Sennacherib, king of Assyria, attacked and captured all the fortified cities of Judah in the 14th year of King Hezekiah's reign. Sennacherib then prepared to lay siege to Jerusalem itself, but Hezekiah strengthened Jerusalem's defenses. Sennacherib initially agreed to peace terms with Hezekiah but ultimately broke the agreement and sent his army to besiege Jerusalem. The document provides historical context and commentary on this biblical account.

1. ISAIAH 36 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Sennacherib Threatens Jerusalem
1 In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah’s reign,
Sennacherib king of Assyria attacked all the fortified
cities of Judah and captured them.
1.BARNES, “In the fourteenth year of Hezekiah - Of his reign, 709 b.c.
That Sennacherib - Sennacherib was son and successor of Shalmaneser, king of Assyria,
and began to reign A.M. 3290, or 714 b.c., and reigned, according to Calmet, but four years,
according to Prideaux eight years, and according to Gesenius eighteen years. The immediate
occasion of this war against Judah was the fact that Hezekiah had shaken off the yoke of Assyria,
by which his father Ahaz and the nation had suffered so much under Tiglath-pileser, or
Shalmaneser 2Ki_18:7. To reduce Judea again to subjection, as well as to carry his conquests
into Egypt, appears to have been the design of this celebrated expedition. He ravaged the
country, took the strong towns and fortresses, and prepared then to lay siege to Jerusalem itself.
Hezekiah, however, as soon as the army of Sennacherib had entered Judea, prepared to put
Jerusalem into a state of complete defense. At the advice of his counselors he stopped the waters
that flowed in the neighborhood of the city, and that might furnish refreshment to a besieging
army, built up the broken walls, enclosed one of the fountains within a wall, and prepared
shields and darts in abundance to repel the invader 2Ch_32:2-5.
Sennacherib, seeing that all hope of easily taking Jerusalem was taken away, apparently
became inclined to hearken to terms of accommodation. Hezekiah sent to him to propose peace,
and to ask the conditions on which he would withdraw his forces. He confessed his error in not
paying the tribute stipulated by his father, and his willingness to pay now what should be
demanded by Sennacherib. Sennacherib demanded three hundred talents of silver, and thirty
talents of gold. This was paid by Hezekiah, by exhausting the treasury, and by stripping even the
temple of its gold 2Ki_18:13-16. It was evidently understood in this treaty that Sennacherib was
to withdraw his forces, and return to his own land. But this treaty he ultimately disregarded (see
the note at Isa_33:8). He seems, however, to have granted Hezekiah some respite, and to have
delayed his attack on Jerusalem until his return from Egypt. This war with Egypt he prosecuted
at first with great success, and with a fair prospect of the conquest of that country.
But having laid siege to Pelusium, and having spent much time before it without success, he
was compelled at length to raise the siege, and to retreat. Tirhakah king of Ethiopia having come
to the aid of Sevechus, the reigning monarch of Egypt, and advancing to the relief of Pelusium,
Sennacherib was compelled to raise the siege, and retreated to Judea. Here, having taken

2. Lachish, and disregarding his compact with Hezekiah, he sent an army to Jerusalem under
Rabshakeh to lay siege to the city. This is the point in the history of Sennacherib to which the
passage before us refers (see Prideaux’s “Connection,” vol. i. pp. 138-141; Jos. “Ant.” x. 1;
Gesenius “in loc;” and Robinson’s Calmet).
All the defended cities - All the towns on the way to Egypt, and in the vicinity of Jerusalem
(see the notes at Isa_10:28-32).
2. PULPIT, “IF the Book of Isaiah be regarded as the result of a gradual accretion (see the General
Introduction), whether that accretion is to be ascribed to the action of the prophet himself or to that of later
editors, we may equally consider the present chapters (ch. 36-39.) to have been originally an "Appendix,"
attached, as furnishing illustration to the preceding prophecies, and at one time terminating the book.
They will thus stand to the preceding chapters in much the same relation as that in which the last chapter
of Jeremiah stands to the rest of that prophet's work, differing only in the fact that they are almost entirely
the prophet's own composition. Isaiah wrote the history of the reign of Hezekiah for the general "Book of
the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah" (2Ch_32:32). From this "book" the account of the reign which we
have in 2 Kings (18-20.) is almost certainly taken (2Ki_20:20). The close verbal resemblance between the
present chapters and those in Kings, and the differences, which are chiefly omissions, are best accounted
for by supposing that both are abbreviations of a more extensive narrative. such as that composed for the
original "Book of the Chronicles" probably was. The abbreviation here inserted may have been made
either by the prophet himself, or by a "co-editor." The point is one which is not very important, and which it
is quite impossible to determine, unless arbitrarily.
Isa_36:1
It came to pass in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah. There is an irreconcilable difference between this
note of time, in the passage as it stands, and the Assyrian inscriptions. The fourteenth year of Hezekiah
was b.c. 714 or 713. Sargon was then King of Assyria, and continued king till b.c. 705. Sennacherib did
not ascend the throne till that year, and he did not lead an expedition into Palestine till b.c. 701. Thus the
date, as it stands, is cloven or twelve years too early. It is now the common opinion of critics that the
chronology of the Books of Kings, speaking generally, is "a later addition to the Hebrew narrative". It is
uncertain when the dates were added; but it would not be long from the time when the addition was made
before "Isaiah" would be brought into accord with "Kings." Another view is that the date belongs to the
original writings, but that it has suffered corruption, "fourteenth" having been substituted for "twenty-
sixth," from an overstrict rendering of the expression, "in those days," which introduces the narrative
of Isa_38:1-22. That narrative undoubtedly belongs to Hezekiah's fourteenth year. A third view is that of
Dr. Hincks, who suggests a derangement of the text, which has attached to an expedition of Sennacherib
a date originally belonging to an attack by Sargon. He supposes the original text to have run thus: "And it
came to pass in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah that the King of Assyria came up (against him). In
those days was King Hezekiah sick unto death, etc. (Isa_38:1-22; Isa_39:1-8.). And Sennacherib, King of
Assyria, came up against all the defenced cities of Judah, and took them," etc. (Isa_36:1-22; Isa_37:1-
38.). The subject has been treated at considerable length by Mr. Cheyne, who has accidentally ascribed
to Sir H. Rawlinson the second of the above theories, which really originated with the present
writer. Sennacherib, King of Assyria. The Hebrew rendering of the name is Sankherib,the
Greek Sanacharibus or Senacheribus. In the Assyrian the literation is Sin-akhi-irib—and the meaning" Sin
(the moon-god) multiplies brothers." Sin-akhi-irib was the son and successor of Sargon. His father was
murdered, and he ascended the throne in b.c. 705. Came up against all the defenced cities; rather, all

3. the fenced cities, as in 2Ki_18:13,or "all the fortified cities" (Cheyne). And took them. Sennacberib tells
us that, in the campaign of his fourth year, he "captured forty-six of the strong cities" belonging to
Hezekiah, King of Judah, while of the "fortresses and small cities" he took "a countless number". (On the
causes of the war and its general course, see the Introduction to the book.)
3. GILL, ” Now it came to pass in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah,.... The
following piece of history is inserted from the books of Kings and Chronicles, as an illustration of
some preceding prophecies, and as a confirmation of them; see 2Ki_18:13.
that Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the defenced cities of Judah;
who in the Apocrypha:
"And if the king Sennacherib had slain any, when he was come, and fled from Judea, I buried
them privily; for in his wrath he killed many; but the bodies were not found, when they were
sought for of the king.'' (Tobit 1:18)
is said to be the son of Shalmaneser, as he certainly was his successor, who in the sixth year of
Hezekiah, eight years before this, took Samaria, and carried the ten tribes captive, 2Ki_18:10 he
is called Sennacherib by Herodotus (c), who says he was king of the Arabians, and the Assyrians;
who yet is blamed by Josephus (d), for not calling him the king of the Assyrians only of the
Arabians, whereas he styles him both; and the same Josephus observes, that Berosus, a
Chaldean writer, makes mention of this Sennacherib as king of Assyria; the same came up in a
military way against the fortified cities of Judah, which were the frontier towns, and barriers of
their country:
and took them; that is, some of them, not all of them; see Isa_37:8, he thought indeed to have
took them to himself, this was his intent, 2Ch_32:1, but was prevailed upon to desist, by a
payment of three hundred talents of silver, and thirty talents of gold to him, by the king of
Judah, 2Ki_18:14.
4. HENRY, “We shall here only observe some practical lessons. 1. A people may be in the way of
their duty and yet meet with trouble and distress. Hezekiah was reforming, and his people were
in some measure reformed; and yet their country is at that time invaded and a great part of it
laid waste. Perhaps they began to grow remiss and cool in the work of reformation, were doing it
by halves, and ready to sit down short of a thorough reformation; and then God visited them
with this judgment, to put life into them and that good cause. We must not wonder if, when we
are doing well, God sends afflictions to quicken us to do better, to do our best, and to press
forward towards perfection. 2. That we must never be secure of the continuance of our peace in
this world, nor think our mountain stands so strong that it cannot be moved. Hezekiah was not
only a pious king, but prudent, both in his administration at home and in his treaties abroad.
His affairs were in a good posture, and he seemed particularly to be upon good terms with the
king of Assyria, for he had lately made his peace with him by a rich present (2Ki_18:14), and yet
that perfidious prince pours an army into his country all of a sudden and lays it waste. It is good
for us therefore always to keep up an expectation of trouble, that, when it comes, it may be no
surprise to us, and then it will be the less a terror. 3. God sometimes permits the enemies of his
people, even those that are most impious and treacherous, to prevail far against them. The king
of Assyria took all, or most, of the defenced cities of Judah, and then the country would of

4. course be an easy prey to him. Wickedness may prosper awhile, but cannot prosper always. 4.
Proud men love to talk big, to boast of what they are, and have, and have done, nay and of what
they will do, to insult over others, and set all mankind at defiance, though thereby they render
themselves ridiculous to all wise men and obnoxious to the wrath of that God who resists the
proud. But thus they think to make themselves feared, though they make themselves hated, and
to carry their point by great swelling words of vanity, Jud_1:16. 5. The enemies of God's people
endeavour to conquer them by frightening them, especially by frightening them from their
confidence in God. Thus Rabshakeh here, with noise and banter, runs down Hezekiah as utterly
unable to cope with his master, or in the least to make head against him. It concerns us
therefore, that we may keep our ground against the enemies of our souls, to keep up our spirits
by keeping up our hope in God.
5. JAMISON, “Isa_36:1-22. Sennacherib’s invasion; Blasphemous solicitations; Hezekiah is
told of them.
This and the thirty-seventh through thirty-ninth chapters form the historical appendix closing
the first division of Isaiah’s prophecies, and were added to make the parts of these referring to
Assyria more intelligible. So Jer_52:1-34; compare 2Ki_25:1-30. The section occurs almost
word for word (2Ki_18:13, 2Ki_18:17-20; 2Ki_19:1-37); 2Ki_18:14-16, however, is additional
matter. Hezekiah’s “writing” also is in Isaiah, not in Kings (Isa_38:9-20). We know from
2Ch_32:32 that Isaiah wrote the acts of Hezekiah. It is, therefore, probable, that his record here
(Isaiah 36:1-39:8) was incorporated into the Book of Kings by its compiler. Sennacherib lived,
according to Assyrian inscriptions, more than twenty years after his invasion; but as Isaiah
survived Hezekiah (2Ch_32:32), who lived upwards of fifteen years after the invasion
(Isa_38:5), the record of Sennacherib’s death (Isa_37:38) is no objection to this section having
come from Isaiah; 2Ch_32:1-33 is probably an abstract drawn from Isaiah’s account, as the
chronicler himself implies (2Ch_32:32). Pul was probably the last of the old dynasty, and
Sargon, a powerful satrap, who contrived to possess himself of supreme power and found a new
dynasty (see on Isa_20:1). No attempt was made by Judah to throw off the Assyrian yoke during
his vigorous reign. The accession of his son Sennacherib was thought by Hezekiah the opportune
time to refuse the long-paid tribute; Egypt and Ethiopia, to secure an ally against Assyria on
their Asiatic frontier, promised help; Isaiah, while opposed to submission to Assyria, advised
reliance on Jehovah, and not on Egypt, but his advice was disregarded, and so Sennacherib
invaded Judea, 712 b.c. He was the builder of the largest of the excavated palaces, that of
Koyunjik. Hincks has deciphered his name in the inscriptions. In the third year of his reign,
these state that he overran Syria, took Sidon and other Phoenician cities, and then passed to
southwest Palestine, where he defeated the Egyptians and Ethiopians (compare 2Ki_18:21;
2Ki_19:9). His subsequent retreat, after his host was destroyed by God, is of course suppressed
in the inscriptions. But other particulars inscribed agree strikingly with the Bible; the capture of
the “defensed cities of Judah,” the devastation of the country and deportation of its inhabitants;
the increased tribute imposed on Hezekiah - thirty talents of gold - this exact number being
given in both; the silver is set down in the inscriptions at eight hundred talents, in the Bible
three hundred; the latter may have been the actual amount carried off, the larger sum may
include the silver from the temple doors, pillars, etc. (2Ki_18:16).
fourteenth — the third of Sennacherib’s reign. His ultimate object was Egypt, Hezekiah’s
ally. Hence he, with the great body of his army (2Ch_32:9), advanced towards the Egyptian
frontier, in southwest Palestine, and did not approach Jerusalem.

