, the inference would seem to be that the invader, having received the money, still appeared disposed to march upon the Holy City, whereupon the king abandoned all hope of conciliation, and threw himself without reserve on the divine protection.

Isaiah 36:2

6:2 “And the king of Assyria sent Rabshakeh from Lachish to Jerusalem, to king Hezekiah, with a strong force, and he stood by the conduit (or aqueduct) of the upper pool, in the highway of the fuller’s field.” Besides Rabshakeh, the narrative in Kings mentions Tartan and Rabsaris; that in Chronicles uses the general expression his servants. Rabshakeh may be named alone here as the chief speaker, or as the commander of the expedition. The Jews have a tradition that he was a renegade or apostate Jew. Others account for his knowledge of Hebrew by supposing him to have acquired it by intercourse with captives of the ten tribes. Lachish was a town of Judah south-west of Jerusalem on the way to Egypt. This place Sennacherib was now besieging (2 Chronicles 32:9 and being probably detained longer than he had expected, he detached a part of his forces to attack Jerusalem, or rather to summon Hezekiah to surrender. That the main body of the army afterwards advanced against Jerusalem is nowhere explicitly recorded, although some infer from Isaiah 10:28-32 that they did so, making a circuit to the north for the purpose of surprising the city. It is said in Chronicles that Sennacherib was now before Lachish, in the military sense, (i.e., besieging it, with all his force), which some explain to mean with a large part of it, others with his court and the usual accompaniments of an eastern camp, in order to remove a supposed inconsistency with what is here said. But the phrase in Chronicles relates to the Assyrian force at Lachish before Rabshakeh was detached, and is inserted merely to explain the statement that he came from Lachish, because Sennacherib had halted there with all his army. The verb may also be referred to the halt of Rabshakeh’s detachment, or to the position which they took up on arriving; but it is simpler to refer it to the spot on which Rabshakeh himself stood during the interview about to be described. The spot was doubtless one of great resort. For the localities here mentioned. See the notes on Isaiah 7:3 and Isaiah 22:9-11.

Isaiah 36:3

6:3 “Then came forth unto him Eliakim, Hilkiah’s son, who was over the house, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah, Asaph’s son, the recorder. The parallel narrative (2 Kings 18:18) prefixes to this verse a statement that he called to (or for) the king, in answer to which summons these three ministers came out. Eliakim here appears as Shebna’s successor, according to the prophecy in Isaiah 22:20, and Shebna himself as an inferior office-bearer. Interpreters have amused themselves with trying to discover equivalents in modern parlance for these three official titles, such as chamberlain, steward, majordomo, secretary, master of requests, master of the rolls, historiographer, etc. It is enough to know that they probably denote three principal officers of state, or of the royal household, which in oriental governments is very much the same thing.

Isaiah 36:4

6:4 “And Rabshakeh said to them: Say now (or if you please) to Hezekiah, thus saith the great king, the king of Assyria, What is this confidence which thou confidest in?” He expresses his contempt by withholding the name of king from Hezekiah and calling his own master the great king, a common title of the Persian and other oriental monarchs, corresponding to Grand Seignior, Grand Monarque, and Emperor, as a distinctive royal title. The interrogation in the last clause implies surprise and scorn at a reliance so unfounded. ‘Confide’ and ‘confidence’ sustain the same etymological relation to each other as the Hebrew noun and verb.

Isaiah 36:5

6:5 “I say (or have said), only word of lips, counsel and strength for the war; now on whom hast thou confided, that thou hast rebelled against me?” The parallel passage in Kings has ‘thou hast said’, which Lowth assumes to be the true text here, while others treat the common reading as an error of the writer or abridger. The truth no doubt is that both the readings are original, since both may be so explained as to express the same idea. The simplest construction of what follows is: ‘I say, mere word of lips is (your) counsel and strength for the war,’ (i.e., your pretended strength) and wisdom are mere talk, false pretension. The allusion is not so much to Hezekiah’s prayers as to his addresses to the people, recorded in 2 Chronicles 32:6-8. The sense of the other passage (2 Kings 18:20) seems to be, thou hast said (to thyself, or thought, that) mere talk is counsel and strength for the war. The contemptuous import of word of lips, is apparent from Proverbs 14:23. The rebellion mentioned in the last clause is Hezekiah’s casting off the Assyrian yoke. (2 Kings 18:7).

