THIS chapter naturally falls into two parts. The first describes the conduct of the people of Jerusalem during a siege, vs. 1-14. The second 25 predicts the removal of Shebna from his post as treasurer or steward of the royal household, vs. 15-25. The modern critics are of course inclined to treat these parts as independent prophecies, although they admit that both are by Isaiah, and that both were written probably about the same time. Against this supposition, and in favour of regarding them as one connected composition, we may argue, first, from the want of any title to the second part. This, it is true, is not conclusive, but creates a presumption which can only be rebutted by strong direct evidence. Another reason is that the second part of this chapter is the only example in Isaiah of a prophecy against an individual. This again is not conclusive, since there might be one such prophecy if no more. But the presumption is against it, as ana logy and usage give the preference to any exegetical hypothesis which would connect this personal prediction with one of a more general nature. A third reason is that in the second part the ground or occasion of the threatening is not expressed, and it is certainly less probable that the design was meant to be conjectured or inferred from the prophecy itself, than that it is explained in the passage which immediately precedes it. The result appears to be, that by considering the parts as independent prophecies we leave the second incomplete and sui generis, whereas by combining them, we make the one explain the other; and as no philological or critical objection has been urged against this supposition, it is probably the true one. The whole may then be described as a prophecy against the people of Jerusalem in general, and against Shebna in particular, considered as their leader and example.
It has been disputed whether the description in the first part of this chapter was intended to apply to the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib, or by Esarhaddon in the reign of Manasseh, or by Nebuchadnezzar, or by Titus. An obvious objection to the last two is that they leave the prediction against Shebna unconnected with the one before it. Cocceius ingeniously suggests that Eliakim and his family were to retain their official rank and influence until the city was destroyed and the kingdom of Judah at an end; but this, though possible, will scarcely be preferred to any more natural and simple supposition. The objection to Sennacherib’s invasion is that no such extremities were then experienced as the Prophet here describes. The objection to Nebuchadnezzar’s is that vs. 9—11 contain an exact de scription of the measures taken by Hezekiah, as recorded in 2 Chron. 32: 3-5. Moved by this consideration, some have assumed a reference to both events, the siege by Sennacherib, and that by Nebuchadnezzar. According to Vitringa, the Prophet first describes the later event (vs. 1-5), and then recurs to one nearer at hand (vs. 6-14), this being placed last partly for the purpose of bringing it into juxtaposition with the threatening against Shebna. According to Calvin, vs. 1-5 predict the siege by Nebuchadnezzar, while vs. 6-11 describe that by Sennacherib as already past. These suppositions, though admissible in case of necessity, can be justified by nothing short of it. As the measures described in vs. 9—11 were temporary ones which may have been frequently repeated, it is riot absolutely necessary to apply that passage to the times of Hezekiah. If the whole must be applied to one specific point of time, it is probably the taking of Jerusalem by the king of Assyria in the days of Manasseh, when the latter was himself carried captive with his chief men, and Shebna possibly among the rest. The choice seems to lie between this hypothesis and that of a generic prediction, a prophetic picture of the conduct of the Jews in a certain conjuncture of affairs which happened more than once, particular strokes of the description being drawn from different memorable sieges, and especially from those of Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar.
1. The burden of the Valley of Vision. What (is) to thee (what hast thou? or what aileth thee?) that thou art wholly (literally the whole of thee) gone up on the house-tops? The first clause is not an inscription of later date, erroneously copied from v. 5 (Hitzig etc.), but the original commencement of the prophecy, or of this part of it. The modern Germans pronounce all the titles in this form spurious, and then make the use of the word sttsa in each particular case a proof of later date. It is just as easy and far more reasonable to assert that the use of this word in such connex ions is a characteristic of Isaiah’s manner. The enigmatical form is intentional. By the valley of vision we are not to understand Babylon, nor Judea (Calvin, Lightfoot), but Jerusalem, as being surrounded by hills with valleys between them. There is no allusion to the degradation which awaited Jerusalem (Kimchi), nor to the name Moriah (J. D. Michaelis), nor to the school of the prophets in the valley at its foot (Vitringa), nor to the spectacle which was soon to be there exhibited (J. H. Michaelis), but to Jerusalem as the seat of revelation, the abode of the prophets, and the place where God’s presence was manifested. T^~!i^ as usual expresses both surprise and disapprobation. (Vide supra, ch. 3: 15.) The oriental roofs are flat and used for various purposes. The ascent here mentioned has been variously explained, as being designed to gratify curiosity by gazing at the approaching enemy or the crowds of people seeking refuge in Jerusalem, or to assail the invaders or take measures for resisting them, or to indulge in grief, or to engage in idolatrous worship, or to celebrate a feast. The truth probably is, that the expression is here used as a lively description of an oriental city in commotion, without any intention to intimate as yet the cause or the occasion, just as we might say that the streets of our own cities were full of people, whether the concourse were occasioned by grief, joy, fear, or any other cause. Some suppose the Prophet to inquire as a stranger what is the matter; but he seems rather to express disapprobation of the stir which he describes.