5. 6. K&D, “Marcus V. Niebuhr, in his History of Asshur and Babel (p. 164), says, “Why should
not Hezekiah have revolted from Asshur as soon as he ascended the throne? He had a motive for
doing this, which other kings had not - namely, that as he held his kingdom in fief from his God,
obedience to a temporal monarch was in his case sin.” But this assumption, which is founded
upon the same idea as that in which the question was put to Jesus concerning the tribute money,
is not at all in accordance with Isaiah's view, as we may see from chapters 28-32; and Hezekiah's
revolt cannot have occurred even in the sixth year of his reign. For Shalmanassar, or rather
Sargon, made war upon Egypt and Ethiopia after the destruction of Samaria (Isa_20:1-6; cf.,
Oppert, Les Inscriptions des Sargonides, pp. 22, 27), without attempting anything against
Hezekiah. It was not till the time of Sargon, who overthrew the reigning house of Assyria, that
the actual preparations for the revolt were commenced, by the formation of an alliance between
the kingdom of Judah on the one hand, and Egypt, and probably Philistia, on the other, the
object of which was the rupture of the Assyrian yoke.
(Note: The name Amgarron upon the earthenware prism of Sennacherib does not mean
Migron (Oppert), but Ekron (Rawlinson).)
The campaign of Sennacherib the son of Sargon, into which we are transported in the following
history, was the third of his expeditions, the one to which Sennacherib himself refers in the
inscription upon the prism: “dans ma e campagne je marchai vers la Syrie.” The position which we
find Sennacherib taking up between Philistia and Jerusalem, to the south-west of the latter, is a
very characteristic one in relation to both the occasion and the ultimate object of the campaign.
(Note: We shall show the variations in the text of 2Ki_18:13., as far as we possibly can, in
our translation. K. signifies the book of Kings. But the task of pronouncing an infallible
sentence upon them all we shall leave to those who know everything.)
Isa_32:1 “And it came to pass in the (K. and in the) fourteenth year of king Hizkîyahu,
Sancherîb king of Asshur came up against all the fortified cities of Judah, and took them. (K.
adds: Then Hizkiyah king of Judah sent to the king of Asshur to Lachish, saying, I have sinned,
withdraw from me again; what thou imposest upon me I will raise. And the king of Asshur
imposed upon Hizkiyah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver, and thirty talents of
gold. And Hizkiyah gave up all the silver that was in the house of Jehovah, and in the treasures
of the king's house. At the same time Hizkiyah mutilated the doors of the temple of Jehovah,
and the pillars which Hizkiyah king of Judah had plated with gold, and gave it to the king of
Asshur).” This long addition, which is distinguished at once by the introduction of ‫חזיקה‬ in the
place of ‫,חזקיהו‬ is probably only an annalistic interpolation, though one of great importance in
relation to Isa_33:7. What follows in Isaiah does not dovetail well into this addition, and
therefore does not presuppose its existence. Isa_36:2 “Then the king of Asshur sent Rabshakeh
(K.: Tartan, and Rabsaris, and Rabshakeh) from Lachish towards Jerusalem to king
Hizkiyahu with a great army, and he advanced (K.: to king H. with a great army to
Jerusalem; and they went up and came to Jerusalem, and went up, and came and advanced)
to the conduit of the upper pool by the road of the fuller's field.” Whereas in K. the repeated ‫ויבאו‬
‫ויעלו‬ (and went up and came) forms a “dittography,” the names Tartan and Rab-saris have
apparently dropped out of the text of Isaiah, as Isa_37:6, Isa_37:24 presuppose a plurality of
messengers. The three names are not names of persons, but official titles, viz., the commander-
in-chief (Tartan, which really occurs in an Assyrian list of offices; see Rawlinson, Monarchies, ii.
412), the chief cup-bearer (‫ה‬ ֵ‫ק‬ ָ‫שׁ‬ ְ‫ב‬ ִ‫ר‬ with tzere = ‫א‬ ֵ‫ק‬ ָ‫שׁ‬ ְ‫ב‬ ַ‫.))ר‬ The situation of Lachish is marked by the
present ruins of Umm Lakis, to the south-west of Bet-Gibrin ((Eleutheropolis) in the Shephelah.
The messengers come from the south-west with the ultima ratio of a strong detachment (‫יל‬ ֵ‫ח‬ a

6. connecting form, from ‫ל‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫,ח‬ like ‫גדולה‬ ‫יא‬ֵ, Zec_14:4; Ewald, §287, a); they therefore halt on the
western side of Jerusalem (on the locality, see at Isa_7:3; Isa_22:8-11; compare Keil on Kings).
6B STEDMAN, “Christians sometimes jokingly quote what are purported to be verses of Scripture,
such as, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do," "God helps those who help themselves," etc. When they
are asked for a reference, they reply, "The book of Hezekiah." There is no such book in the Bible, of
course, but Chapters 36-39 of the book of Isaiah are the closest thing to it.
These chapters are a prose account of the fading of Assyria from the biblical scene and the rise of the
nation Babylon. Assyria was the main threat to Israel in the first half of this book, while in the second half.
Babylon becomes Israel's prime enemy. This occurs in the reign of Hezekiah, a godly king of Israel, who
is here confronted with three attacks that most Christians will confront at one time or another. Hezekiah
faced an armed attack by Assyria; he suffered a dangerous illness; and he faced a subtle threat from the
ambassadors of Babylon. Let us see what we can learn from these three circumstances.
The first attack on the king is found in Chapter 36.
In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up
against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them. And the king of Assyria sent
the Rabshakeh from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem, with a great army.
And he stood by the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the Fuller's Field.
And there came out to him Eliakim the son of Hezekiah, who was over the
household, and Shebna the secretary, and Joah the son of Asaph, the recorder.
(Isaiah 36:1-3 RSV)
This invasion was the final thrust of the Assyrians to take control of Judah, immortalized in Lord Byron's
poem,
The Assyrian came down like a wolf on the fold,
His cohorts were gleaming with purple and gold.
The sheen of his spears was like stars on the sea,
When the blue wave rolls nightly on deep Galilee.
I hope you are following in your Bibles at home these great lessons from the book of Isaiah. We must
move so swiftly through them that there is much I am passing over, but do read the full account at home.
According to this account, Sennacherib, the king of Assyria, was personally involved in the siege of
Lachish, a city west of Jerusalem, while he detached a part of his army, under his general, Rabshakeh, to
besiege Jerusalem. The general takes his stand at an historic spot, the very place where, 40 years
before, God had told Isaiah to stand when he gave to Hezekiah's father, Ahaz, the sign of the virgin's son.
Rabshakeh seems to be puzzled by the resistance of the Jews and their seeming confidence that he will
fail in his efforts to take the city, as the next verses point out.
7. BI, “Sennacherib
Sennacherib was one of the most magnificent of the Assyrian kings.
He seems to have been the first who fixed the seat of government permanently at Nineveh,
which he carefully repaired and adorned with splendid buildings. His greatest work is the grand
palace at Koyunjik, which covered a space of about eight acres, and was adorned throughout
with sculptures of finished execution. He built also, or repaired, a second palace at Nineveh, on
the mound of Nebbi Yunus, confined the Tigris to its channel by an embankment of brick,
restored the ancient aqueducts which had gone to decay, and gave to Nineveh that splendour
which she thenceforth retained till the ruin of the empire. (G. Rawlinson.)

7. Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah
Lessons:—
1. That a people may be in the way of their duty, and yet meet with trouble and distress.
Hezekiah was reforming, and his people in some measure reformed; yet their country is at
that time invaded, and a great part of it laid waste. Perhaps they began to grow remiss and
cool in the work of reformation, were doing it by halves, and ready to sit down short of a
thorough reformation; and then God visited them with this judgment, to put life into them
and that good cause. We must not wonder if, when we are doing well, God sends afflictions
to quicken us to do better, to do our best, and to press towards perfection.
2. That we must never be secure of the continuance of our peace in this world, nor think our
mountain stands so strong as that it cannot be moved. Hezekiah was not only a pious king,
but prudent, both in his administration at home and his treaties abroad. His affairs were in a
good posture, and he seemed particularly to be upon good terms with the King of Assyria; for
he had lately made his peace with him by a rich present (2Ki_18:14), and yet that perfidious
prince pours an army into his country all of a sudden, and lays it waste. It is good for us,
therefore, always to keep up an expectation of trouble, that when it comes it may be no
surprise to us, and then it will be the less a terror.
3. That God sometimes permits the enemies of His people, even those that are most impious
and treacherous, to prevail far against them. The King of Assyria took all, or most, of the
defenced cities of Judah, and then the country would, of course, be an easy prey to him.
Wickedness may prosper a while, but cannot prosper always. (M. Henry.)
8. EBC, “JERUSALEM AND SENNACHERIB
701 B.C.
INTO this fourth book we put all the rest of the prophecies of the Book of Isaiah, that have to do
with the prophet’s own time: chapters 1, 22 and 33, with the narrative in 36, 37. All these refer to
the only Assyrian invasion of Judah and siege of Jerusalem: that undertaken by Sennacherib in
701.
It is, however, right to remember once more, that many authorities maintain that there were two
Assyrian invasions of Judah-one by Sargon in 711, the other by Sennacherib in 701-and that
chapters 1 and 22 (as well as Isa_10:5-34) belong to the former of these. The theory is ingenious
and tempting; but, in the silence of the Assyrian annals about any invasion of Judah by Sargon,
it is impossible to adopt it. And although Chapters 1 and 22 differ very greatly in tone from
chapter 33, yet to account for the difference it is not necessary to suppose two different
invasions, with a considerable period between them. Virtually, as will appear in the course of our
exposition, Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah was a double one.
1. The first time Sennacherib’s army invaded Judah they took all the fenced cities, and probably
invested Jerusalem, but withdrew on payment of tribute and the surrender of the casus belli, the
Assyrian Vassal Padi, whom the Ekronites had deposed and given over to the keeping of
Hezekiah. To this invasion refer Isa_1:1-31; Isa_22:1-25. and the first verse of 36.: "Now it came
to pass in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah that Sennacherib, King of Assyria, came up
against all the fenced cities of Judah and took them." This verse is the same as 2Ki_18:13, to
which, however, there is added in 2Ki_18:14-16 an account of the tribute sent by Hezekiah to
Sennacherib at Lachish, that is not included in the narrative in Isaiah. Compare 2Ch_32:1.

8. 2. But scarcely had the tribute been paid when Sennacherib, himself advancing to meet Egypt,
sent back upon Jerusalem a second army of investment, with which was the Rabshakeh; and this
was the army that so mysteriously disappeared from the eyes of the besieged. To the treacherous
return of the Assyrians and the sudden deliverance of Jerusalem from their grasp refer Isa_33:1-
24, Isa_36:2-22, with the fuller and evidently original narrative in 2Ki_18:17-19. Compare
2Ch_32:9-23.
To the history of this double attempt upon Jerusalem in 701-chapters 36 and 37 - there has been
appended in 38 and 3 an account of Hezekiah’s illness and of an embassy to him from Babylon.
These events probably happened some years before Sennacherib’s invasion. But it will be most
convenient for us to take them in the order in which they stand in the canon. They wilt naturally
lead us up to a question that it is necessary we should discuss before taking leave of Isaiah-
whether this great prophet of the endurance of the kingdom of God upon earth had any gospel
for the individual who dropped away from it into death.
Isaiah 36:1-22
THE RABSHAKEH;
OR, LAST TEMPTATIONS OF FAITH
701 B.C.
IT remains for us now to follow in chapters 36, 37, the historical narrative of the events, the
moral results of which we have seen so vivid in chapter 33- the perfidious return of the
Assyrians to Jerusalem after Hezekiah had bought them off, and their final disappearance from
the Holy Land.
This historical narrative has also its moral. It is not annals, but drama. The whole moral of
Isaiah’s prophesying is here flung into a duel between champions of the two tempers, which we
have seen in perpetual conflict throughout his book. The two tempers are-on Isaiah’s side an
absolute and unselfish faith in God, Sovereign of the world and Saviour of His people; on the
side of the Assyrians a bare, brutal confidence in themselves, in human cleverness and success, a
vaunting contempt of righteousness and of pity. The main interest of Isaiah’s book has consisted
in the way these tempers oppose each other, and alternately influence the feeling of the Jewish
community. That interest is now to culminate in the scene which brings near such thorough
representatives of the two tempers as Isaiah and the Rabshakeh, with the crowd of wavering
Jews between. Most strikingly, Assyria’s last assault is not of force, but of speech, delivering
upon faith the subtle arguments of the worldly temper; and as strikingly, while all official
religion and power of State stand helpless against them, these arguments are met by the bare
word of God. In this mere statement of the situation, however, we perceive that much more than
the quarrel of a single generation is being decided. This scene is a parable of the everlasting
struggle between faith and force, with doubt and despair between them. In the clever, self-
confident, persuasive personage with two languages on his tongue and an army at his back; in
the fluttered representatives of official religion who meet him and are afraid of the effect of his
speech on the common people; in the ranks of dispirited men who hear the dialogue from the
wall; in the sensitive king so aware of faith, and yet so helpless to bring faith forth to peace and
triumph; and, in the background of the whole situation, the serene prophet of God, grasping
only God’s word, and by his own steadfastness carrying the city over the crisis and proving that
faith indeed can be "the substance of things hoped for"-we have a phase of the struggle ordained
unto every generation of men, and which is as fresh today as when Rabshakeh played the cynic

9. and the scribes and elders filled the part of nervous defenders of the faith, under the walls of
faith’s fortress, two thousand five hundred years ago.
THE RABSHAKEH
This word is a Hebrew transliteration of the Assyrian Rab-sak, "chief of the officers." Though
there is some doubt on the point, we may naturally presume from the duties he here discharges
that the Rabshakeh was a civilian-probably the civil commissioner or political officer attached to
the Assyrian army, which was commanded, according to 2Ki_18:16, by the Tartan or
commander-in-chief himself.
In all the Bible there is not a personage more clever than this Rabshakeh, nor more typical. He
was an able deputy of the king who sent him, but he represented still more thoroughly the
temper of the civilisation to which he belonged. There is no word of this man which is not
characteristic. A clever, fluent diplomatist, with the traveller’s knowledge of men and the
conqueror’s contempt for them, the Rabshakeh is the product of a victorious empire like the
Assyrian, or, say, like the British. Our services sometimes turn out the like of him-a creature able
to speak to natives in their own language, full and ready of information, mastering the surface of
affairs at a glance, but always baffled by the deeper tides which sway nations; a deft player upon
party interests and the superficial human passions, but unfit to touch the deep springs of men’s
religion and patriotism. Let us speak, however, with respect of the Rabshakeh. From his rank
(Sayce calls him the Vizier), as well as from the cleverness with which he explains what we know
to have been the policy of Sennacherib towards the populations of Syria, he may well have been
the inspiring mind at this time of the great Assyrian empire-Sennaeherib’s Bismarck.
The Rabshakeh had strutted down from the great centre of civilisation, with its temper upon
him, and all its great resources at his back, confident to twist these poor provincial tribes round
his little finger. How petty he conceived them we infer from his never styling. Hezekiah "the
king." This was to be an occasion for the Rabshakeh’s own glorification. Jerusalem was to fall to
his clever speeches. He had indeed the army behind him, but the work to be done was not the
rough work of soldiers. All was to be managed by him, the civilian and orator. This fellow, with
his two languages and clever address, was to step out in front of the army and finish the whole
business.
The Rabshakeh spoke extremely well. With his first words he touched the sore point of Judah’s
policy: her trust in Egypt. On this he spoke like a very Isaiah. But he showed a deeper knowledge
of Judah’s internal affairs, and a subtler deftness in using it, when he referred to the matter of
the altars. Hezekiah had abolished the high places in all parts of the land, and gathered the
people to the central sanctuary in Jerusalem. The Assyrian knew that a number of Jews must
look upon this disestablishment of religion in the provinces as likely to incur Jehovah’s
displeasure and turn Him against them. Therefore he said, "But if thou say unto me, We trust in
Jehovah our God, is not that He whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away,
and hath said to Judah and to Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar"? And then, having
shaken their religious confidence, he made sport of their military strength. And finally he boldly
asserted, "Jehovah said unto me, Go up against this land and destroy it." All this shows a master
in diplomacy, a most clever demagogue. The scribes and elders felt the edge, and begged him to
sheathe it in a language unknown to the common people. But he, conscious of his power, spoke
the more boldly, addressing himself directly to the poorer sort of the garrison, on whom the
siege would press most heavily. His second speech to them is a good illustration of the policy
pursued by Assyria at this time towards the cities of Palestine. We know from the annals of
Sennacherib that his customary policy, to seduce the populations of a hostile State from
allegiance to their rulers, had succeeded in other cases; and it was so plausibly uttered in this
case, that it seemed likely to succeed again. To the common soldiers on the walls, with the
prospect of being reduced to the foul rations of a prolonged siege (Isa_36:12), Sennacherib’s