Isaiah 36:6

6:6 “Behold, thou hast trusted in the staff (or support) of this broken reed, in Egypt, which, (if) a man lean upon it, will go into his hand and pierce it; so is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all those trusting in him.” He answers his own question. The charge of relying upon Egypt may be regarded either as a true one, or as a malicious fabrication, or as a mere inference from the analogy of other cases and the habitual relation of the parties. Egypt may be called a broken reed, either as being always weak, or in allusion to what it had already suffered from Assyria. Broken does not mean entirely divided, but so bruised or shattered as to yield no firm support but rather to do injury. (See Isaiah 42:3 below).

Isaiah 36:7

6:7 “And if thou say to me, we trust in Jehovah our God, is it not He whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away, and said to Judah and to Jerusalem, before this altar shall ye worship?” Rabshakeh’s question evidently refers to Hezekiah’s reformation of religious worship (2 Kings 18:4) which he erroneously regarded as a change of the national religion.

Isaiah 36:8

6:8 “And now, engage, I pray thee, with my lord, the king of Assyria, and I will give thee two thousand horses, if thou be able on thy part to set riders upon them.” A contemptuous comparison between the Jews, who were almost destitute of cavalry, and the Assyrians, who were strong in that species of force (Isaiah 5:28). Whether the first verb refers to fight or to negotiation, must be determined by the context.

Isaiah 36:9

6:9 “And how wilt thou turn away the face of one governor (or satrap) of the least of my master’s servants? So thou hast reposed thyself on Egypt, with respect to chariots and horses.” As a man is said to turn his face towards an object of attack, so the latter may be said to turn back (or away) the face of his assailant when he repels him. The last clause is an inference from the first, as the first is from the foregoing verse. If Hezekiah could not command two thousand horsemen, he was unprepared to resist even a detachment of the Assyrian force; and if thus helpless, he must be trusting, not in his own resources, but in foreign aid.

Isaiah 36:10

:10 “And now (is it) without Jehovah I have come up against this land to destroy it? Jehovah said to me, go up to (or against) this land and destroy it.” This is a bold attempt to terrify the Jews by pleading the authority of their own tutelary deity for this invasion.

Isaiah 36:11

:11 “Then said Eliakim and Shebna and Joah unto Rabshakeh, Pray speak unto thy servants in Aramean, for we understand (it), and speak not to us in Jewish, in the ears of the people who (are) on the wall.” This request implies an apprehension of the bad effect of his address upon the multitude. Aramean corresponds very nearly to Syrian in latitude of meaning; but the language meant is not what we call Syriac, but an older form, which was probably current, as the French is now, at the courts and among the educated classes of an extensive region. Jewish is Hebrew, so called by the Jews, as the language of the whole British Empire is called English, or as German is sometimes called Saxon. The use of this term here is urged by some as a proof of later date than the time of Isaiah, on the ground that the distinctive name Jewish could not have been common till long after the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes, which left Judah the only representative of Israel. But how long after this event may we assume that such a usage became common? The ten tribes were carried into exile by Sennacherib’s father, if not by his grandfather.

It is altogether probable that from the time of the great schism between Ephraim and Judah, the latter began to call the national language by its own distinctive name. At the period in question, such a designation was certainly more natural, in the mouths of Jews, than Israelite or even Hebrew. ‘We understand,’ literally, we (are) hearing, (i.e., hearing distinctly and intelligently).

Isaiah 36:12

:12 “And Rabshakeh said: Is it to thy master and to thee, that my master hath sent me to speak these words? Is it not to the men sitting on the wall to eat their own dung and to drink their own water with you?” The last clause is obviously descriptive of the horrors of famine in their most revolting form. The same idea is conveyed still more distinctly in Chronicles: ‘whereon do ye trust that ye abide in the fortress of Jerusalem? doth not Hezekiah persuade you to give over yourselves to die by famine and by thirst, saying, the Lord our God shall deliver us out of the hand of the king of Assyria?’ (2 Chronicles 32:10-11). So here the people are described as sitting on the wall, (i.e., holding out against Sennacherib), only that they may experience these horrors.

Isaiah 36:13

:13 “And Rabshakeh stood and called with a loud voice in Jewish (i.e., Hebrew), and said, Hear the words of the great king, the king of Assyria.” In so doing he not only testified his contempt for the king’s messengers by insolently disregarding their request, but made a politic appeal to the hopes and fears of the multitude. That he stood and called, is explained by some to mean that he assumed a higher position, or came nearer to the wall; but the simplest and most natural explanation is, that he remained where he was before and merely raised his voice.

Isaiah 36:14

:14 “Thus saith the king: let not Hezekiah deceive you, for he will not be able to deliver you.” The repeated mention of the king reminds them, that he is not speaking in his own name, but in that of a great monarch. The parallel passage (2 Kings 18:29) adds, ‘out of his hand’.