2. Full of stirs, a noisy town, a joyous city, thy slain are not slain with the sword nor dead in battle. The first clause is commonlyexplained by the older writers as descriptive of the commotion and alarm occasioned by the enemy’s approach. But this makes it necessary either to give ntik? a sense not justified by usage, or to refer it to a past time, while the other epithets are applied to the present. Thus Junius makes the Prophet ask, how is it that the city is now full of confusion and alarm which was once so joyous? But this distinction of times is altogether arbitrary. The same remark applies, but in a less degree, to another construction which refers the whole clause to past time. The latest writers are agreed in making it descriptive of the present, not in reference however to alarm and agitation, but to the opposite condition of joyous excitement, frivolous gayety, and reckless indifference, described in v. 13. Kennicott and Tingstad make “pbbn mean thy warriors, but it is now universally taken in its usual sense. The expression thy slain are not slain with the sword cannot mean that none were slain, but necessarily implies mortality of another kind. The allusion is supposed by some to be to pestilence, by others to famine, such as prevailed in the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and also by the Romans. As neither is specified, the words may be more generally understood as describing all kinds of mortality incident to sieges, excepting that of actual warfare.
3. All thy chiefs fled together—from the bow—they were bound— all that were found of thee were bound together—from afar they fled. This verse describes the people, not as crowding from the country into Jerusalem, nor as fleeing from the public places in Jerusalem to hide themselves, but as flying from the enemy, and being nevertheless taken. “pEp is neither a civil nor a military chief exclusively, but may be applied to either, w is not to wander but to flee. The masoretic accents connect MUpa with lies, according to which construction we may either read, they are bound (i. e, made prisoners) by the bow (i. e. the archers, as light-armed troops), or without the bow (i. e. not in battle, as the slain were not slain with the sword); or it may mean without resistance, without drawing a bow. Some understand it to mean, they are restrained (by fear) from (using) the bow, Ewald and some older writers disregard the accent and connect rvapa with vriJ, they fled from the bow, but are nevertheless taken prisoners together. All that were found of thee may be in antithesis to thy chiefs, as if he had said, not only thy chiefs but all the rest. Some understand this as describing the voluntary confinement of the people in Jerusalem during a siege; others apply it to their vain endeavours to escape from its privations and dangers. It is best to give the verse its largest meaning as descriptive of the hardships and concomitant evils, not of one siege merely but of sieges in general.
4. Therefore I said (or say), Look away from me; let me be bitter in weeping (or weep Utterly); try not to comfort me for the desolation of the daughter of my people. These are not the words of Jerusalem in answer to the question in v. 1 (Junius), but those of the Prophet expressing his sympathy with the sufferings which he foresees and foretells, as in ch. 16: 11. 21:3. wsttn seems to include the idea of obtruding consolation upon one who is unwilling to receive it. The daughter of my people does not mean the towns dependent on Jerusalem (Junius), nor Jerusalem itself as built by the people (Clericus), nor the sons of the people expressed by a feminine collective (Gesenius), but the people itself, poetically represented as a woman, and affectionately spoken of as a daughter.
5. For there is a day of confusion and trampling and perplexity to the Lord Jehovah of Hosts in the valley of vision—breaking the wall and crying to the mountain. I9*istb does not mean from or by the Lord, as the efficient cause, but to the Lord as the possessor. It is equivalent to our phrase the Lord has, which cannot be otherwise expressed in Hebrew. He has aday. e. he has it appointed, or has it in reserve. (Vide supra, ch. 2: 12.) Trampling does not refer to the treading down of the fields and gardens, but of men in battle, or at least in a general commotion and confusion. -sp^P» has been variously explained as a participle and a noun, and as expressing the ideas of breaking down, shouting, and placing chariots or wagons in array. sittJ is not simply a cry but a cry for help. To the mountain are not the words of the cry, but its direction. The mountain is not Jerusalem or Zion as the residence of God, but the mountains round about Jerusalem (Ps. 125:1.) The meaning is not that the people are heard crying on their way to the mountain, but rather that their cries are reverberated from it. The whole verse is a vivid poetical description of the confusion of a siege.
6. And Elam bare a quiver, with chariots, men (i. e. infantry), horsemen, and Kir uncovered the shield. Elam was a province of Persia, often put for the whole country. Its people were celebrated archers. Some read chariots of men i. e. occupied by men, which would seem to be a superfluous description. Others read cavalry or riding of men i. e. mounted men as in ch. 21: 5, but in that case ta’WB would be superfluous. Others give 33*n, here and in ch. 21, the sense of row, line, troop, or column, which is not sufficiently sustained by usage. Others give - its usual sense of in, which cannot however be applied to horsemen. The sense of horses, doubtful at best, is entirely unnecessary here. On the whole, the simplest and most natural construction seems to be that which supposes three kinds of troops to be here enumerated; cavalry, infantry, and men in chariots. Kir is now agreed to be identical with KVQOS, the name of a river rising in the Caucasus and emptying into the Caspian sea, from which Georgia (Girgistan) is supposed to derive its name. Kir was subject to Assyria in the time of Isaiah, as appears from the fact that it was one of the regions to which the exiles of the ten tribes were transported. It may here be put for Media, as Elam is for Persia. The uncovering of the shield has reference to the involucra clypeorum and the tegimenta scutis detrahenda, of which Cicero and Cesar speak, leathern cases used to protect the shield or keep it bright. The removal of these denotes preparation for battle. The ancient versions and some modern writers make vp an appellative and translate the clause, the shield leaves the wall bare by being taken down from the place where it hung, or the enemy deprives the wall of its shield i. e. its defenders. Some even suppose an allusion to the testudo or covered way of shields, under which the Roman soldiers used to advance to the walls of a besieged town. All the latest writers are agreed in making *pp a pro per name. The verbs are in the past tense, which proves nothing however as to the date of the events described.