10. ambassador offers rich and equal property and enjoyment. "Make a treaty with me, and come
out to me, and eat every one of his vine and every one of his fig tree, and drink ye every one of
the water of his cistern, until I come and take you away to a land like your own land, a land of
corn and grapes, a land of bread-corn and orchards. Everyone!"-it is a most subtle assault upon
the discipline, comradeship, and patriotism of the common soldiers by the promises of a selfish,
sensuous equality and individualism. But then the speaker’s native cynicism gets the better of
him-it is not possible for an Assyrian long to play the part of clemency-and, with a flash of scorn,
he asks the sad men upon the walls whether they really believe that Jehovah can save them:
"Hath any of the gods of the nations delivered his land out of the hand of the King of Assyria that
Jehovah should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand?" All the range of their feelings does he thus
run through, seeking with sharp words to snap each cord of faith in God, of honour to the king
and love of country. Had the Jews heart to answer him, they might point out the inconsistency
between his claim to have been sent by Jehovah and the contempt he now pours upon their God.
But the inconsistency is characteristic. The Assyrian has some acquaintance with the Jewish
faith; he makes use of its articles when they serve his purpose, but his ultimatum is to tear them
to shreds in their believers’ faces. He treats the Jews as men of culture still sometimes treat
barbarians, first scornfully humouring their faith and then savagely trampling it under foot.
So clever were the speeches of the Rabshakeh. We see why he was appointed to this mission. He
was an expert both in the language and religion of this tribe, perched on its rock in the remote
Judsean highlands. For a foreigner he showed marvellous familiarity with the temper and
internal jealousies of the Jewish religion. He turned these on each other almost as adroitly as
Paul himself did in the disputes between Sadducees and Pharisees. How the fellow knew his
cleverness, strutting there betwixt army and town! He would show his soldier friends the proper
way of dealing with stubborn barbarians. He would astonish those faith-proud highlanders by
exhibiting how much he was aware of the life behind their thick walls and silent faces, "for the
king’s commandment was, Answer him not."
And yet did the Rabshakeh, with all his raking, know the heart of Judah? No, truly. The whole
interest of this man is the incongruity of the expertness and surface-knowledge, which he
spattered on Jerusalem’s walls, with the deep secret of God, that, as some inexhaustible well, the
fortress of the faith carried within her. Ah, Assyrian, there is more in starved Jerusalem than
thou canst put in thy speeches! Suppose Heaven were to give those sharp eyes of thine power to
look through the next thousand years, and see this race and this religion thou puffest at, the
highest-honoured, hottest-hated of the world, centre of mankind’s regard and debate, but thou,
and thy king and all the glory of your empire wrapped deep in oblivion. To this little fortress of
highland men shall the heart of great peoples turn: kings for its nursing-fathers and queens for
its nursing-mothers, the forces of the Gentiles shall come to it, and from it new civilisations take
their laws; while thou and all thy paraphernalia disappear into blackness, haunted only by the
antiquary, the world taking an interest in thee just in so far as thou didst once hopelessly
attempt to understand Jerusalem and capture her faith by thine own interpretation of it.
Curious pigmy, very grand thou thinkest thyself, and surely with some right as delegate of the
king of kings, parading thy cleverness and thy bribes before these poor barbarians; but the
world, called to look upon you both from this eminence of history, grants thee to be a very good
head of an intelligence department, with a couple of languages on thy glib tongue’s end, but
adjudges that with the starved and speechless men before thee lies the secret of all that is worth
living and dying for in this world.
The Rabshakeh’s plausible futility and Jerusalem’s faith, greatly distressed before him, are
typical. Still as men hang moodily over the bulwarks of Zion, doubtful whether life is worth
living within the narrow limits which religion prescribes, or righteousness worth fighting for
with such privations and hope deferred, comes upon them some elegant and plausible
temptation, loudly calling to give the whole thing up. Disregarding the official arguments and

11. evidences that push forward to parley, it speaks home in practical tones to men’s real selves-
their appetites and selfishness. "You are foolish fellows," it says, "to confine yourselves to such
narrowness of life and self-denial! The fall of your faith is only a matter of time: other creeds
have gone; yours must follow. And why fight the world for the sake of an idea, or from the habits
of a discipline? Such things only starve the human spirit; and the world is so generous, so free to
every one, so tolerant of each enjoying his own, unhampered by authority or religion."
In our day what has the greatest effect on the faith of many men is just this mixture, that
pervades the Rabshakeh’s address, -of a superior culture pretending to expose religion, with the
easy generosity, which offers to the individual a selfish life, unchecked by any discipline or
religious fear. That modern Rabshakeh, Ernest Renan, with the forces of historical criticism at
his back, but confident rather in his own skill of address, speaking to us believers as poor
picturesque provincials, patronising our Deity, and telling us that he knows His intentions better
than we do ourselves, is a very good representative of the enemies of the Faith, who owe their
impressiveness upon common men to the familiarity they display with the contents of the Faith,
and the independent, easy life they offer to the man who throws his strict faith off. Superior
knowledge, with the offer on its lips of a life on good terms with the rich and tolerant world-
pretence of promising selfishness-that is today, as then under the walls of Jerusalem, the typical
enemy of the Faith. But if faith be held simply as the silent garrison of Jerusalem held it, faith in
a Lord God of righteousness, who has given us a conscience to serve Him, and has spoken to us
in plain explanation of this by those whom we can see, understand, and trust-not only by an
Isaiah, but by a Jesus-then neither mere cleverness nor the ability to promise comfort can avail
against our faith. A simple conscience of God and of duty may not be able to answer subtle
arguments word for word, but she can feel the incongruity of their cleverness with her own
precious secret; she can at least expose the fallacy of their sensuous promises of an untroubled
life. No man, who tempts us from a good conscience with God in the discipline of our religion
and the comradeship of His people, can ensure that there will be no starvation in the pride of
life, no captivity in the easy tolerance of the world. To the heart of man there will always be
captivity in selfishness; there will always be exile in unbelief. Even where the romance and
sentiment of faith are retained, after the manner of Renan, it is only to mock us with mirage. "As
in a dry and thirsty land, where no water is, our heart and flesh shall cry out for the living God,
as we have aforetime seen Him in the sanctuary." The land in which the tempter promises a life
undisturbed by religious restraints is not our home, neither is it freedom. By the conscience that
is within us, God has set us on the walls of faith, with His law to observe, with His people to
stand by; and against us are the world and its tempters, with all their wiles to be defied. If we go
down from the charge and shelter of so simple a religion, then, whatever enjoyment we have, we
shall enjoy it only with the fears of the deserter and the greed of the slave.
In spite of scorn and sensuous promise from Rabshakeh to Renan, let us lift the hymn which
these silent Jews at last lifted from the walls of their delivered city: "Walk about Zion and go
round about her; tell ye the towers thereof. Mark ye well her bulwarks, and consider her palaces,
that ye may tell it to the generation to come. For this God is our God forever and ever. He will be
our Guide even unto death."
Isaiah 36:1-39:8
HAD ISAIAH A GOSPEL FOR THE INDIVIDUAL?
THE two narratives, in which Isaiah’s career culminates-that of the Deliverance of Jerusalem
(Isa_36:1-22; Isa_37:1-38) and that of the Recovery of Hezekiah (Isa_38:1-22; Isa_39:1-8)-

12. cannot fail, coming together as they do, to suggest to thoughtful readers a striking contrast
between Isaiah’s treatment of the community and his treatment of the individual, between his
treatment of the Church and his treatment of single members. For in the first of these narratives
we are told how an illimitable future, elsewhere so gloriously described by the prophet, was
secured for the Church upon earth; but the whole result of the second is the gain for a
representative member of the Church of a respite of fifteen years. Nothing, as we have seen, is
promised to the dying Hezekiah of a future life; no scintilla of the light of eternity sparkles either
in Isaiah’s promise or in Hezekiah’s prayer. The net result of the incident is a reprieve of fifteen
years: fifteen years of a character strengthened, indeed, by having met with death, but, it would
sadly seem, only in order to become again the prey of the vanities of this world (chapter 39). So
meagre a result for the individual stands strangely out against the perpetual glory and peace
assured to the community. And it suggests this question: Had Isaiah any real gospel for the
individual? If so, what was it?
First of all, we must remember that God in His providence seldom gives to one prophet or
generation more than a single main problem for solution. In Isaiah’s day undoubtedly the most
urgent problem-and Divine problems are ever practical, not philosophical-was the continuance
of the Church upon earth. It had really got to be a matter of doubt whether a body of people
possessing the knowledge of the true God, and able to transfuse and transmit it, could possibly
survive among the political convulsions of the world, and in consequence of its own sin. Isaiah’s
problem was the reformation and survival of the Church. In accordance with this, we notice how
many of his terms are collective, and how he almost never addresses the individual. It is the
people, upon whom he calls-"the nation," "Israel," "the house of Jacob My vineyard," "the men
of Judah His pleasant plantation." To these we may add the apostrophes to the city of
Jerusalem, under many personifications: "Ariel, Ariel," "inhabitress of Zion," "daughter of Zion."
When Isaiah denounces sin, the sinner is either the whole community or a class in the
community, very seldom an individual, though there are some instances of the latter, as Ahaz
and Shebna. It is "This people hath rejected," or "The people would not." When Jerusalem
collapsed, although there must have been many righteous men still within her, Isaiah said,
"What aileth thee that all belonging to thee have gone up to the housetops?". (Isa_22:1) His
language is wholesale. When he is not attacking society, he attacks classes or groups: "the
rulers," the land-grabbers, the drunkards, the sinners, the judges, the house of David, the priests
and the prophets, the women. And the sins of these he describes in their social effects, or in their
results upon the fate of the whole people; but he never, except in two cases, gives us their
individual results. He does not make evident, like Jesus or Paul, the eternal damage a man’s sin
inflicts on his own soul. Similarly when Isaiah speaks of God’s grace and salvation the objects of
these are again collective-"the remnant; the escaped" (also a collective noun); a "holy seed"; a "’
stock" or "stump." It is a "restored nation" whom he sees under the Messiah, the perpetuity and
glory of a city and a State. What we consider to be a most personal and particularly individual
matter-the forgiveness of sin-he promises, with two exceptions, only to the community: "This
people that dwelleth therein hath its iniquity forgiven." We can understand all this social,
collective, and wholesale character of his language only if we keep in mind his Divinely
appointed work-the substance and perpetuity of a purified and secure Church of God.
Had Isaiah then no gospel for the individual? This will indeed seem impossible to us if we keep
in view the following considerations:-
1. ISAIAH HIMSELF had passed through a powerfully individual experience. He had not only
felt the solidarity of the people’s sin-"I dwell among a people of unclean lips"-he had first felt his
own particular guilt: "I am a man of unclean lips." One who suffered the private experiences
which are recounted in chapter 6; whose "own eyes" had "seen the King, Jehovah of hosts"; who
had gathered on his own lips his guilt and felt the fire come from heaven’s altar by an angelic
messenger specially to purify him; who had further devoted himself to God’s service with so

13. thrilling a sense of his own responsibility, and had so thereby felt his solitary and individual
mission-he surely was not behind the very greatest of Christian saints in the experience of guilt,
of personal obligation to grace and of personal responsibility. Though the record of Isaiah’s
ministry contains no narratives, such as fill the ministries of Jesus and Paul, of anxious care for
individuals, could he who wrote of himself that sixth chapter have failed to deal with men as
Jesus dealt with Nicodemus, or Paul with the Philippian gaoler? It is not picturesque fancy, nor
merely a reflection of the New Testament temper, if we realise Isaiah’s intervals of relief from
political labour and religious reform occupied with an attention to individual interests, which
necessarily would not obtain the permanent record of his public ministry. But whether this be so
or not, the sixth chapter teaches that for Isaiah all public conscience and public labour found its
necessary preparation in personal religion.
2. But, again, Isaiah had an INDIVIDUAL FOR HIS IDEAL. To him the future was not only an
established State; it was equally, it was first, a glorious king. Isaiah was an Oriental. We
moderns of the West place our reliance upon institutions; we go forward upon ideas. In the East
it is personal influence that tells, persons who are expected, followed, and fought for. The
history of the West is the history of the advance of thought, of the rise and decay of institutions,
to which the greatest individuals are more or less subordinate. The history of the East is the
annals of personalities; justice and energy in a ruler, not political principles, are what impress
the Oriental imagination. Isaiah has carried this Oriental hope to a distinct and lofty pitch. The
Hero whom he exalts on the margin of the future, as its Author, is not only a person of great
majesty, but a character of considerable decision. At first only the rigorous virtues of the ruler
are attributed to Him, (Isa_11:1 ff.) but afterwards the graces and: influence of a much broader
and sweeter humanity. (Isa_32:2) Indeed, in this latter oracle we saw that Isaiah spoke not so
much of his great Hero, as of what any individual might become. "A man," he says, "shall be as a
hiding-place from the wind." Personal influence is the spring of social progress, the shelter and
fountain force of the community. In the following verses the effect of so pure and inspiring a
presence is traced in the discrimination of individual character-each man standing out for what
he is-which Isaiah defines as his second requisite for social progress. In all this there is much for
the individual to ponder, much to inspire him with a sense of the value and responsibility of his
own character, and with the certainty that by himself he shall be judged and by himself stand or
fall. "The worthless person shall be no more called princely, nor the knave said to be bountiful."
3. If any details of character are wanting in the picture of Isaiah’s hero, they are supplied by
HEZEKIAH’S SELF-ANALYSIS (chapter 38). We need not repeat what we have said in the
previous chapter of the king’s appreciation of what is the strength of a man’s character, and
particularly of how character grows by grappling with death. In this matter the most
experienced of Christian saints may learn from Isaiah’s pupil.
Isaiah had then, without doubt, a gospel for the individual; and to this day the individual may
plainly read it in his book, may truly, strongly, joyfully live by it-so deeply does it begin, so much
does it help to self-knowledge and self-analysis, so lofty are the ideals and responsibilities which
it presents. But is it true that Isaiah’s gospel is for this life only?
Was Isaiah’s silence on the immortality of the individual due wholly to the cause we have
suggested in the beginning of this chapter-that God gives to each prophet his single problem,
and that the problem of Isaiah was the endurance of the Church upon earth? There is no doubt
that this is only partly the explanation.
The Hebrew belonged to a branch of humanity-the Semitic-which, as its history proves, was
unable to develop any strong imagination of, or practical interest in, a future life apart from
foreign influence or Divine revelation. The pagan Arabs laughed at Mahommed when he
preached to them of the Resurrection; and even to-day, after twelve centuries of Moslem
influence, their descendants in the centre of Arabia, according to the most recent authority, fail

14. to form a clear conception of, or indeed to take almost any practical interest in, another world.
The northern branch of the race, to which the Hebrews belonged, derived from an older
civilisation a prospect of Hades, that their own fancy developed with great elaboration. This
prospect, however, which we shall describe fully in connection with chapters 14 and 26, was one
absolutely hostile to the interests of character in this life. It brought all men, whatever their life
had been on earth, at last to a dead level of unsubstantial and hopeless existence. Good and evil,
strong and weak, pious and infidel, alike became shades, joyless and hopeless, without even the
power to praise God. We have seen in Hezekiah’s case how such a prospect unnerved the most
pious souls, and that revelation, even though represented at his bedside by an Isaiah, offered
him no hope of an issue from it. The strength of character, however, which Hezekiah professes
to have won in grappling with death, added to the closeness of communion with God which he
enjoyed in this life, only brings out the absurdity of such a conclusion to life as the prospect of
Sheol offered to the individual. If he was a pious man, if he was a man who had never felt
himself deserted by God in this life, he was bound to revolt from so God-forsaken an existence
after death. This was actually the line along which the Hebrew spirit went out to victory over
those gloomy conceptions of death, that were yet unbroken by a risen Christ. "Thou wilt not,"
the saint triumphantly cried, "leave my soul in Sheol, nor wilt Thou suffer Thine holy one to see
corruption." It was faith in the almightiness and reasonableness of God’s ways, it was conviction
of personal righteousness, it was the sense that the Lord would not desert His own in death,
which sustained the believer in face of that awful shadow through which no light of revelation
had yet broken.
If, these, then, were the wings by which a believing soul under the Old Testament soared over
the grave, Isaiah may be said to have contributed to the hope of personal immortality just in so
far as he strengthened them. By enhancing as he did the value and beauty of individual
character, by emphasising the indwelling of God’s Spirit, he was bringing life and immortality to
light, even though be spoke no word to the dying about the fact of a glorious life beyond the
grave. By assisting to create in the individual that character and sense of God, which alone could
assure him he would never die, but pass from the praise of the Lord in this life to a nearer
enjoyment of His presence beyond, Isaiah was working along the only line by which the Spirit of
God seems to have assisted the Hebrew mind to an assurance of heaven.
But further in his favourite gospel of the REASONABLENESS OF GOD - that God does not work
fruitlessly, nor create and cultivate with a view to judgment and destruction-Isaiah was
furnishing an argument for personal immortality, tile force of which has not been exhausted. In
a recent work on "The Destiny of Man" the philosophic author maintains the reasonableness of
the Divine methods as a ground of belief both in the continued progress of the race upon earth
and in the immortality of the individual. "From the first dawning of life we see all things working
together toward one mighty goal-the evolution of the most exalted and spiritual faculties which
characterise humanity. Has all this work been done for nothing? Is it all ephemeral, all a bubble
that bursts, a vision that fades? On such a view the riddle of the universe becomes a riddle
without a meaning. The more thoroughly we comprehend the process of evolution by which
things have come to be what they are, the more we are likely to feel that to deny the everlasting
persistence of the spiritual element in man is to rob the whole process of its meaning. It goes far
toward putting us to permanent intellectual confusion. For my own part, I believe in the
immortality of the soul, not in the sense in which I accept demonstrable truths of science, but as
a supreme act of faith in the reasonableness of God’s work."
From the same argument Isaiah drew only the former of these two conclusions. To him the
certainty that God’s people would survive the impending deluge of Assyria’s brute force was
based on his faith that the Lord is "a God of judgment," of reasonable law and method, and
could not have created or fostered so spiritual a people only to destroy them. The progress of
religion upon earth was certain. But does not Isaiah’s method equally make for the immortality