Isaiah 36:15

:15 “And let not Hezekiah make you trust in Jehovah, saying, Jehovah will certainly save us, this city shall not be given up into the hand of the king of Assyria.” The idea of certain deliverance is expressed by the idiomatic combination of the future and infinitive.

Isaiah 36:16

:16 “Hearken not to Hezekiah, for thus saith the king of Assyria, make with me a blessing, and come out unto me, and eat ye (every) man his own vine and (every) man his own fig-tree, and drink ye (every) man the waters of his own cistern.” Some explain the phrase here used, ‘make me a present’ or ‘make an agreement with me by a present’. It is possible, however, to adhere more closely to the usage of the term, by taking blessing in the sense of friendly salutation, which in the east is commonly an invocation of the divine blessing. Thus the verb to bless is often used to express the act of greeting or of taking leave. To make a blessing with one then might mean to enter into amicable intercourse. To ‘come out’ is in Hebrew the common military phrase for the surrender of a besieged town. The inducements offered in the last clause are in obvious antithesis to the revolting threat or warning in the last clause of v. 12. To eat the vine and fig tree (meaning to eat their fruit) is an elliptical form of speech, which has its analogies in every language.

Isaiah 36:17

:17 “Until I come and take you away to a land like your own land, a land of corn and wine, a land of bread and vineyards.” The parallel passage (2 Kings 18:32) adds, ‘a land of oil-olive and honey, that ye may live and not die’. This reference to the deportation of the people as a future event has led some interpreters to the conclusion, that Sennacherib was now on his way to Egypt, and deferred the measure until his return. It has been disputed what particular land is here meant, some saying Mesopotamia, to which others object that it was not a wine-growing country. But there is no need of supposing that the Assyrian’s description was exactly true. He may indeed have intended merely to promise them in general a country as abundant as their own.

Isaiah 36:18

:18 “Let not (or beware lest) Hezekiah seduce you, saying, Jehovah will deliver us. Have the gods of the nations delivered every one his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria?” The Assyrian here, with characteristic recklessness, forsakes his previous position, that he was but acting as Jehovah’s instrument, and sets himself in disdainful opposition to Jehovah Himself.

Isaiah 36:19

:19 “Where (are) the gods of Hamath and Arpad? where the gods of Sepharvaim? and (when or where was it) that they delivered Samaria out of my hand?” In the rapidity of his triumphant interrogation, he expresses himself darkly and imperfectly. The last clause must of course refer to the gods of Samaria, though not expressly mentioned. For the situation of Hamath and Arpad, see the note on Isaiah 10:9. Sepharvaim is probably the Sipphara of Ptolemy, a town and province in the south of Mesopotamia, already subject to Assyria in the days of Shalmaneser. The parallel passage (2 Kings 18:34) adds Hena and Hevah, which are also named with Sepharvaim in 2 Kings 19:13 and Isaiah 37:13. The question (where are they?) seems to imply, not only that they had not saved their worshippers, but that they had ceased to be.

Isaiah 36:20

:20 “Who (are they) among all the gods of these lands, that have delivered their land out of my hand, that Jehovah should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand?” In this argumentative interrogation, he puts Jehovah on a level with the gods of the surrounding nations. This is still more frequently and pointedly expressed in the parallel passage in Chronicles. “Know ye not what I and my fathers have done unto all the nations of the countries? Were the gods of the nations of the countries able to deliver their country out of my hand? Who was there among all the gods of these nations, which my fathers utterly destroyed, that was able to deliver his people out of my hand, that your God should be able to deliver you out of my hand? And now, let not Hezekiah deceive you, and let him not seduce you, neither believe him; for no god of any nation or kingdom has been able to deliver his people out of my hand, and out of the hand of my fathers; how much less shall your God deliver you out of my hand” (2 Chronicles 32:13-15). From the same authority we learn that over and above what is recorded, Sennacherib’s servants spake still more against the God Jehovah and against Hezekiah his servant (v.16), and that they cried with a loud voice in the Jewish language, to the people of Jerusalem who were on the wall, to affright them, and to trouble them, that they might take the city; and they spake against the God of Jerusalem as against the gods of the nations of the earth, the work of man’s hands.

Isaiah 36:21-22

“And they held their peace, and did not answer him a word, for such was the commandment of the king, saying, Ye shall not answer him.” Then came Eliakim, Hilkiah’s son, who (was) over the house, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah, Asaph’s son, the recorder, unto Hezekiah, with their clothes rent (literally, rent of clothes), and told him the words of Rabshakeh. Some of the older writers understand the rending of their garments as a mere sign of their horror at Rabshakeh’s blasphemies: some of the moderns as a mere sign of despondency and alarm at the impending dangers; whereas both may naturally be included.