7. And it came to pass (that) the choice of thy valleys (thy choicest valleys) were full of chariots, and the horsemen drew up (or took up a position) towards the gate. The most obvious construction of the first clause, and the one indicated by the accents, is, the choice of thy valleys was, or it was the choice of thy valleys; but as this seems forbidden by the following words, most writers either omit wi as a mere pleonasm, or give it the usual idiomatic meaning when it introduces or continues a narrative. It seems here to mark the progress of events. The Prophet sees something which he did not see before. He had seen the chariots and horsemen coming; but now he sees the valleys around full of them. The future form adopted by some versions is entirely unauthorized. Whatever be the real date of the events described, the Prophet evidently meant to speak of them as past or present, and we have neither right nor reason to depart from his chosen form of expression. The address is to Jerusalem. The valleys are mentioned as the only places where the cavalry or chariots could be useful or could act at all. As the only level approach to Jerusalem is on the north, that quarter may be specially intended, and the gate may be a gate on that side of the city. Otherwise it would be better to take mst» indefinitely as denoting the direction of the movement, nu) may either be explained as an emphatic infinitive, in which case the verb will be reflexive or govern some thing understood, or as a verbal noun equivalent in this connexion to our post or station. Another admissible construction is to make aiffl-iBn the object of the verb, and the verb itself indefinite: c they station the horsemen opposite the gate.’
8. And he removed the covering of Judah, and thou didst look in that day to the armour of the house of the forest. The first verb, which some connect with the enemy and others with Jehovah understood, is really indefinite and may be resolved into an English passive, the covering was removed. This expression has been variously explained to mean the dis closure of long hidden treasures — the taking of the fortified towns of Judah by Sennacherib — the disclosure of the weak points of the country to the enemy — the opening of the eyes of the Jews themselves to their own condition — the ignominious treatment of the people, represented by the oriental figure of an unveiled virgin. The analogous expression of taking away the veil from the heart (2 Cor. 3: 15, 16), and the immediate mention of the measures used for the defence of the city, are perhaps decisive in favour of explaining the words to mean that the Jews’ own eyes were opened. As aafc) cannot well agree with rnirn, which as the name of the people must be masculine, it is best to understand it as the second person, and to suppose an abrupt apostrophe to Judah, a figure of perpetual occurrence in Isaiah. “isirt rvo is not a proper name, but the designation of a house built by Solo mon, and elsewhere called the house of the forest of Lebanon, because erect ed on that mountain, as some writers think, but according to the common opinion, because built of cedar-wood from Lebanon. This house is commonly supposed to have been either intended for an arsenal by Solomon him self, or converted into one by some of his successors, and to be spoken of in Neh. 3:19 under the name of piw. There is no need of supposing that the house contained only the golden shields of Solomon and Rehoboam. The fact that these were there deposited might naturally lead to a more extensive use of the building for the purpose mentioned. Looking to this arsenal implies dependence on its stores as the best means of defence against the enemy, unless we understand the words to signify inspection, which agrees well with what follows, but is not sufficiently sustained by the usage of the verb and preposition. In that day seems to mean at length, i. e. when made aware of their danger.
9. And the breaches of the city of David ye saw, that they were many, and ye gathered the waters of the lower pool. The breaches meant are not those made by the enemy in the siege here described, but those caused by previous neglect and decay. The city of David may be either taken as a poetical name for Jerusalem at large, or in its strict sense as de noting the upper town upon Mount Zion, which was surrounded by a wall of its own, and called the city of David because he took it from the Jebusites and afterwards resided there. Ye saw may either mean, ye saw them for the first time, at length became aware of them, or, ye looked at them, ex amined them, with a view to their repair. The last is more probably implied than expressed. ns may with equal propriety be rendered for, imply ing that they could no longer overlook or fail to see them, because they were so many. The last clause describes a measure of defence peculiarly important at Jerusalem where there are very few perennial springs. This precaution (as well as the one previously hinted at) was actually taken by Hezekiah in the prospect of Sennacherib’s approach (2 Chr. 32: 4), and has perhaps been repeated in every siege of any length which Jerusalem has since experienced. The lower pool is probably the tank or reservoir still in existence in the valley of Hinnom opposite the western side of Mount Zion. This name, which occurs only here, has reference to the upper pool higher up in the same valley near the Jaffa gate. (Vide supra, ch. 7: 3. Compare Robinson’s Palestine, I. 483-487.)