15. of the individual? He did not draw this conclusion, but he laid down its premises with a
confidence and richness of illustration that have never been excelled.
We, therefore answer the question we put at the beginning of the chapter thus:-Isaiah had a
gospel for the individual for this life, and all the necessary premises of a gospel for the individual
for the life to come.
9. COFFMAN. “On the "14th year" see the chapter introduction. The invasion of Sennacherib referred
to here took place in 701 B.C., at which time the Assyrian ruler did indeed ravage all of the outlying cities
of Judaea, laying them waste, depopulating and carrying into captivity their peoples and despoiling them
of vast quantities of booty.
It looked as if there would be little or no opposition to him; but suddenly Tirhakah, one of the Ethiopian
rulers of Egypt appeared to confront Sennacherib; and that was the principal reason why he wished to
bring about the surrender of Jerusalem in order to avoid fighting on two fronts at once. Sennacherib was
engaged at the moment in destroying Lachish; and Isaiah 36:1 here states that it was from that city that
Sennacherib sent an envoy to demand the surrender of Hezekiah.
Isaiah 36:1-3
"Now it came to pass in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah, that Sennacherib king of Assyria
came up against all the fortified cities of Judah, and took them. And the king of Assyria sent
Rabshakeh from Lachish to Jerusalem unto king Hezekiah with a great army. And he stood by the
conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field. Then came forth unto him Eliakim the
son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah, the son of Asaph,
the recorder."
The narrative in 2Kings points out that Hezekiah had requested this envoy by a message sent to
Sennacherib during the siege at Lachish, "I have offended; that which thou puttest on me I will bear" (2
Kings 18:14). Sennacherib demanded and received from Hezekiah 300 talents of silver, and 30 talents of
gold, which Hezekiah at great cost had paid. Sennacherib had already carried away over 200,000
captives at the time when he sent this envoy to Hezekiah, which was composed of three men of high
rank: Tartan, Rabsaris and Rabshakeh.[6]
Rabshakeh, the commanding general of the invading army,
seems to have been the most important; at least, he was the speaker and was alone mentioned in this
chapter.
Hezekiah responded by sending three important officers of Judah: Eliakim, Shebna, and Joah. It is
interesting that Eliakim's replacement of Shebna as the officer over the king's household, as prophesied
inIsaiah 22:20-22 had, at this time already occurred, Shebna, at this time being demoted to scribe. "It is
also of interest that the spot where this meeting occurred was the very place where Isaiah some forty
years earlier had been commanded to meet Ahaz. It was probably on the north side of Jerusalem, not far
from the Damascus gate (Isaiah 7:3)."[7]
God's message to the king of Judah would be the same as it was
then, "Do not fear the Assyrians."
10. CALVIN, “1.It happened in the fourteenth year. In this and the following chapter the Prophet
relates a remarkable history, which may be regarded as the seal of his doctrine, in which he predicted the
calamities that would befall his nation, and at the same time promised that God would be merciful to
them, and would drive back the Assyrians and defend Jerusalem and the Holy Land. What had already
been accomplished made it evident that he had not spoken in vain; but God intended that it should also

16. be testified to posterity. Yet to the men of that age it was not less advantageous that such a record should
be preserved. He had often threatened that the vengeance of God was near at hand, and that the
Assyrians were ready at his bidding to be employed by him as scourges; and st the same time he
promised that he would assist Jerusalem even when matters were come to the worst. Both were
accomplished, and the greater part of the nation passed by, as with closed eyes, those evident judgments
of God, and not less basely despised the assistance which was offered to them. So much the more
inexcusable was their gross stupidity.
But to the small number of believers it was advantageous to perceive such illustrious proofs of the hand
of God, that greater credit might afterwards be given to Isaiah. The Prophet also might pursue his course
more ardently and with unshaken firmness, since God had given so splendid an attestation of his doctrine
from heaven. And because the truth of God scarcely obtains from us the honor due to it, unless it be
supported by strong proofs, God has provided not less largely for our weakness, that we may perceive as
in a mirror that the power of God accompanied the words of Isaiah, and that what he taught on earth was
confirmed from heaven. More especially has calling was manifestly sealed, when God delivered
Jerusalem from the grievous siege of Sennacherib, and when no hope of safety remained; so that
believers saw that they had been rescued from the jaws of death by the hand of God alone. For this
reason I have said that it was a seal to authenticate the prophecies which might otherwise have been
called in question.
In the fourteenth year. Not without reason does he specify the time when these things happened; for at
that time Hezekiah had restored the worship of God throughout the whole of his dominions, (2Kg_18:4;)
and, not satisfied with this, sent messengers in various directions to invite the Israelites to come with
speed from every place to Jerusalem, to offer sacrifices, and, after long disunion, again to unite in holy
harmony of faith, and to worship God according to the injunctions of the Law. While such was the
condition of the kingdom that superstitions were removed and the Temple cleansed, and thus the true
worship of God was restored, Judea is invaded by the king of Assyria, fields are pillaged, cities are taken,
and the whole country is subject to his authority. Jerusalem alone, with a few inhabitants, is left; and in
that city Hezekiah was shut up as in a prison.
We must now consider what thoughts might occur to the pious king and to other persons; for if we judge
of this calamity according to the perception of the flesh, we shall think that God was unjust in permitting
his servant to be reduced to such extremities, whose piety seemed to deserve that the Lord would
preserve him in safety and free from all molestation, since his whole desire was to maintain the true
worship of God. This was no small trial of the faith of Hezekiah, and ought to be continually placed before
our eyes, when we are subjected to the same temptations. The Lord did not punish Hezekiah for
carelessness, pleasures, or luxury, and much less for superstitions, or unholy contempt of the Law; for as
soon as he began to reign, he labored with the utmost zeal and carefulness and industry to restore the
purity of religion. God therefore intended to try his faith and patience.

17. 2 Then the king of Assyria sent his field commander
with a large army from Lachish to King Hezekiah at
Jerusalem. When the commander stopped at the
aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the
Launderer’s Field,
1.BARNES, “And the king of Assyria sent Rabshakeh - In 2Ki_18:17, it is said that he
sent Tartan, and Rabsaris, and Rabshakeh. In regard to Tartan, see the note at Isa_20:1. It is
probable that Rabshakeh only is mentioned in Isaiah because the expedition may have been
mainly under his direction, or more probably because he was the principal speaker on the
occasion to which he refers.
From Lachish - This was a city in the south of the tribe of Judah, and was southwest of
Jerusalem Jos_10:23; Jos_15:39. It was situated in a plain, and was the seat of an ancient
Canaanite king. It was rebuilt and fortified by Rehoboam 2Ch_11:9. It was in some respects a
border town, and was a defense against the incursions of the Philistines. It was therefore
situated between Jerusalem and Egypt, and was in the direct way of Sennacherib in his going to
Egypt, and on his return. It lay, according to Eusebius and Jerome, seven Roman miles from
Eleutheropolis toward the south. No trace of the town, however, is now to be found (see
Robinson’s “Bib. Researches,” vol. ii. pp. 388, 389).
With a great army - Sennacherib remained himself for a time at Lachish, though he
followed not long after. It is probable that he sent forward a considerable portion of his
immense army, retaining only so many forces as he judged would be necessary to carry on the
siege of Lachish. In 2Ch_32:9, it is said that Sennacherib, while he sent his servants to
Jerusalem, ‘laid siege to Lachish and all his power with him;’ but this must mean that he
retained with him a considerable part of his army, and doubtless all that contributed to his
magnificence and splendor. The word ‘power’ in 2Ch_32:9, means also ‘dominion’ (see the
margin), and denotes all the insignia of royalty: and this might have been retained while a
considerable part of his forces had been sent forward to Jerusalem.
And he stood - He halted; he encamped there; He intended to make that the point of attack.
By the conduit ... - (See the notes at Isa_7:3)
2. PULPIT, “And the King of Assyria sent Rabshakeh with a great army. It is inconceivable that,
immediately after the grant of terms of peace and their acceptance, Sennacherib should have renewed
the war; there must have been an interval, and a fresh provocation. The interval can have been only a
short one, since Hezekiah died in b.c. 697. It may have been a couple of years, or perhaps no more than
a year, or possibly only a few months. The fresh provocation probably consisted in an application for aid,
made by Hezekiah to Tir-hakah, or to the subordinate Egyptian kings, which is glanced at in Isa_36:6.
The Assyrian annals, which never record any reverse or defeat, are wholly silent as to this second
expedition. The only profane confirmation of it is to be found in Herodotus (2.141). From Lackish.
Laehish, an ancient city of the Amorites (Jos_10:5), was assigned by Joshua to the tribe of Judah

18. (Jos_15:39), and seems to have been still a Jewish possession (2Ki_14:19). It occupied "a low round
swell or knoll" in the Shefelch, or low tract between the Judaean highland and the Mediterranean, and lay
near, if not directly on, the direct route which armies commonly followed in their march from Syria into
Egypt. The site is now known as Um-Lakis; it lies between Gaza and Ajlan(Eglon), about two miles west
of the hitter. Sennacherib represents himself as engaged in its siege on a bas-relief in the British Museum
(see Layard, 'Monuments of Nineveh," second series, pl. 21). The conduit of the upper pool (see the
comment on Jos_7:3). The spot was that at which Isaiah had been commanded to meet Ahaz some forty
years previously. It was probably on the north side of Jerusalem, not tar from the Damascus gate.
3. GILL, ” And the king of Assyria sent Rabshakeh from Lachish to Jerusalem unto
King Hezekiah with a great army,.... Notwithstanding he had taken Hezekiah's money to
withdraw his army out of his country, yet sends it out to his very capital; along with this
Rabshakeh he sent two other generals, Tartan and Rabsaris, 2Ki_18:17 though they are not
mentioned, only Rabshakeh, because he was the principal person, however the chief speaker.
Lachish was a city in the tribe of Judah, Jos_15:39, which Sennacherib was now besieging,
2Ch_32:9. This message was sent, Bishop Usher says, three years after the former expedition:
and he stood by the conduit of the upper pool, in the highway of the fullers' field;
where they spread their clothes, as the Targum, having washed them in the pool, of which see
Isa_7:3. Ben Melech thus describes the pool, conduit, and highway: the pool is a ditch, built with
stone and lime, where rainwater was collected, or where they drew water from the fountain, and
the waters were gathered into this pool; and there was in this pool a hole, which they stopped,
until the time they pleased to fetch water, out of the pool: and the conduit was a ditch near to the
pool, and they brought water out of the pool into the conduit, when they chose to drink, or wash
garments: the highway was a way paved with stones, so that they could walk upon it in rainy
days; and here they stood and washed their garments in the waters of the conduit, and in the
field they spread them to the sun. This pool lay outside the city, yet just by the walls of it, which
showed the daring insolence of Rabshakeh to come so very nigh, for he was in the hearing of the
men upon the walls, Isa_36:12, this Rabshakeh is by the Jewish writers thought to be an
apostate Jew, because he spoke in the Jews' language; and some of them, as Jerome says, will
have him to be a son of the Prophet Isaiah's, but without any foundation, Procopius, in
2Ki_18:18, thinks it probable that he was a Hebrew, who either had fled on his own accord to
the Assyrians, or was taken captive by them.
4. JAMISON, “Rab-shakeh — In 2Ki_18:17, Tartan and Rab-saris are joined with him. Rab-
shakeh was probably the chief leader; Rab is a title of authority, “chief-cup-bearer.”
Lachish — a frontier town southwest of Jerusalem, in Judah; represented as a great fortified
city in a hilly and fruitful country in the Koyunjik bas-reliefs, now in the British Museum; also,
its name is found on a slab over a figure of Sennacherib on his throne.
upper pool — the side on which the Assyrians would approach Jerusalem coming from the
southwest (see on Isa_7:3).
5. CALVIN, “2.Then the king of Assyria Rent Rabshakeh. The order of the narrative may here have
been altered; for he had formerly said that Sennacherib had taken all the cities of Judea, and now he
says that he sent Rabshakeh (28) from Lachish, implying that he was besieging it, and consequently he
had not yet stormed them all. But it ought to be observed that historical connection is frequently disturbed,
and that what was first in the order of time, comes last in the narrative. Besides, the Scriptures frequently
make use of a figure of speech in which a part is taken for the whole, and by which it might be said that all

19. the cities were taken, because those which had been left were few, and Hezekiah had no means of
intercourse with them. It appeared, therefore, that the king of Assyria had brought the whole of Judea
under his dominion, because nearly all that remained was Jerusalem alone, in which Hezekiah was shut
up.
This history is more fully related in the Books of Kings, where it is shewn how eager for peace Hezekiah
was; for he labored to obtain it on any terms. He had delivered up “ hundred talents of silver and thirty
talents of gold,” which that tyrant had demanded; and he found it necessary to seize the vessels of the
Temple, and the golden plates which had been attached to its doors, to make up that sum, because his
treasury was exhausted. (2Kg_18:14.) But as such gulfs are insatiable, when he had received that
money, he next demanded more, and sought to enforce harder conditions. This was done partly, in order
to provoke and torment Hezekiah, (for, having once abused the ready compliance of the pious king, he
thought that he would obtain anything,) and partly because he sought an occasion of renewing the war.
Yet it ought to be observed that the people were justly punished for their iniquities, as had been foretold;
for although true religion flourished as to external worship, yet their life was not changed for the better,
and their wickedness was not removed, nor was the inward pollution cleansed from their hearts.
Accordingly, because the people did not repent, it was necessary that their obstinate depravity should be
severely chastised. But because the measure of their iniquities was not yet full, God abated the
fierceness of his anger, and suddenly, when matters were desperate, brought such assistance as could
not have been believed.
(28) “ Hebrew doctors will have it that this Rabshakeh was an apostate Jew, and Procopius is of the same
opinion, which is not altogether improbable, both because he could speak readily in the Hebrew tongue,
and when he blasphemed the Divine Majesty, the king and nobles rent their clothes, which was not usual
unless he that uttered such blasphemous words was an Israelite. Some think his name imports that he
was the principal cupbearer to the king of Assyria, who assumed to himself the title of the Great King,
because of his great conquests and large dominions.” — White.
3 Eliakim son of Hilkiah the palace administrator,
Shebna the secretary, and Joah son of Asaph the
recorder went out to him.