10. And the houses of Jerusalem ye numbered, and ye pulled down the houses to repair (rebuild or fortify) the wall. The numbering of the houses probably has reference, not to the levying of men or of a tax, but tothe measure mentioned in the last clause, for the purpose of determining what houses could be spared, and perhaps of estimating the expense. The houses are destroyed, not merely to make room for new erections, but to furnish materials. Ancient Jerusalem, like that of our day, was built of stone.
11. And a reservoir ye made between the two walls (or the double wall) for the waters of the old pool, and ye did not look to the maker of it, and the former of it ye did not see. rtjj?a according to its etymology is a place of gathering, and according to usage a place where waters are collected. As the Hebrew dual is not a mere periphrasis for two (vide supra ch. 6: 2), d^nbh cannot simply mean two walls, but must denote a double wall in some situation where but one had been before, or might have been expected. The reference is probably to a wall built out from that of the city and returning to it, so as to enclose the tank or reservoir here mentioned. As this was a temporary measure, perhaps often repeated, there is no need of tracing it in other parts of history or in the present condition- of Jerusalem. It is altogether probable, however, that the old pool here mentioned is the same with the upper pool of ch. 7: 3. Some have identified it with the lower pool of the ninth verse, but this would hardly have been introduced so soon by another name. The last clause shows that the fault, with which the people of Jerusalem were chargeable, was not that of guarding themselves against attack, but that of relying upon human defences, without regard to God. The verbs look and see are evidently used in allusion to the last clause of v. 8 and the first of v. 9. They looked to the arsenal but not to God. This seems to put the clause before us in antithesis to the whole foregoing context from v. 8. If so, the suffixes in M”W and!~n^ cannot refer merely to the pool or reservoir, but must have respect either to the city, or to the calamity now coming on it. In the latter case, the feminine pro noun may be indefinitely understood as a neuter in Greek or Latin, it, i. e. this crisis or catastrophe, or the whole series of events which led to it. Maker and former are not distinctive terms referring to God’s purpose or decree on one hand, and the execution of it on the other, but poetical equivalents both denoting the efficient cause.
12. And the Lord Jehovah of Hosts called in that day to weeping and to mourning and to baldness and to girding sackcloth. The meaning is not that he called or.summoned grief to come, but that he called on men to mourn, not only by his providence, but by his word through the prophets. By baldness we may either understand the tearing of the hair, or the shaving of the head, or both, as customary signs of grief. The last phrase, rendered in the English Bible girding with sackcloth, does not mean girding up the other garments with a sackcloth girdle, but girding the body with a sackcloth dress, or girding on i. e. wearing sackcloth. The providential call to mourning here referred to must be the siege before described.
13. And behold mirth and jollity, slaying of oxen and killing of sheep, eating of flesh and drinking of wine; eat and drink, for to-morrow we die. This verse presents the contrast of their actual behaviour with that to which God called them by his providence. The construction in the common version is ambiguous, as slaying etc. seem to be participles agreeing with joy and gladness, whereas the Hebrew verbs are all infinitives. Some suppose the words of the revellers to begin with inn (let us kill etc.), others with bbx (let us eat flesh etc.); but the common division of the sentence is most natural, because there is then no repetition or tautology. In the one case, the people themselves say, let us eat flesh and drink wine, let us eat and drink. In the other it is said that they do eat flesh and drink wine, and they are then introduced as saying, let us eat and drink. On the same ground, the common interpretation is to be preferred to Hendewerk’s idea, that the whole verse contains the words of the Prophet, and that those of the people are not introduced at all. { *Slaying of oxen, killing of sheep, eating of flesh, drinking of wine, eating, drinking, though to-mor row we die!’ Another objection to this construction is, that it supposes the event to be still future even to the Prophet’s view; whereas the whole fore going context represents it as already past, if not in fact, at least in his perceptions. The common version, *let us eat and drink, is perfectly correct as to sense, but needlessly departs from the peculiar and expressive form of the original. I have substituted eat and drink, not as imperatives, but as the simplest forms of the English verbs. (Vide supra, ch. 21: 5.) To eat and to drink might be considered more exact, but would not exhibit the compression and breviloquence of the original. It has been disputed whether these last words are expressive of contemptuous incredulity or of a desperate determination to spend the residue of life in pleasure. It is by no means clear that these two feelings are exclusive of each other, since the same man might express his disbelief of the threatening, and his resolution, if it should prove true, to die in the enjoyment of his favourite indulgences. At all events, there can be no need of restricting the full import of the language, as adapted to express both states of mind, in different persons, if not in the same.