20. 1.BARNES, “Then came forth unto him - Isaiah has here omitted what is recorded in
2Ki_18:18, namely, that Rabshakeh and his companions ‘called to the king,’ and as the result of
that probably Hezekiah sent out Eliakim.
Eliakim, Hilkiah’s son, which was over the house - Respecting Eliakim, and his
character, see the notes at Isa_22:20-25.
And Shebna the scribe - This may have been some other man than the one mentioned in
Isa_22:15. He is there said to have been ‘over the house,’ and it is stated that he should be
degraded from that office, and succeeded by Eliakim. It is possible, however, that Hezekiah
retained him as scribe, or as secretary (see the analysis of Isa_22:15-25).
And Joah, Asaph’s son, the recorder - The “chronicler;” the officer to whom was
entrusted the keeping of the records of state. The Hebrew word means ‘the remembrancer;’ him
by whose means former events might be recalled and remembered, perhaps an officer such as
would be called historiographer.
2. CLARKE, “Then came forth unto him - Before these words the other copy, 2Ki_18:18,
adds, ‫ויקראו‬‫אל‬‫המלך‬ vaiyikreu el hammelech, “And they demanded audience of the king.”
3. GILL, ” Then came forth unto him,.... Being sent by Hezekiah; for otherwise Rabshakeh
had the impudence to call to him, in order to parley, and treat with him about the surrender of
the city; but as this was not thought either safe or honourable for the king to go in person, his
following ministers went; see 2Ki_18:18,
Eliakim, Hilkiah's son, which was over the house; not over the house of the Lord, the
temple, as some, but the king's house, being high steward of if, or "major domo". This is the
same person as is mentioned in Isa_22:20,
and Shebna the scribe; not of the book of the law, a copier, or interpreter of that, but
secretary of state; he had been treasurer, but now removed, Isa_22:15,
and Joah, Asaph's son, the recorder; the master of requests, or the "remembrancer" (e);
who, as the Targum, was appointed over things memorable; whose business it was to take notice
of things worthy of memory, write them down, and digest them in order; perhaps the king's
historiographer.
4. PULPIT, “Eliakim: Hilkiah's son (see above, Isa_22:20). Eliakim had now taken the place of the
Shebna who was "over the house" when Isaiah prophesied his downfall (Isa_22:19) and Eliakim's
advancement (Isa_22:21-23). Shebna the scribe. It is not quite certain that this is the same "Shebna" as
the former prefect of the palace, but the uncommonness of the name is a strong argument for the identity.
The post of "scribe" or "secretary "(marginal rendering) was one of some importance (see 1Ki_4:3),
though inferior to that of palace prefect. Joah the recorder. We learn from Kings that Sennacherib
sent in reality three envoys (2Ki_18:17) to Hezekiah—the Tartan, or "commander-in-chief;" the Rabsaris,

21. or "chief eunuch;" and the Rabshakeh, or "rab-sak," the "chief captain," the second in command after the
tartan. Hezekiah thought it right to appoint an equal number of officials to meet and confer with them.
5. JAMISON, “Eliakim — successor to Shebna, who had been “over the household,” that is,
chief minister of the king; in Isa_22:15-20, this was foretold.
scribe — secretary, recorder - literally, “one who reminds”; a remembrancer to keep the king
informed on important facts, and to act as historiographer. In 2Ki_18:18, the additional fact is
given that the Assyrian envoys “called to the king,” in consequence of which Eliakim, etc., “came
out to them.”
6. K&D 3-10, “Hezekiah's confidential ministers go there also. Isa_36:3 (K. “And they called
to the king), and there went out to him (K. to them) Eliakim son of Hilkiyahu, the house-
minister, and Shebna the chancellor, and Joah son of Asaph, the recorder.” On the office of the
house-minister, or major-domo, which was now filled by Eliakim instead of Shebna (‫,שׁבנא‬ K.
twice ‫,)שׁבנה‬ see Isa_22:15.; and on that of sopher and mazkı̄r. Rabshakeh's message follows in
Isa_36:4-10 : “And Rabshakeh said to them, Say now to Hizkiyahu, Thus saith the great king,
the king of Asshur, What sort of confidence is this that thou hast got? I say (K. thou sayest, i.e.,
thou talkest), vain talk is counsel and strength for war: now, then, in whom dost thou trust,
that thou hast rebelled against me? (K. Now) Behold, thou trustest (K. ְָ‫ך‬ ) in this broken reed-
staff there, in Egypt, on which one leans, and it runs into his hand and pierces it; so does
Pharaoh king of Egypt to all who trust in him. But if thou sayest to me (K. ye say), We trust in
Jehovah our God; is it not He whose high places and altars Hizkiyahu has removed, and has
said to Judah and Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before the altar (K. ads, in Jerusalem)? And
now take a wager with my lord (K. with) the king of Asshur; I will deliver thee two thousand
horses, if thou art able for thy part to give horsemen upon them. And how couldst thou repel
the advance of a single satrap among the least of the servants of my lord?! Thou puttest thy
trust then in Egypt for chariots and riders! And (omitted in K.) now have I come up without
Jehovah against this land to destroy it (K. against this place, to destroy it)? Jehovah said to
me, Go up to (K. against) this land, and destroy it.” The chronicler has a portion of this address
of Rabshakeh in 2Ch_32:10-12. And just as the prophetic words in the book of Kings have a
Deuteronomic sound, and those in the Chronicles the ring of a chronicle, so do Rabshakeh's
words, and those which follow, sound like the words of Isaiah himself. “The great king” is the
standing royal title appended to the names of Sargon and Sennacherib upon the Assyrian
monuments (compare Isa_10:8). Hezekiah is not thought worthy of the title of king, ether here
or afterwards. The reading ָ ְ‫ר‬ ַ‫מ‬ፎ in Isa_36:5 (thou speakest vain talk) is not the preferable one,
because in that case we should expect ָ ְ‫ר‬ ַ ִ , or rather (according to the usual style) ְ‫ך‬ፍָ ְ‫ר‬ ַ ִ . The
meaning is, that he must look upon Hezekiah's resolution, and his strength (‫ה‬ ָ‫בוּר‬ְ‫וּג‬ ‫ה‬ ָ‫צ‬ ֵ‫ע‬ connected
as in Isa_11:2) for going to war, as mere boasting (“lip-words,” as in Pro_14:23), and must
therefore assume that there was something in the background of which he was well aware. And
this must be Egypt, which would not only be of no real help to its ally, but would rather do him
harm by leaving him in the lurch. The figure of a reed-staff has been borrowed by Ezekiel in
Isa_29:6-7. It was a very appropriate one for Egypt, with its abundance of reeds and rushes
(Isa_19:6), and it has Isaiah's peculiar ring (for the expression itself, compare Isa_42:3; and for
the fact itself, Isa_30:5, and other passages). ‫צוּ‬ ָ‫ר‬‫ץ‬ does not mean fragile (Luzz. quella fragil
canna), but broken, namely, in consequence of the loss of the throne by the native royal family,

22. from whom it had been wrested by the Ethiopians (Isa_18:1-7), and the defeats sustained at the
hands of Sargon (Isa_20:1-6). The construction cui quis innitur et intrat is paratactic for cui si
quis. In Isa_36:7 the reading ‫רוּן‬ ְ‫ּאמ‬‫ת‬ commends itself, from the fact that the sentence is not
continued with ָ‫ּת‬‫ר‬‫י‬ ִ‫ס‬ ֲ‫;ה‬ but as Hezekiah is addressed throughout, and it is to him that the reply is
to be made, the original reading was probably ‫ר‬ ַ‫ּאמ‬‫ת‬. The fact that Hezekiah had restricted the
worship of Jehovah to Jerusalem, by removing the other places of worship (2Ki_18:4), is
brought against him in a thoroughly heathen, and yet at the same time (considering the
inclination to worship other gods which still existed in the nation) a very crafty manner. In
Isa_36:8, Isa_36:9, he throws in his teeth, with most imposing scorn, his own weakness as
compared with Asshur, which was chiefly dreaded on account of its strength in cavalry and war-
chariots. ‫א‬ָ‫נ‬ ‫ב‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ָ‫ע‬ ְ‫ת‬ ִ‫ה‬ does not refer to the performance and counter-performance which follow, in
the sense of “connect thyself” (Luzz. associati), but is used in a similar sense to the Omeric µιγᇿν
αι, though with the idea of vying with one another, not of engaging in war (the synonym in the
Talmud is himrah, to bet, e.g., b. Sabbath 31a): a bet and a pledge are kindred notions (Heb.
‫בוֹן‬ ָ‫ר‬ ֵ‫,ע‬ cf., Lat. vadari). On pechah (for pachah), which also occurs as an Assyrian title in Eze_23:6,
Eze_23:23. ‫ד‬ ַ‫ח‬ፍ ‫ת‬ ַ‫ח‬ ַ , two constructives, the first of which is to be explained according to Ewald,
§286, a (compare above, Isa_36:2, ‫כבד‬ ‫יל‬ ֵ‫,)ח‬ form the logical regens of the following servorum
dominin mei minimorum; and heshı̄bh pene does not mean here to refuse a petitioner, but to
repel an antagonist (Isa_28:6). The fut. consec. ‫ח‬ ַ‫ט‬ ְ‫ב‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬ deduces a consequence: Hezekiah could
not do anything by himself, and therefore he trusted in Egypt, from which he expected chariots
and horsemen. In Isa_36:10, the prophetic idea, that Asshur was the instrument employed by
Jehovah (Isa_10:5, etc.), is put into the mouth of the Assyrian himself. This is very conceivable,
but the colouring of Isaiah is undeniable.
7. CALVIN, “3.And Eliakim went to him. Eliakim was formerly mentioned. It was he to whom the Lord
promised that he would give him the chief power in the kingdom after the banishment of Shebna.
(Isa_22:20.) It now appears as if that promise had failed, when he is sent to an enemy as a suppliant, and
as one who is about to surrender himself and his companions, and to undergo cruel tyranny. This might
also fill the hearts of believers with anxiety, and lead them to doubt the promises of God. Besides, the
godly king had such a scarcity of good men, that, along with Eliakim, he was compelled to send Shebna,
whom he knew well to be deceitful and treacherous.
‫ספר‬ (sopher) meansscribe; and accordingly it often denotes learned men or doctors, and sometimes
those who took charge of writings and those who had the custody of the royal records. I have translated
it chancellor, for unquestionably it does not relate to legal skill; and we may infer that this Shebna held a
high rank, though he had been deprived of his office as governor. ‫מזכיר‬ (mazkir) denotes a secretary or
recorder.

23. 4 The field commander said to them, “Tell Hezekiah:
“‘This is what the great king, the king of Assyria, says:
On what are you basing this confidence of yours?
1.BARNES, “What confidence - What is the ground of your confidence? on what do you
trust? The appellation ‘great king’ was the customary title of the kings of the Persians and
Assyrians.
2. PULPIT, “And Rabshakeh said. Of the three Assyrian envoys Rabshakeh alone obtains mention in
Isaiah, probably because he was the spokesman. He was probably chosen for spokesman because he
could speak Hebrew fluently (infra, verses 11, 13). The great king. "The great king" (sarru rabbu) is the
most common title assumed by the Assyrian monarchs in their inscriptions. It is found as early as b.c.
1120.
3. GILL, ” And Rabshakeh said unto them,.... The three ministers above mentioned:
say ye now to Hezekiah; tell him what follows; he does not call him king, as he does his own
master:
thus saith the great king, the king of Assyria; this he said boastingly of his master, and in
order to terrify Hezekiah and his subjects; whom he would represent as little in comparison of
him, who had subdued many kingdoms, and aimed at universal monarchy; so the eastern kings
used to be called, as now the Grand Signior with the Turks, and the French call their king the
great monarch; but the title of a great king suits best with God himself, Psa_95:3,
what confidence is this wherein thou trustest? meaning, what was the ground and
foundation of his confidence? what was it that kept him in high spirits, that he did not at once
submit to the king of Assyria, and surrender the city of Jerusalem to him?
4. BI, “War orators
We have a class of speakers in this country who are silent on all great social and cosmopolitan
topics, but make themselves heard and felt the moment any matter of warlike fascination comes
to the surface.
All other questions float down the stream of public opinion without causing them even to
indicate their existence. But let a question involving blood appear, and with marvellous celerity

24. all these pugilistic men come from the obscurity of barracks and service clubs, and from no one
knows where, often fuming about no one knows what. They remind one of those animals noted
for their bloodthirstiness in the warm regions of Africa—the caribitos (Serrasalmo)
Their haunts are at the bottoms of rivers, but a few drops of blood suffice to bring them by
thousands to the surface; and Humboldt himself mentions that in some part of the A pure,
where the water was perfectly clear and no fish were visible, he could, in a few minutes, bring
together a cloud of caribitos by casting in some bits of flesh. With equal ease we can collect our
war orators if we only give them one sanguinary pretext. (Scientific Illustrations and Symbols.)
5. JAMISON, “great king — the usual title of the Persian and Assyrian kings, as they had
many subordinate princes or kings under them over provinces (Isa_10:8).
6. COFFMAN, “This was indeed a master stroke of diplomatic arrogance and intimidation. It was a
combination of falsehood, mingled with a few grains of truth. The arrogant offer to provide two thousand
horses for Hezekiah, provided that Hezekiah had anybody who could ride them, was the equivalent of the
boast of the schoolyard bully who threatened his opponent, saying, "I can whip you with one hand tied
behind my back!"
"Say ye now to Hezekiah ..." (Isaiah 36:4). Note that Rabshakeh did not even accord to Hezekiah his
rightful title as King, whereas he referred to Sennacherib as "The Great King the King of Assyria," that
being the title by which the Assyrian kings referred to themselves.
Evidently, the Assyrians had a thorough intelligence system; because this mention that Hezekiah had tom
down Jehovah's altars was a mistaken interpretation of Hezekiah's marvelous reforms. The Law of Moses
required that "only at Jerusalem" was God to be worshipped by the Israelites; but, in time, high places
and altars had been erected throughout the land. Hezekiah had corrected that apostasy, which is exactly
what he should have done; but Rabshakeh supposed that this would have been contrary to God's will.
None of the pagan nations had a religious system that required "one altar only," as did the Jews; and
therefore Rabshakeh, having learned that Hezekiah had destroyed some altars (the illegal ones) that
were indeed dedicated to Jehovah, he supposed that Jehovah would have been angry with Hezekiah. As
Jamieson said, "Some of those altars that Hezekiah destroyed may indeed have been dedicated to
Jehovah; but they were worshipped with idols in violation of the Second Commandment."[8]
Thus
Rahshakeh's argument was totally contrary to the truth.
One thing Rabshakeh was absolutely correct about was the dependability of Egypt!
Notice the bold lie that "Jehovah" had sent him against Jerusalem. Indeed the Assyrians were God's
instrument in the reduction of the Northern Israel and many of the adjacent cities to Jerusalem, but we
may reject as an arrogant falsehood the proposition that God had commanded Sennacherib to take
Jerusalem.
We learn from Isaiah 36:10 that the purpose of Sennacherib was the total destruction and devastation of
Jerusalem, despite all of the lying promises he had made when he exacted that scandalously large tribute
from Hezekiah. The truth comes out right here.