14. A.nd Jehovah of Hosts revealed himself in my ears (i. e. made a revelation to me, saying) If this iniquity shall be forgiven you (i. e. it certainly shall not be forgiven you) until you die. Some take fto as a simple passive and supply a preposition before frin^, it was revealed in my ears by Jehovah of Hosts. This is no doubt the true sense; but the construction of the verb as a reflexive with mm for its subject, is fully justified by the analogy of 1 Sam. 2: 27. 3: 21. It is wholly unnecessary, therefore, to read i37», ’ in the ears of Jehovah of Hosts,’ or to supply ^EX, ’ in my ears, saith Jehovah of Hosts.’ (Vide supra, ch. 5: 9.) The i before n^3 is not conversive, as it does not connect it with the future msiaj, which is merely a quotation, but with the infinitives in the first clause of v. 13, which represent historical or descriptive tenses. (Nordheimer <§> 219.) The conditional form of expression, so far from expressing doubt or contingency, adds to the following declaration the solemnity of an oath. What is said is also sworn, so that by two immutable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, the truth of the threatening may be confirmed. On the elliptical formula of swearing, vide supra, ch. 5: 9. This iniquity of course means the presumptuous contempt of God’s messages and providential warnings, with which the people had been charged in the preceding verse. This offence is here treated as the sin against the Holy Ghost is in the New Testament, and is indeed very much of the same nature. “IB5? strictly means shall be atoned for or expiated. Until you die is equivalent to ever, the impossibility of expiation afterwards being assumed. This use of until is common in all languages. Some of the Jewish writers understand the words to mean at death but not before, and draw the inference that death does or may atone for sin. But the Targum has the second death, a phrase found also in the Greek of the New Testament (6 dev, and constantly employed in modern religious phraseology to signify eternal perdition. In this case, however, there is no ground for de parting from the simple and ordinary meaning of the words. c As long as you live you shall not be forgiven’ is equivalent to saying ‘ you shall never be forgiven.3
15. Thus said the Lord Jehovah of Hosts, Go, go in to this treasurer (or steward, or chamberlain), to Shebna who (is) over the house. From the people in general the threatening now passes to an individual, no doubt because he was particularly guilty of the crime alleged, and by his influence the means of leading others astray likewise. The word “jib has been variously derived and explained to mean a Sochenite (from Sochen in Egypt), a sojourner or dweller (i. q. l^iti) in the sanctuary, a steward or provider, a treasurer, and an amicus regis or king’s friend, i. e. his confi dant and counsellor. Some understand the last words of the verse as simply explanatory of this title; while others argue that the Prophet would hardly have described the man by two titles meaning the same thing. A third class deny that l^b is here applied to Shebna at all, and understand the words to mean this steward of Shebna’s, or this (person) labouring for Shebna, i. e. making his monument. But Shebna himself is undoubtedly the object of address in the remainder of the chapter. Whatever “jib may denote, it must be something compatible with the description in the last clause of the verse. Whatever Shebna may have been as “jib, he was certainly over the house. Some of the ancient versions give to house here the sense of temple or the house of God, and infer that Shebna, if not High Priest or a Priest at all, was at least the treasurer of the temple. But the phrase here used is nowhere else employed in reference to the temple, whereas it repeatedly occurs as the description of an officer of state or of the royal household, a major-domo, chamberlain, or steward. As the modern distinction between state and household officers is not an ancient or an oriental one, it is not unlikely that the functionary thus described, like the medieval maires du palais, was in fact prime-minister. This would account for the influence tacitly ascribed to Shebna in this chapter, as well as for his being made the subject of a prophecy. The phrase this treasurer may either be expressive of disapprobation or contempt, or simply designate the man as well known to the Prophet and his readers. These familiar allusions to things and per sons now forgotten, while they add to the obscurity of the passage, furnish an incidental proof of its antiquity and genuineness. The double imperative 83-^ admits of different explanations. The second may perhaps mean go, and the first be a particle of exhortation like the Latin age. It might then be rendered come go, although this would be really an inversion of the He brew phrase, which strictly means go come. On the whole, however, it is better to give T^ the sense of go, and ssa that of enter or go in, meaning into Shebna’s house, or into the sepulchre which he was preparing, and in which some suppose him to have been accosted by the Prophet. The use of Vs for ^ before KWOJ is supposed by some’ to imply the unfavourable nature of the message; but the interchange of the particles is not so unusual as to make this explanation necessary. Some manuscripts and versions add and say to him, which any reader can supply for himself without an emendation of the text.
16. What hast thou here, and whom hast thou here, that thou hast hewn thee here a sepulchre 1 Hewing on high his sepulchre, graving in the rock a habitation for himself! The negation implied in the interrogation is not that he had none to protect and aid him, or that none of his kindred should be buried there because they should be banished with him, but rather that he had none buried there before him; it was not his birth-place or the home of his fathers. What interest, what part or lot, what personal or hereditary claim, hast thou in Judah? Here then refers not to the sepulchre, but to Jerusalem. The foreign form of the name Shebna, which occurs only in the history of Hezekiah, and for which no satisfactory He brew etymology has been proposed, seems to confirm this explanation of the first clause as representing him to be a foreigner, perhaps a heathen. An other confirmation is afforded by the otherwise unimportant circumstance, that the name of Shebna’s father is nowhere added to his own, as in the case of Eliakim and Joah (v. 20. ch. 36: 3). These seem to be sufficient reasons for concluding that the Prophet is directed to upbraid him, not with seeking to be buried in the royal sepulchres although of mean extraction, but with making provision for himself and his posterity in a land to which he was an alien, and from which he was so soon to be expelled. The third person in the last clause is not to be gratuitously changed into the second (thy sepulchre, a habitation for thyself), nor is the syntax to be solved by introducing a comparison (as he that heweth), but rather by supposing that the Prophet, after putting to him the prescribed question, was to express his own contemptuous surprise at what he saw, or as Maurer says, to let his eyes pass from the man to the sepulchre which he was hewing. It is not necessarily implied however in this explanation that the conversation was to take place at the sepulchre. fho is properly a noun, and means a high place, but is here and elsewhere used adverbially. The labour and expense bestowed on ancient sepulchres (of far later date however than Isaiah’s time) is still attested by the tombs remaining at Jerusalem, Petra, and Persepolis, where some are excavated near the tops of lofty rocks in order to be less accessible, to which practice there may be allusion in the ci-ia of the verse before us, as well as in the words of 2 Chr. 32: 33, as explained by most interpreters, viz. that Hezekiah was buried in the highest of the tombs of the sons of David. (See Robinson’s Palestine, I. 516-539. II. 525.) The 13ftia is supposed by some to have allusion to the oriental practice of making tombs in shape (and frequently in size) like houses, by others more poetically to the idea of the grave, as a long home (D^’S n<1?)? the very name applied to it by Solomon (Ecc. 12: 5). In this case, as in many others, the ideal and material allusion may have both been present to the writer’s mind. What (is) to thee and who is to thee are the usual unavoidable periphrases for what and whom hast thou, the verb to have being wholly wanting in this family of languages.
17. Behold, Jehovah is casting thee a cast, oh man! and covering thee a covering. The addition of the infinitive or verbal noun as usual adds emphasis to the expression, while the participle denotes a present act or a proximate futurity. The idea is that he is certainly about to cast and cover thee, or to do it completely and with violence, ba^aa is by some rendered casting out, by others casting down. The latter agrees best with the etymology and with the rest of the description. Those who give the other sense are under the necessity of assuming, that the Prophet, after saying that the Lord would cast him off, goes back to the preliminary acts of seizing him and rolling him. The other explanation gives the natural order. First he is thrown upon the ground, then rolled into a ball, and then violently thrown away. Some of the latest writers give fta9 the sense of seizing, grasping, founded on an Arabic analogy, and justified as they suppose by the usage of the Hebrew word in 1 Sam. 14: 32. 15: 19. 25: 14. But except in these few doubtful cases the word uniformly signifies to veil or cover. As this is the term used in the law which requires the leper to cover his upper lip (Lev. 13:45), Grotius, with perverse ingenuity, infers that Shebna was to be smitten with leprosy, excluded from the city on that account, and afterwards restored, but not reinstated in his former office. Gesenius gives fias the sense of wrapping up, and makes it thus synonymous with Spx. As both the terms have reference to the figure of a ball, the dis tinction seems to be that the first denotes the imposition of a covering or wrapper, and the second the formation of the whole into a regular and compact shape. There are several different ways of construing IM with the words before it. Some suppose it to be governed by n^a—with the cast of a man, i. e. a manly, vigorous, or powerful cast. In this case we must either suppose nVjVj to be an absolute form put for the construct—or nbaVo to be understood after it—or IM to be in apposition with it, or in agree ment with it as an adjective — all which are gratuitous and forced assumptions. A better method of obtaining the same sense is by trans lating ina—[ike a man i.e. a mighty man. (Compare Job 38: 3.) According to Hendewerk, r&aba is a verbal noun construed as an infinitive and governing naa as wi does mm in ch. 11: 9. The sense is then with the casting of a man i. e. as a man is cast or thrown. But the throw ing of a man is the very thing here likened to the throwing of a ball. The simplest construction is the one givren by Ewald and by many older writers, which takes naa as a vocative. J. D. Michaelis reads “iaa and translates it oh robber! But this is not the meaning even of that word. Others take laa in its proper sense of mighty man, others in the simple sense of man as distinguished from God, of which use there are several unequivocal examples. (Job 22: 2. 10: 5. Prov. 20: 4.)