25. 7. CALVIN, “4.Say now to Hezekiah. He relates that the three ambassadors, though they were
attended by all the magnificence that yet remained in the kingdom, were not only repulsed, but
disdainfully treated by the tyrant’ delegate, and loaded with disgraceful reproaches; for, as if Hezekiah
had been convicted of wicked revolt, Rabshakeh asks how he had dared to rebel. The particle ‫נא‬ (na) is
supposed by some to denote entreaty, and is rendered by them I pray; but it would be unsuitable to a
proud and insolent man to entreat in this manner. He speaks in the ordinary language of those who lay
conditions on the vanquished, or on those who are overwhelmed with fear, whom they wish to compel to
make an unconditional surrender, or, as we commonly say, (sommer) to summon.
Thus saith the great king. In order to give greater validity to the summons, that general speaks in the
name of his king, whose greatness he extols to the skies, in order to terrify Hezekiah, when he learns that
he has to do with a king of such vast resources. He does not only mean that the first monarch in the world
was far superior to Hezekiah, who in comparison of him was but a petty prince; but he calls the king of
Assyria great, because by his power he eclipsed all others, so that he stood alone in his lofty rank. By
these thunderbolts of words Hezekiah might have been overthrown and subdued, especially since he was
so far from being able to resist the power of that tyrant that he was shut up in the city and unable to move
out of it.
5 You say you have counsel and might for war—but
you speak only empty words. On whom are you
depending, that you rebel against me?
1.BARNES, “I say, sayest thou - In 2Ki_18:20, this is ‘thou sayest;’ and thus many
manuscripts read it here, and Lowth and Noyes have adopted that reading. So the Syriac reads
it. But the sense is not affected whichever reading is adopted. It is designed to show to Hezekiah
that his reliance, either on his own resources or on Egypt, was vain.
But they are but vain words - Margin, as Hebrew, ‘A word of lips;’ that is, mere words;
vain and empty boasting.
On whom dost thou trust, that thou rebellest against me? - Hezekiah had revolted
from the Assyrian power, and had refused to pay the tribute which had been imposed on the
Jews in the time of Ahaz 2Ki_18:7.

26. 2. CLARKE, “I say “Thou hast said” - Fourteen MSS. (three ancient) of Kennicott’s and
De Rossi’s have it in the second person, ‫אמרת‬ amarta; and so the other copy, 2Ki_18:20.
But they are but vain words - ‫דבר‬‫שפתים‬ debar sephathayim, a word of the lips. Thou dost
talk about counsels, but thou hast none; about strength, but there is none with thee.
3. GILL, ” I say, (sayest thou,) but they are but vain words,.... Or, "word of lips" (f);
meaning the following, which he suggests were only the fruit of his lips, not of his heart; or were
vain and foolish, and without effect, and stood for nothing; so the first part of the words are
Hezekiah's, "I say (sayest thou)"; and the latter, Rabshakeh's note upon them; though they may
be understood as Hezekiah's, or what he is made to speak by Rabshakeh, as the ground of his
confidence, namely, "word of lips"; that is, prayer to God, as Kimchi explains it; or eloquence in
addressing his soldiers, and encouraging them to fight, either of which Rabshakeh derides, as
well as what follows:
I have counsel and strength for war; as he had; he had wise ministers to consult, and was
capable of forming a good plan, and wise schemes, and of putting them in execution, and of
heartening men; though he did not put his confidence in these things, as Rabshakeh suggested,
2Ch_32:3, the words may be rendered; "but counsel and strength are for war" (g): what signifies
words to God, or eloquence with men? this is all lip labour, and of little service; wisdom and
counsel to form plans, and power to execute them, are the things which are necessary to carry on
a war with success, and which, it is intimated, were wanting in Hezekiah; and therefore he had
nothing to ground his confidence upon, within himself, or his people:
now on whom dost thou trust, that thou rebellest against me? which it does not appear
he had, having paid the money agreed to for the withdrawment of his army; but this was a
pretence for the siege of Jerusalem.
4. Pulpit, “I say. In 2Ki_18:20 we read, "Thou sayest" for "I say," which gives a better sense. Dr. Kay
holds the two forms to be "complementary." I have counsel and strength for war. Either the words of
Hezekiah had been reported to Sennacherib, or he rightly divined Hezekiah's thoughts. It was, no doubt,
in reliance on the "counsel"of Eliakim and the "strength" of Egypt that the Jewish monarch had a second
time provoked his suzerain.
5. JAMISON, “counsel — Egypt was famed for its wisdom.
6. CALVIN, “5.I have said (only a word of the lips.) In the sacred history (2Kg_18:20) the word
employed is, Thou hast said This may be explained as a declaration what kind of courage Rabshakeh
thinks that Hezekiah possesses; as if he had said, “ are thy deliberations.” In this passage the use of the
first person, “ have said,” does not alter the sense; because Rabshakeh, as if he had examined the
counsels of Hezekiah and fully understood them all, ironically reproaches him; “ see what thou art
thinking, but they are words of the lips.” This passage is explained in various ways. Some interpret it, “
sayest, that thou hast not merely words of the lips,” that is, “ boastest that thou excellest not only in the
use of words, but likewise in courage and wisdom.” Others interpret it, “ hast words indeed, but wisdom
and courage are necessary in war.”

27. Some think that by “” are meant “” I do not approve of that exposition; for it is excessively farfetched and
unnatural, and therefore I view it thus: “ has words of lips, that is, he employs a beautiful and elegant
style, to keep the people in the discharge of their duty, or, as we commonly say, He has fine
speeches; (29) but it is not by these that war can be begun or carried on.” He therefore means, that he
perfectly understands what Hezekiah is doing, and what it is on which he places his chief reliance,
namely, on words and eloquence; (30) but these are of no use for war, in which wisdom and courage are
needed. It might also be appropriately viewed as relating to the Egyptians, as if he had said that Hezekiah
acts foolishly in allowing himself to be cheated by empty promises; and undoubtedly the Egyptians were
liberal in promising mountains of gold, though they gave nothing in reality. But as we shall find that he
speaks of the Egyptians, soon afterwards, in a particular manner, I have no doubt that here he ridicules
Hezekiah, as if he fed the expectation of the people by empty boasting, while he was not provided with
military preparations.
(29) Il a de belles paroles.
(30) “Assavoir, sur belles paroles.” “ on fine speeches.”
6 Look, I know you are depending on Egypt, that
splintered reed of a staff, which pierces the hand of
anyone who leans on it! Such is Pharaoh king of Egypt
to all who depend on him.
1.BARNES, “Lo, thou trustest - It is possible that Sennacherib might have been apprised
of the attempt which had been made by the Jews to secure the cooperation of Egypt (see the
notes at Isa_30:1-7; Isa_31:1 ff), though he might not have been aware that the negotiation was
unsuccessful.
In the staff of this broken reed - The same comparison of Egypt with a broken reed, or a
reed which broke while they were trusting to it, occurs in Eze_29:6-7. Reeds were doubtless
used often for staves, as they are now. They are light and hollow, with long joints. The idea here
is, that as a slender reed would break when a man leaned on it, and would pierce his hand, so it
would be with Egypt. Their reliance would give way, and their trusting to Egypt would be
attended with injury to themselves (compare Isa_30:5, Isa_30:7; Isa_31:3).

28. 2. CLARKE, “The staff of this broken reed - A weakened, faithless ally.
On Egypt - The Bodl. MS. adds ‫מלך‬ melech, the king of Egypt; and so perhaps the Chaldee
might read.
It will go into his hand, and pierce it - Will take subsidy after subsidy, and do nothing for
it.
3. GILL, ” Lo, thou trustest in the staff of this broken reed, on Egypt,.... His ally and
auxiliary; and which is rightly called "the staff of a broken reed", if trusted to, and leaned upon,
being weak and frail, and an insufficient ground of confidence to depend upon; the allusion
seems to be to the cane or reed which grew upon the banks of the river Nile, in Egypt:
whereon if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it; the splinters of the broken
reed being leaned on, will enter into a man's hand, and do him harm, instead of being a help to
him to walk with:
so is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all that trust in him; pernicious and harmful, instead of
being useful and helpful.
4. PULPIT, “This broken reed; rather, as in 2Ki_18:21, this bruised reed (comp. Isa_42:3). A reed may
be "bruised," and wholly untrustworthy as a support, while it appears sound. A "broken" reed no one
would lean on. Egypt. There had been times when Egypt was a strong power, feared and respected by
her neighbours, and a terror even to Assyria. But these times were long past. For the last fifty years the
country had been divided against itself (see the comment on Isa_19:2), split up into a number of petty
principalities, Recently the neighbouring kingdom of Ethiopia had claimed and exercised a species of
sovereignty over the entire Nile valley, while allowing tributary princes to govern different portions of it. Of
these princes the most important at the time of Rabshakeh's embassy seems to have been Shabatok,
who reigned in Memphis, probably from b.c. 712 to b.c. 698. Egypt is likened to a "bruised reed" on
account of her untrustworthincss. "So" (Sabaco) had given no substantial help to Hashes. Shabatok was
little likely to imperil himself in order to assist Hezekiah. Even Tirhakah would probably avoid, as long as
he could, a conflict with the full power of Assyria. Pharaoh, King of Egypt. Sennacherib uses the generic
term, "Pharaoh," instead of mentioning any of the petty princes by name, because he means to speak
generally. The King of Egypt, under present circumstances, whoever he may be, is no better than a
bruised reed. In his own inscriptions, Sennacherib about this time uses the expression, "the kings of
Egypt".
5. JAMISON, “It was a similar alliance with So (that is, Sabacho, or else Sevechus), the
Ethiopian king of Egypt, which provoked the Assyrian to invade and destroy Israel, the northern
kingdom, under Hoshea.
6. SPURGEON, “Reader, this is an important question. Listen to the Christian's answer, and see if it
is yours. "On whom dost thou trust?" "I trust," says the Christian, "in a triune God. I trust the Father,
believing that he has chosen me from before the foundations of the world; I trust him to provide for
me in providence, to teach me, to guide me, to correct me if need be, and to bring me home to his

29. own house where the many mansions are. I trust the Son. Very God of very God is he-the man Christ
Jesus. I trust in him to take away all my sins by his own sacrifice, and to adorn me with his perfect
righteousness. I trust him to be my Intercessor, to present my prayers and desires before his Father's
throne, and I trust him to be my Advocate at the last great day, to plead my cause, and to justify me.
I trust him for what he is, for what he has done, and for what he has promised yet to do. And I trust
the Holy Spirit-he has begun to save me from my inbred sins; I trust him to drive them all out; I trust
him to curb my temper, to subdue my will, to enlighten my understanding, to check my passions, to
comfort my despondency, to help my weakness, to illuminate my darkness; I trust him to dwell in me
as my life, to reign in me as my King, to sanctify me wholly, spirit, soul, and body, and then to take
me up to dwell with the saints in light for ever. "
Oh, blessed trust! To trust him whose power will never be exhausted, whose love will never wane,
whose kindness will never change, whose faithfulness will never fail, whose wisdom will never be
nonplussed, and whose perfect goodness can never know a diminution! Happy art thou, reader, if this
trust is thine! So trusting, thou shalt enjoy sweet peace now, and glory hereafter, and the foundation
of thy trust shall never be removed.
7. STEDMAN, “Egypt would be no help to them, he says. Then, remembering that Israel was a
religious nation, he asks was it Jehovah they were relying on? He reminds Hezekiah that the king himself
had ordered the destruction of many of the high altars around Jerusalem that were dedicated to the
worship of Jehovah. What the pagan general failed to realize, of course, was that those altars were built
in opposition to God's word, that the only place he was to be worshipped was in the temple in Jerusalem.
Hezekiah himself had torn down these rival altars.
Next, Rabshakeh suggests that Hezekiah is perhaps counting on his own army to withstand the Assyrian
attack. He offers the king a wager which he feels he cannot lose, saying sarcastically, "l will give you two
thousand horses, if you are able on your part to set riders upon them." Thus, in words dripping with irony,
he points out the weakness of Judah from a military viewpoint. Finally, Rabshakeh returns to the idea that
Israel is depending upon God for deliverance, saying in verse 10:
8. CALVIN, “6.Behold, thou hast trusted in, that broken staff of reed. This is probably separate from
the former verse; for, having formerly said that the eloquence by which he flatters the people is all that
Hezekiah possesses, and having inferred from this that his confidence is exceedingly foolish, he now
comes to other particulars. He employs every method for shaking the hearts of the people, that all, being
stunned, may absolutely surrender. Accordingly, after having represented Hezekiah to be contemptible as
to his internal resources, he next adds, that the external resources are idle and useless, and says that
they are greatly mistaken in expecting any assistance whatever from the Egyptians.
And, first, he compares the Egyptians to “ staff of reed” on account of their weakness; secondly, for the
sake of amplification he calls them “ broken staff;” thirdly, he says that it is so far from supporting that
it pierces the hands that lean upon it. The meaning may be thus summed up, “ hope which the Jews
entertain of receiving aid from the Egyptians is not only false and unfounded, but pernicious.” And indeed
with truth might Rabshakeh have said this, if it had been true that Hezekiah relied on the Egyptians; but
he slanderously and falsely accuses the pious king of this vain confidence Yet God justly rewarded a
rebellious and disobedient people by allowing this filthy dog to reproach them with their wicked revolt.
Isaiah had formerly (Isa_30:1, and 31:1, 6) condemned this crime in severe terms, but their deaf ears
refused to admit the reproof; and therefore the Jews, who had wickedly despised a Prophet that spoke to
them in the name of God, deserved to have Rabshakeh for their instructor.
We are therefore warned by this example, that there is no reason to wonder if unbelievers, who do not

30. obey the counsel of God for their salvation, and reject all prophecies, are subjeered to the jeers of their
enemies, as Rabshakeh, the captain of the Assyrian king, now haughtily taunts the rebellious Jews. Yet it
is of importance to consider how great a difference there is between the warnings of God and the
mockeries of Satan. When God wishes to dissuade us from sinful confidence in the flesh, he declares in
general terms, “ be he that trusteth in man,” (Jer_17:5.) that the whole world may be reduced to nothing,
and that thus we may be satisfied with himself alone; and therefore, when he has brought us low, he
instantly imparts courage to us by holding out a remedy. But when Satan deceitfully blames any vain
hope, he drives us to despair, and urges us to many other hopes equally bad or still worse, and tempts us
to adopt unlawful methods; as Rabshakeh does not smite the hope which the Jews entertained from the
Egyptians, in order that they may rely on God alone, but substitutes the king of Assyria, as if safety ought
not to be expected from any other quarter, tie names Pharaoh, but likewise includes the whole nation.
7 But if you say to me, “We are depending on the Lord
our God”—isn’t he the one whose high places and
altars Hezekiah removed, saying to Judah and
Jerusalem, “You must worship before this altar”?
1.BARNES, “But if thou say to me - If you shall make this plea, that you believe Yahweh
will protect you in your revolt. The word ‘thou’ here refers to Hezekiah, or to the ambassadors
speaking in his name. In 2Ki_18:22, it is, ‘but if ye say unto me;’ that is, you ambassadors. The
sense is substantially the same.
Is it not he ... - This is given as a reason why they should not put their confidence in
Yahweh. The reason is, that he supposed that Hezekiah had removed all the altars of Yahweh
from all parts of the land, and that they could not calculate on the protection of a God whose
worship bad been abolished. It is probable that Sennacherib and Rabshakeh had beard of the
reformation which had been effected by Hezekiah; of his destroying the groves and altars which
had been consecrated in the reign of his father to idolatry, and perhaps of the fact that he had
even destroyed the brass serpent which Moses had made, and which had become an object of
idolatrous worship 2Ki_18:4, and he may have supposed that all these altars and groves had
been devoted to Yahweh, and were connected with his worship. He did not seem to understand
that all that Hezekiah had done was only to establish the worship of Yahweh in the land.
High places - The worship of idols was usually performed in groves on high places; or on the
tops of hills and mountains. It seems to have been supposed that worship in such places was
more acceptable to the Deity. Perhaps it may have been because they thus seemed nearer the
residence of the gods; or, perhaps, because there is sublimity and solemnity in such places - a
stillness and elevation above the world which seem favorable to devotion (see 1Sa_9:12;
1Ki_3:4; 2Ki_12:2; 2Ch_33:19). Chapels, temples, and altars, were erected on such places
1Ki_13:22; 2Ki_17:29, and ministers and priests attended there to officiate (1Ki_12:32;

31. 2Ki_17:32). Even the kings of Judah, notwithstanding the express prohibition of Moses Deut.
12, were engaged in such acts of worship 2Ki_12:4; 2Ki_14:4; 2Ki_15:4, 2Ki_15:35; 2Ch_15:17;
2Ch_20:33; and Solomon himself sacrificed in chapels of this kind 1Ki_3:2. These places
Hezekiah had destroyed; that is, he had cut down the consecrated groves, and had destroyed the
chapels and temples which had been erected there. The fact that Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah,
had been distinguished for worshipping in such places had probably led the king of Assyria to
suppose that this was the proper worship of the God of the Jews; and now that Hezekiah had
destroyed them all, he seems to have inferred that he was guilty of gross irreligion, and could no
longer depend on the protection of Yahweh.
And said to Judah and Jerusalem - He had commanded them to worship only in
Jerusalem, at the temple. This was in strict accordance with the law of Moses; but this seems to
have been understood by Sennacherib as in fact almost or quite banishing the worship of
Yahweh from the land. Probably this was said to alienate the minds of the people from
Hezekiah, by showing them that he had taken away their rights and privileges of worshipping
God where they chose.
2. CLARKE, “But if thou say “But if ye say” - Two ancient MSS. have ‫תאמרו‬ tomeru in
the plural number; so likewise the Septuagint, Chaldee, and the other copy, 2Ki_18:22.
Ye shall worship before this altar “To worship only before this altar” - See
2Ch_32:12.
3. GILL, ” But if thou say to me, we trust in the Lord our God,.... In his promises,
providence, power, and protection, and not in human counsels and strength; not in allies and
auxiliaries, as Pharaoh king of Egypt; should this be replied, Rabshakeh has something to say to
that; having shown the vanity of trusting in the above things, he now proceeds to beat them off
of all trust in the Lord their God:
is it not he, whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away; the
question might easily be answered in the negative; no, he has not; the high places and altars
which Hezekiah took away were the high places and altars of Heathen gods, of false deities, and
not of the true God of Israel, and which was to his honour and glory; but Rabshakeh would make
a crime of it, and, ignorantly supposing that these were the altars and high places of the God of
Israel, would insinuate that the taking of these away must be displeasing to him, and
consequently Hezekiah and his people could not hope for any protection from him, whom he
had so highly affronted; but all this talk was the fruit of ignorance, as well as of malice:
and said to Judah, and to Jerusalem, ye shall worship before this altar? the altar of
the Lord, in the temple at Jerusalem, and before that only, confining their religious worship to
one place, and their sacrifices to one altar; which was so far from being displeasing to God, as he
would insinuate, that it was entirely agreeable to his will: and therefore there was no weight or
strength in this kind of reasoning.
4. HENRY, “It is acknowledged, on all hands, that those who forsake God's service forfeit his
protection. If that had been true which Rabshakeh alleged, that Hezekiah had thrown down
God's altars, he might justly infer that he could not with any assurance trust in him for succour

32. and relief, Isa_36:7, We may say thus to presuming sinners, who say that they trust in the Lord
and in his mercy. Is not this he whose commandments they have lived in the contempt of, whose
name they have dishonoured, and whose ordinances they have slighted? How then can they
expect to find favour with him? 7. It is an easy thing, and very common, for those that persecute
the church and people of God to pretend a commission from him for so doing. Rabshakeh could
say, Have I now come up without the Lord? when really he had come up against the Lord,
Isa_37:28. Those that kill the servants of the Lord think they do him service and say, Let the
Lord be glorified. But, sooner or later, they will be made to know their error to their cost, to
their confusion.
5. JAMISON, “The Assyrian mistakes Hezekiah’s religious reforms whereby he took away the
high places (2Ki_18:4) as directed against Jehovah. Some of the high places may have been
dedicated to Jehovah, but worshipped under the form of an image in violation of the second
commandment: the “brazen serpent,” also (broken in pieces by Hezekiah, and called Nehushtan,
“a piece of brass,” because it was worshipped by Israel) was originally set up by God’s command.
Hence the Assyrian’s allegation has a specious color: you cannot look for help from Jehovah, for
your king has “taken away His altars.”
to Jerusalem — (Deu_12:5, Deu_12:11; Joh_4:20).
6. PULPIT, “If thou say to me, We trust in the Lord. "The Assyrians," it has been observed, "had a
good intelligence department" (Cheyne). It was known to Sennacherib that Hezekiah had a confident
trust, which seemed to him wholly irrational, in Jehovah—the special God of his people. It was also
known to him that Hezekiah, in the earlier portion of his reign (2Ki_18:4), had "removed the high places"
and broken down the altars, where Jehovah had for centuries been worshipped throughout the length and
breadth of the land. He concludes that, in so doing, he must have offended Jehovah. He is probably
ignorant of the peculiar proviso of the Jewish Law, that sacrifice should be offered in one place only, and
conceives that Hezekiah has been actuated by some narrow motive, and has acted in the interests of one
city only, not of the whole people. Ye shall worship before this altar. The parallel passage of 2 Kings
(2Ki_18:22) has "this altar in Jerusalem." The brazen altar in the great court of the temple is, of course,
meant. Hezekiah had cleansed it front the pollutions of the time of Ahaz (2Ch_29:18), and had insisted on
sacrifice being offered nowhere else (2Ch_29:21-35; 2Ch_30:15-24; 2Ch_31:1, etc.). Such a
concentration of worship was unknown to any of the heathen nations, and may well have been
unintelligible to them
7. CALVIN, “7.And if thou shalt say to me. Rabshakeh employs an argument which consists of three
parts. Either Hezekiah thinks that he has sufficient strength to resist, or he expects assistance from
Egypt, or he trusts in God. If he trusts in himself, he is mistaken; for what is he when compared to my
king? As to Egypt, it will render him no assistance, but on the contrary will inflict serious damage. It
remains therefore that he expects some assistance from God. But he has thrown down his altars and
curtailed his worship; will he not rather be punished on that account? In short, this Rabshakeh takes away
from the pious king all assistance, both divine and human.

33. By this slander Satan attempted not only to wound the heart of the king, that it might sink under the
weight, of affliction, but to make an impression on the light and fickle multitude; because hitherto in the
hearts of many there remained an attachment to superstition, and there was a strong tendency to fall
back into this imposture, because the religion which was ancient, and to which they were long
accustomed, had been changed, and, in their opinion, (31) Hezekiah was about to be chastised for his
own rashness. In like manner, the Papists in the present day, whenever any adverse event befalls us,
maintain that we are punished by God, because we have ventured to set aside ancient ceremonies. (32)
(31) “A leur advis.”
(32) “Pource que nous avons ose abolir les traditions et ceremonies qui estoyent en usage de long
temps.” “ we ventured to abolish the traditions and ceremonies which had been long used.”
8 “‘Come now, make a bargain with my master, the
king of Assyria: I will give you two thousand horses—
if you can put riders on them!
1.BARNES, “Now, therefore, give pledges - Margin, ‘Hostages.’ The Hebrew verb (‫ערב‬ ‛a
rab) means properly to mix or mingle; then, to exchange commodities by barter or traffic; then,
to become surety for anyone, to exchange with him, to stand in his place; then, to pledge, to
pledge one’s life, or to give security of any kind. Here it is used in a spirit of taunting or derision,
and is equivalent to what would be said among us, ‘I will bet you, or I will lay a wager, that if we
should give you only two thousand horses, you could not find men enough to ride them, or men
that had knowledge of horsemanship enough to guide them.’ There was much severity in this
taunt. The Jews hoped to defend themselves. Yet here was an immense army coming up to lay
siege against them. What hope had they of defense? So weak and feeble were they, that
Rabshakeh said they could not furnish even two thousand horsemen to resist all the host of the
Assyrians. There was also, doubtless, much truth in this taunt. It was not permitted by the law of
Moses for the Jews to keep cavalry, nor for their kings to multiply horses. The reason of this may
be seen in the notes at Isa_2:7. Though some of the kings, and especially Solomon, had

34. disregarded this law of Moses, yet Hezekiah had endeavored to restore the observance of the
law, and it is probable that he find no cavalry, and that the art of horsemanship was little known
in Jerusalem. As the Assyrians prided themselves on their cavalry, they consequently looked
with contempt on a people who were destitute of this means of defense.
2. PULPIT, “Now therefore give pledges; i.e. "bind yourselves under s-me penalty." Rabshakeh here
interrupts his message' to introduce an offer of his own. Intent on ridiculing the absurdity of Hezekiah's
resistance of Assyria, he promises to make him a present of two thousand horses, if he (Hezekiah) can
find two thousand trained riders to mount them. It is quite likely that he was safe in making this promise,
and that, notwithstanding the abundant use of chariots and horses by the Jews of the time for purposes of
luxury (Isa_2:7), they were destitute of a cavalry force and unaccustomed to the management of war-
horses.
3. GILL, “Now therefore give pledges to my master the king of Assyria,.... Or;
"hostages" (h); that thou wilt not rebel against him, but be faithful to him, and he will withdraw
his army; or give security for the horses after promised: "or mingle thyself with him"; agree the
matter with him, give pledges for future fidelity; or join in battle with him, come out and fight
him, if able:
and I will give thee two thousand horses, if thou be able on thy part to set riders on
them; thus scoffing at him, as if he had not so many soldiers to bring out against him; or so
many men in his kingdom as had skill enough to ride a horse; in his bravado he signifies, that if
he would come out and fight him, he would lend him so many horses, if he could put men upon
them, to assist him; this he said as boasting of his master's strength and power, and in scorn and
derision at Hezekiah's weakness.
4. JAMISON, “give pledges — a taunting challenge. Only give the guarantee that you can
supply as many as two thousand riders, and I will give thee two thousand horses. But seeing that
you have not even this small number (see on Isa_2:7), how can you stand against the hosts of
Assyrian cavalry? The Jews tried to supply their weakness in this “arm” from Egypt (Isa_31:1).
5. CALVIN, “8.Now come, give a hostage. (33) He concludes that there will be nothing better for
Hezekiah than to lay aside the intention of carrying on war, to surrender himself, and to promise constant
obedience to the king of Assyria. To persuade him the more, Rabshakeh again reproaches him with his
poverty. “ I shall give thee two thousand horses, thou wilt not find among all thy people men to ride on
them. What then is thy strength; or with what confidence dost thou dare to oppose my king?” He does not
offer him horses for the sake of respect or of kindness, but in order to terrify and shake still more the heart
of Hezekiah. The future tense ought therefore to be explained by the subjunctive mood, “Although I
give thee two thousand horses, yet thou wilt not find an equal number of riders.” I am aware of what is
alleged by other commentators; but whoever examines the matter fully will quickly perceive that this is
ironical language. (34)

35. (33) “ therefore give pledges or hostages.” — Eng. Ver.
(34) “ seems to challenge him to come out and fight with his master, and if he would give security to make
that use of them, he would furnish him with two thousand horses, provided he was able to find so many
men to set upon them, which are words of the highest contempt and undervaluing of his power; or the
meaning may he, he would lay a wager with him he could not find men to sit on so many horses, for few
were good horsemen in Judea, where horses were scarce.” — White.
“ taunts Hezekiah on account of the want of cavalry. These words do not refer to the small number of
men, but to the very small number of Jews who were skilled in horsemanship; for after Jotham the kings
of Judea did not maintain any cavalry, and hence we have already seen (Isa_30:0.) that a part of the
Jews sought cavalry from the Egyptians.” — Rosenmuller.
9 How then can you repulse one officer of the least of
my master’s officials, even though you are depending
on Egypt for chariots and horsemen[a]?
1.BARNES, “How then wilt thou turn away the face - The most unimportant captain in
the army of Assyria commands more horsemen than this, and how can you expect to oppose
even him, much more how can you be able to resist all the mighty army of the Assyrians?
One captain of the least - The word ‘captain’ here (‫פחת‬ pachat, construct state from ‫פחה‬
pechah) denotes a prefect or governor of a province less than a satrap, an officer who was under
the satrap, and subject to him. It is applied to an officer in the Assyrian empire 2Ki_18:24; in
the Chaldean empire Jer_51:23; the Persian Est_8:9; Est_9:3; and to the prefects of Judea in
the time of Solomon 1Ki_10:15. The word is of foreign origin.
2. PULPIT, “How then wilt thou turn away the face, etc.? i.e. "How wilt thou be able to defeat,
and cause to retreat, a single Assyrian captain at the head of his squadron?" And put thy trust on Egypt
for chariots and for horsemen; rather, but thou trustest in Egypt for chariots and for
horsemen. Consciousness of the weakness, with which Rabshakeh had just reproached them, had led to
their application to Egypt for a chariot and a cavalry force. Egypt was well able to furnish both, and had
sent a large force of both to the help of Ekron a short time previously. That force had, however, suffered
defeat at the hands of Sennacherib.

36. 3. GILL, ” How then wilt thou turn away the face of one captain of the least of my
master's servants,.... Be able to resist him; or be a match for him; or cause him to flee; the
least captain or general in the army having, as Kimchi says, two thousand men under him; and
therefore, if Hezekiah could not produce two thousand men, to sit upon so many horses offered,
he could not be a match for, or hope to conquer, or cause to flee, the least officer in the army,
who had the fewest men under him, and much less conquer, or cause to flee, the whole Assyrian
army. Some think Rabshakeh means himself, but that does not seem likely, that Sennacherib
should send an inferior officer, or a person of a low character, and in a low station, or that such
an one should be the principal speaker; nor does it suit with the imperious and haughty
disposition of Rabshakeh to speak in such a manner of himself:
and put thy trust on Egypt for chariots, and for horsemen? for to what purpose was it
to seek and send to Egypt for chariots and horses, since he had not a sufficient number of men to
put upon them, but must be obliged to have men, as well as horses and chariots; and which, as
before observed, it was a vain thing to trust to, and was quite needless, when he might have
enough from his master, the Assyrian king, would he agree with him.
4. JAMISON, “captain — a governor under a satrap; even he commands more horsemen than
this.
5. CALVIN, “9.And how dost thou despise? (35) He confirms the preceding statement, and shews that
ttezekiah is so far from being able to endure the presence of his king, that he ought not to be compared to
the very smallest of his captains. In this insolent manner does he taunt him, that the Jews may not derive
courage from the absence of Sennacherib, who was still detained by the siege of Lachish. Although,
therefore, Sennacherib does not yet appear before them with his whole army, Rabshakeh boasts that his
lieutenants are sufficiently powerful, so that Hezekiah ought not to hesitate to make submission.
(35) “ then wilt thou turn away?” — Eng. Ver.
10 Furthermore, have I come to attack and destroy
this land without the Lord? The Lord himself told me
to march against this country and destroy it.’”
1.BARNES, “And am I now come up without the Lord - Am I come up without his
permission or command? Rabshakeh here speaks in the name of his master; and he means to
say that he had the express command of Yahweh to inflict punishment on the Jews. It is possible
that there had been conveyed to Sennacherib a rumour of what Isaiah had said (see Isa_10:5-6)
that God would bring the Assyrians upon the Jewish people to punish them for their sins, and
that Rabshakeh now pleads that as his authority, in order to show them that resistance would be

37. vain. Or it may be that he uses the name Yahweh here as synonymous with the name of God, and
means to say that he had been divinely directed to come up in that expedition. All the ancient
warriors usually consulted the gods, and endeavored by auguries to obtain the divine
approbation of their plans of conquest, and Rabshakeh may mean simply to say that his master
came now under the divine sanction and direction. Or, which is more probable, he made use of
this as a mere pretence for the purpose of influencing the people who heard him, and to whom
he said he was sent Isa_36:12, in order to alienate their minds from Hezekiah, and to induce
them to surrender. He knew that it was one of the principles of the Jews, however little they
regarded it in practice, to yield to his authority. Wicked people will be glad to plead divine
authority for their purposes and plans when they can have the slightest pretence for it.
2. CLARKE, “Am I now come up without the Lord - Probably some apostate Israelitish
priest might have encouraged the king of Assyria by telling him that Jehovah had given him a
commission against Jerusalem.
3. GILL, ” And am I now come up without the Lord against this land to destroy it?....
He would insinuate that he had a commission from the Lord God, and that it was by his will and
order that he came up to destroy the land; which he said to intimidate Hezekiah and his
subjects, as knowing that nothing was more likely to do it than that so far it was true, that he did
not come up without the knowledge of the Lord, nor without his will to chastise, but not to
destroy, as the event showed:
the Lord said unto me: by the impulse of his Spirit, or by one of his prophets, as he would
suggest:
go up against this land, and destroy it; which was a lie of his own making; he knew that the
Lord had said no such thing to him, nor had sent him on such an errand; unless he concluded it
from his success in taking the fenced cities of Judah, and from Samaria, and the ten tribes, being
delivered up in time past into the hands of the king of Assyria, and so was confident this would
be the fate of Judah and Jerusalem.
4. PULPIT, “The Lord said unto me, Go up against this land, and destroy it; literally, Jehovah said unto
me, Go up, etc.. The heathen monarchs frequently represented themselves as directed to make war on a
nation by God, or by some particular god. Piankhi Mer-amman says, "I am born of the loins. created from
the egg, of the Deity I have not acted without his knowing; he ordained that I should act". Mesha, King
of Moab, declares, "Chemosh said to me, Go and take Nebo [in war] against Israel". Asshur is generally
represented as commanding the expeditions of the Assyrian kings. Still, it is surprising that Sennacherib
should mention "Jehovah" as the God from whom he had received the order to attack Hezekiah, and we
may suspect that the term which he actually employed was Ilu, "God," and that either Rahshakeh, or the
reporter of the speech, substituted "Jehovah" as more intelligible to the Jews.
5. JAMISON, “A boastful inference from the past successes of Assyria, designed to influence
the Jews to surrender; their own principles bound them to yield to Jehovah’s will. He may have
heard from partisans in Judah what Isaiah had foretold (Isa_10:5, Isa_10:6).