18. Rolling he will roll thee in a roll, like a ball (thrown} into a spacious ground — there shalt thou die — and there the chariots of thy glory — shame of thy masters house. The ejection of Shebna from the country is compared to the rolling of a ball into an open space where there is nothing to obstruct its progress. The ideas suggested are those of violence, rapidity, and distance. Maurer supposes tps to denote a rolling motion; but most interpreters apply it to the act of rolling up into a ball, which agrees better both with usage and the context. The ellipsis of thrown or cast before ^ is altogether natural and easily supplied. Instead of spacious the original has a^ ram wide on both hands or sides, i. e. extended and open in every direction. All the interpreters appear to apply this directly to Shebna, and are thence led to raise the question, what land is meant? Some say Assyria, some Mesopotamia, Ewald the wilderness, Grotius the open fields out of Jerusalem where lepers were obliged to dwell. It seems to me however that the phrase in question has relation not to Shebna as a man but to the ball with which he is compared, and that -pa should be taken in the sense of ground. To the three derivatives of eps in the first clause Henderson cites as illustrative parallels ch. 27: 7. 10: 16. 29: 14. Mic. 2: 4, and from the classics, the ndvog n6v($ novov <p«jp« of Sophocles and the doaiv xaxav uaxwv xaxoi$ of./Eschylus. There are several different constructions of the last clause. The oldest versions make rvni^a the subject and y^P the predicate of the same proposition: l *the chariots of thy glory (shall be) the shame of thy lord’s house.’ This can only mean that the king would be disgraced by having honoured such a man, chariots being then put as an outward sign of dignity and wealth. Most writers make “pbp and what follows a description of Shebna addressed to himself (< thou shame of thy master’s house’), and construe rvns’na either with ni^n (< and there shall thy splendid chariots perish’) or with the verb of existence understood, (£ there shall thy splendid chariots be.’) As naia properly means *thither, it may be so taken here, the construction with man being then a pregnant one: thither shalt thou die (i. e. thither shalt thou go to die) and thither shall thy splendid chariots (convey thee.) The allusion will then be simply to Shebna’s return to his own country (whether Syria, Phenicia, Mesopotamia, or Assyria), and not to captivity in war or to suffering in exile, of which there is no intimation in the text. All that the prophet clearly threat ens Shebna with, is the loss of rank and influence in Judah and a return to his own country. An analogous incident in modern history (so far as these circumstances are concerned) is Necker’s retreat from France to Switzerland at the beginning of the French Revolution.
19. And it shall come to pass in that day that I will call for my servant, for Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, i. e. will personally designate him. Eliakim appears again in ch. 36: 3, and there as here in connexion with Shebna. There is probably no ground for the rabbinical tradition that Eliakim is identical with Azariah mentioned 2 Chr. 31: 13 as the ruler of the house of God. The epithet my servant seems to be intended to describe him as a faithful follower of Jehovah, and as such to contrast him with Shebna who may have been a heathen. The employment of such a man by such a king as Hezekiah is explained by some upon the supposition that he had been promoted by Ahaz and then suffered to remain by his successor. It is just as easy to suppose however that he had raised himself by his abilities for public business.
20. And I will thrust thee from thy post, and from thy station shall he pull thee down. The verb in the last clause is indefinite and really equivalent to a passive (thou shalt be pulled down). It should not there fore be translated in the first person as a mere enallage, nor made to agree with Jehovah understood, which would be a very harsh construction, and though not without example should be assumed only in case of necessity.
21. And I will clothe him with thy dress, and with thy girdle will 1 strengthen him, and thy power will I give into his hand, and he shall be for a father (or become a father) to the dweller in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. We may either suppose a reference to an official dress, or a metaphor analogous to that of filling another’s shoes in colloquial English. The Piel of pm may simply mean to bind fast, but the strict sense of strengthening agrees well with the oriental use of the girdle to confine the flowing garments and to fit the wearer for active exertion. Father is not a mere oriental synonyme of ruler, but an emphatic designation of a wise and benevolent ruler. It seems therefore to imply that Shebna’s administration was of an opposite character. The inhabitants of Jerusalem and the family of Judah comprehend the whole nation.
22. And I will put the key of the house of David on his shoulder; he shall open and there shall be no one shutting, he shall shut and there shall be no one opening. In other words, he shall have unlimited control over the royal house and household, which according to oriental usages implies a high political authority. Some suppose a reference to the actual bearing of the key by the royal steward or chamberlain, and explain its being carried on the shoulder by the fact that large wooden locks and keys of corresponding size are still used in some countries, the latter being some times curved like a sickle so as to be hung around the neck. Against this explanation it may be objected, that the phrase house of David seems to imply a metaphorical rather than a literal palace, and that datt) does not mean the shoulder merely but includes the upper part of the back, as the place for bearing burdens. (Vide supra, ch. 9:3. 10: 27.) There is still less to be said in favour of supposing an allusion to the figure of a key embroidered on the dress. The best interpreters appear to be agreed that the government or administration is here represented by the figure of a burden, not merely in the general as in ch. 9: 5, but the specific burden of a key, chosen in order to express the idea of control over the royal house, which was the title of the office in question. The application of the same terms to Peter (Matt. 16: 19) and to Christ himself (Rev. 3: 7) does not prove that they here refer to either, or that Eliakim was a type of Christ, but merely that the same words admit of different applications.
23. And 1 will fasten him a nail in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to his father’s house. The figure in the first clause naturally conveys the idea of security and permanence. The reference is not to the stakes or centre post of a tent, but to the large pegs, pins or nails often built into the walls of oriental houses for the purpose of sus pending clothes or vessels. The last clause is obscure. Some suppose the fiVure of a pin or peg to be still continued, and that it is here represented as so large that men may sit upon it. Others suppose the nail to be here described as fastened in a throne: it shall be (attached) to the glorious throne of his father’s house. This would seem to warrant Calvin’s supposition that Eliakim was of the blood royal. But such a construction, if not wholly ungrammatical, is very forced, and N&a is the Hebrew name for any seat (answering to stool or chair), and denotes a throne or chair of state only as being a seat par eminence. The most natural interpretation of the words, and that most commonly adopted, is that the figure of a nail is here exchanged for that of a seat, this being common to the two, that they alike suggest the idea of support though in different ways. Those whom Eliakim was the means of promoting might be said, with a change of figure but without a change of meaning, both to sit and hang upon him. He was to be not only a seat but a seat of honour, which is nearer to the meaning of the Hebrew phrase than throne of glory.
24. And they shall hang upon him all the honour of his father’s house—the offspring and the issue—all vessels of small quantity—from vessels of cups even to all vessels of flagons. Here the figure of a nail is resumed. The dependents of Eliakim are represented as suspended on him as their sole support, D^XXXS and msss are expressions borrowed from the vegetable world. Henderson imitates the form of the original by rendering them offspring and offset. It is commonly assumed by interpreters that the two words are in antithesis, denoting either different sexes (sons and daughters), or different generations (sons and grandsons), or different ranks, which last is the usual explanation, and derives some countenance from the etymology of nrssand the analogy of Ezek. 4: 15. The next phrase is desio-ned to show that even the least are not to be exqepted. In the last clause maax and D^SD may either be taken as equivalent expressions or as contrast ing the gold and silver vessels of the altar (Ex. 24: 6) with common earthen utensils (Jer. 48: 12. Lain. 4: 2). The old interpretation of a^Si as denoting musical instruments, though justified by usage, is forbidden by the context. The Targum explicitly applies the clause to the Priests who served the altar, and the Levites who conducted the music of the temple. This explanation is connected with that of na in v. 1 as denoting the temple or the house of God.
25. In that day, saith Jehovah of Hosts, shall the nail fastened in a sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall, and the burden which was on it shall be cut off, for Jehovah speaks. The most natural and obvious application of these words is to Eliakim, who had just been represented as a nail in a sure place. But as this would predict his fall, without the slight est intimation of the reason, and in seeming contradiction to the previous context, most interpreters reject this exposition as untenable. Hitzig indeed maintains that this is the only meaning which the words will bear, but assumes that these two verses were added at a later date, shortly before or after Eliakim’s own disgrace. Hendewerk adopts the same hypothesis but applies it to the last verse only. J. H. Michaelis alone gives a favourable meaning to the figures of v. 25, as signifying that Eliakim should die in peace, to the irreparable loss of Judah and of his own dependents in particular. Another exegetical expedient is to apply even v. 23 to Shebna,not as a promise of what God would do, but as a narrative of what he had done. The obvious objections are, that the verbs in that verse are as certainly future as those in the one before it; and that both verses must be referred to the same subject, unless the supposition of a change be absolutely necessary. Such a necessity does seem to exist in v. 25, and is the more easily assumed because the grammatical objection is not applicable there. Most writers, therefore, seem to be agreed, that the twenty-fifth verse relates to Shebna, and that the 26 Prophet, after likening Eliakim to a nail fastened in a sure place, tacitly ap plies the same comparison to Shebna, and declares that the nail which now seems to be securely fastened shall soon yield to make way for the other. Those who refer the verse to Eliakim suppose his fall to have been occasion ed by his nepotism or excessive patronage of his relations, a conjectural inference from v. 24. The partial fulfilment of this prophecy is commonly sup posed to be recorded in ch. 36: 3, where Eliakim actually fills the place here promised to him, and Shebna appears in the inferior character of a scribe or secretary. Some indeed suppose two persons of the name of Shebna, which is not only arbitrary in itself, but rendered more improbable by this consideration, that Shebna is probably a foreign name and certainly occurs only in these and the parallel places, whereas Hilkiah is of frequent occurrence, and yet is admitted upon all hands to denote the same person. It seems improbable no doubt that Shebna, after such a threatening, should be transferred to another office. But the threatening may not have been public, and the transfer may have been merely the beginning of his degradation. But even supposing that the Shebna of ch. 36: 2 is a different person, and that the execution of this judgment is nowhere explicitly recorded, there is no need of concluding that it was revoked or that it was meant to be conditional, much less that it was falsified by the event. It is a common usage of the Scriptures, and of this book in particular, to record a divine command and not its execution, leaving the latter to be inferred from the former as a matter of course. Of this we have had repeated examples, such as ch. 7: 4 and 8:1. Nay in this very case, we are merely told what Isaiah was commanded to say to Shebna, without being told that he obeyed the order. If the execution of this order may be taken for granted, so may the fulfilment of the prophecy. If it had failed, it would not have been recorded or preserved among the prophecies.