38. 6. STEDMAN, “He may very well have been referring to the prophecies which Isaiah had already
made concerning an Assyrian attack. In any event he is here claiming God's support for his attack upon
Judah.
Here we have a vivid picture of the world's attack upon a believer. Assyria, as we have already noted, is a
picture of the violence and the anger of the world directed against faith. You perhaps have experienced
this contempt. You may have been subjected to it at work. You may have run into it at school from an
atheistic professor who heaped ridicule on Christianity, making you feel like two cents before the class.
This anger can be carried to extremes.
We think of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the young Lutheran pastor who withstood the Nazis during the Second
World War, finally giving his life in his defense of the faith. Even at this moment hundreds of thousands of
Christians are facing ridicule and shame, even threat to their lives, by the attack of the world upon their
faith.
7. CALVIN, “10.And now have I come up without Jehovah? He now attacks Hezekiah in another
manner, by telling him that it will serve no purpose to assemble his forces and to make other warlike
preparations. For he alleges that Hezekiah has not to do or to contend with a mortal man, but with God
himself, at whose suggestion, and not at his own, he camo hither to destroy the country; and therefore
that they who oppose him will fight against God, and consequently all their efforts will be fruitless.
Hence we ought to learn that however earnestly we may be devoted to godliness, and however faithfully
we may labor to advance the kingdom of Christ, still we must not expect to be free from every annoyance,
but ought rather to be prepared for enduring very heavy afflictions. The Lord does not always
recompense our piety by earthly rewards; and indeed it would be an exceedingly unsuitable recompense
that we should possess abundant wealth and enjoy outward peace, and that everything should proceed to
our wish; for the world reckons even wicked men to be happy on this ground, that they do not endure bad
health or adversity, and are free from the pressure of poverty, and have nothing to disturb them. In this
respect our condition would not differ at all from that of the reprobate.
This example of Hezekiah, who labored with all his might to restore religion and the true worship of God,
and yet endured calamities so heavy and violent that he was not far from despair, ought to be constantly
placed before our eyes, in order that, when we shall think float we have discharged our duty, we may
nevertheless be prepared to endure conflicts and troubles of every kind, and may not be disturbed if
enemies gain an advantage at the first onset, as if all at once they would swallow us up. Those proud and
haughty minds will quickly fall, when the first ardor has boiled over and spent its foam, and their
eagerness and pride will speedily disappear Rabshakeh boasted of the greatness and power of his king,
in order to terrify Hezekiah. Such is the manner in which wicked men act towards us. By threatening
words they attack us, and by various terrors they try our patience, or rather through their agency Satan
labors, whom we plainly see speaking by the mouth of Rabshakeh. Nay, Satan assumes the character of
God himself, and “ transformed into an angel of light.” (2Co_11:14.) Thus also the Spirit of God himself
declares, that the strength of man is frail and fading, and that every one who leans on it seeks his own
destruction. (Jer_17:5.) Rabshakeh says the same thing, and discourses as if he were discharging the
prophetical office by the command of God.
We ought therefore to distinguish wisely when God speaks, and when, on the other hand, his name is
falsely assumed by men; for Satan resorts to various artifices to make himself appear to be like God. All

39. these reproaches were unjustly, as we have said, brought by Rabshakeh against Hezekiah, who did not
place his hope in his own strength, and did not vaunt himself through reliance on the Egyptians; but godly
men, even when they do well, must be exposed to evil reports. By these stratagems Satan attacks our
faith, and unjustly slanders us among men. This temptation is highly dangerous, for we are desirous that
our integrity should be well known; and when we are well disposed, we take it ill if other men put a
different interpretation on our conduct. Thus Satan endearours by slander to overturn all that has been
done out of a good conscience, or accuses us of something with which we are not at all chargeable, or
loads us with unfounded slanders, or contrives what never came into our mind; but an upright conscience
ought to be like a brazen wall to us, that, imitating the example of Hezekiah, we may stand unshaken
against such accusations and slanders.
So far as relates to the last clause, in which Rabshakeh reproaches him with having overturned the
worship of God, (36) every person must plainly see how slanderous is that charge; for Hezekiah had taken
away false gods and superstitious (37) worship, which God abhors. (2Kg_18:4.) But we need not wonder
that wicked men cannot distinguish between the true God and the false, between superstition, and
religion. And the same thing is practiced amongst us every day; for the Papists, who are delighted with
nothing but their own superstitions, accuse us of having taken away innumerable inventions of men, and
complain that we have impaired and almost abolished the worship of God. They taunt us also in the same
manner as that Rabshakeh, “ God assist those who have taken away his worship, profaned the holy
temples, and everything that was established in that beautiful order?” The reason is, that in Popery
everything had a dazzling appearance, and drew the admiration of men; while we retain no ceremonies
but those which are plain and simple, and free from all pageantry, and therefore they think that we have
taken away the worship of God, which they estimate by outward appearances. If any adverse event
befalls us, they exclaim that it; is richly deserved, that all the blame attaches to us, that the whole world is
punished for our ungodliness, and if we ourselves suffer any calamity they taunt us still more.
Yet with resolute faith we must stand out against such ungodly speeches, by shewing that what they call
the worship of God is not his worship, but that we have taken away, and have justly taken away, mere
trifles, and that all the contrivances of men do not belong to the worship of God, but. are delusions of
Satan, and that nothing is more destructive. We must therefore stand out with unshaken faith against
reproaches of every kind, by which Satan endeavors to throw a shade over the practice of godliness. At
first sight it appears to be shameful that he overthrew many altars and left but one, that he profaned many
temples that one might remain. (2Kg_18:4.) But Hezekiah was fully acquitted by this single defense, that
he undertook nothing but by the word of God; and therefore that he was satisfied with a single altar,
because God had forbidden him to erect more, and that he had thrown down all images, because they
had been unlawfully set up in opposition to the instructions of the Law. (Exo_20:4.) We have the same
dispute with the Papists in the present day, because they blame us on no other ground than that we have
set aside a huge mass of ceremonies, and retain only what God has enjoined. In such cases, however,
we must not argue about what pleases men, but what is approved by God.
(36) Our author refers to the charges contained in the 7th verse of this chapter. — Ed.
(37) “Les idols et l’.” “ and idolatry.”

40. 11 Then Eliakim, Shebna and Joah said to the field
commander, “Please speak to your servants in
Aramaic, since we understand it. Don’t speak to us in
Hebrew in the hearing of the people on the wall.”
1.BARNES, “Speak, I pray thee, unto thy servants in the Syrian language - Hebrew,
‫ארמית‬ 'aramı yt - ‘Aramean.’ Aram, or Aramea, properly meaning a high region, or the highlands,
was of wider extent than Syria Proper, and comprehended not only Syria, but Mesopotamia. It
usually denotes however, Syria Proper, of which the capital was Damascus. The language of all
this country was probably the same - the Syrian or Aramean, a language of the same family as
the Hebrew, and having a strong resemblance to that and to the Chaldee. This was not properly
the language of Assyria, where probably a dialect composed of the language of the Medes and
Persians was employed. But the Syriac language was spoken in different parts of Assyria. It was
spoken in Mesopotamia, and doubtless in some of the provinces of the Assyrian empire, and
might be presumed to be understood by Rabshakeh, and those with him. The Jews had contact
with the Syrians, and those who had been sent out by Hezekiah had learned to speak that. It is
not probable that they understood the Medo-Persian tongue that was spoken by the Assyrians
usually. The Syriac or Aramean was probably the most common language which was spoken in
that region. Its knowledge prevailed in the time of the Saviour, and was that which he usually
spoke.
In the Jews’ language - (‫יחוּדית‬ ye
hudı yt). The language of Judah. It is remarkable that they
did not call it the Hebrew language. But there might have been some national pride in regard to
this. The Hebrew language had been the common language of all the Jews, and had been spoken
by those of the kingdom of Israel or Samaria, as well as by those of the kingdom of Judah. But
after the revolt of the ten tribes it is possible that they might have claimed the language as their
own, and regarded the Hebrew - the venerable language of their fathers - as belonging to them
especially, as they claimed everything that was sacred or venerable in the nation, and hence,
they spoke of it as the language of Judah. The name of Judah, or Jews, which is derived from
Judah, was, after the removal of the ten tribes, given to the entire nation - a name which is
retained to the present time. In Isa_19:18, it is called the language of Canaan (see the note on
that place).
In the ears of the people that are on the wall - This conference took place evidently
near the city, and within hearing distance. Doubtless the people of the city, feeling a curiosity to
hear the message of the Assyrian, crowded the walls. The Jewish ambassadors were
apprehensive that what was said by Rabshakeh would alienate their minds from Hezekiah, and
requested that the conference might be conducted in a language which they could not
understand.

41. 2. PULPIT, “Speak unto thy servants in the Syrian language; literally, in the Aramaic
language. Aramaeans were widely spread over the entire region between the Lower Tigris and the
Mediterranean; and their language seems to have been in general use, as a language of commerce.
"Private contract tablets in Aramaic and Assyrianhave been found in the remains of ancient Nineveh"
(Cheyne). Rabshakeh had, perhaps, spoken "in the Jews' language " without any ill intent, thinking that it
was the only tongue which Jewish envoys would understand; but his so doing was calculated to affect the
minds of the common people, and to shake their allegiance to Hezekiah. The envoys, therefore,
requested him to employ a foreign tongue, and suggested Aramaic as one which was familiar to them,
and which they supposed that he would understand. His employment of Hebrew had shown them that he
was a linguist. In the Jews' language. There was no language peculiar to the Jews as Jews, that is to
say, different from the ordinary speech of the Israelites. Both alike spoke Hebrew. In the Old Testament,
however, this corn-men language is never called "Hebrew," but either "the tongue of Canaan" (Isa_19:18)
or "the Jewish language" (2Ki_18:26, 2Ki_18:28; 2Ch_32:18; Neh_13:24). Similarly, our own tongue is
called "English," though spoken also in Scotland, Wales, Ireland, America, and Australia. In the ears of
the people that are on the wall; i.e. of the soldiers placed on the wall to defend it. We must suppose that
the conference took place immediately outside the fortifications, so that some of those on the wall could
hear.
3. GILL, ” Then said Eliakim and Shebah and Joah unto Rabshakeh,.... That is, one of
them addressed him in the name of the rest; for the verb is singular; and what follows confirms
it; perhaps Eliakim was the speaker:
speak, I pray thee, unto thy servants in the Syriac language; which was somewhat
different from the Hebrew, in which he spoke, and which was not understood by the common
people, and for that reason desired:
for we understand it; or hear it; could hear it, so as to understand it; it being common in all
courts, as the French tongue now; the Assyrian empire being very large, and so had been learned
by these courtiers, for the sake of negotiation or commerce, when the common people had no
concern with it:
and speak not to us in the Jews' language, in the ears of the people that are on the
wall; the wall of the city, where the commissioners were, who would not venture themselves out
of the city, in the hands of so perfidious an enemy: and the men on the wall were such, who
either were placed there to defend the city, and so were soldiers, or people that were gathered
together to see the ambassadors of the king of Assyria, and to hear, as much as they could, what
passed between them and the ministers of Hezekiah; and as this speech of Eliakim's showed
great submissiveness in praying and entreating Rabshakeh to speak to them in another
language, and a mean abject spirit, in saying they were his servants, so a great degree of
timorousness in them, and diffidence of the people, lest they should be terrified, and be for
giving up the city at once into the hands of the enemy; this looks like a piece of bad policy, and
some think that Shebna was the contriver of it, and the adviser to it, in order to give Rabshakeh
a hint of their fears, and of the disposition of the people, and put him in higher spirits, and on
railing the more, and thereby still work the more on the people's fears; however, it had this
effect on him, as follows.

42. 4. HENRY 11-22, “We may hence learn these lessons: - 1. That, while princes and counsellors
have public matters under debate, it is not fair to appeal to the people. It was a reasonable
motion which Hezekiah's plenipotentiaries made, that this parley should be held in a language
which the people did not understand (Isa_36:11), because reasons of state are secret things and
ought to be kept secret, the vulgar being incompetent judges of them. It is therefore an unfair
practice, and not doing as men would be done by, to incense subjects against their rulers by base
insinuations. 2. Proud and haughty scorners, the fairer they are spoken to, commonly speak the
fouler. Nothing could be said more mildly and respectfully than that which Hezekiah's agents
said to Rabshakeh. Besides that the thing itself was just which they desired, they called
themselves his servants, they petitioned for it: Speak, we pray thee; but this made him the
more spiteful and imperious. To give rough answers to those who give us soft answers is one way
of rendering evil for good; and those are wicked indeed, and it is to be feared incurable, with
whom that which usually turns away wrath does but make bad worse. 3. When Satan would
tempt men from trusting in God, and cleaving to him, he does so by insinuating that in yielding
to him they may better their condition; but it is a false suggestion, and grossly absurd, and
therefore to be rejected with the utmost abhorrence. When the world and the flesh say to us,
“Make an agreement with us and come out to us, submit to our dominion and come into our
interests, and you shall eat every one of his own vine,” they do but deceive us, promising liberty
when they would lead us into the basest captivity and slavery. One might as well take
Rabshakeh's word as theirs for kind usage and fair quarter; therefore, when they speak fair,
believe them not. Let them say what they will, there is no land like the land of promise, the holy
land. 4. Nothing can be more absurd in itself, nor a greater affront to the true and living God,
than to compare him with the gods of the heathen; as if he could do no more for the protection
of his worshippers than they can for the protection of theirs, and as if the God of Israel could as
easily be mastered as the gods of Hamath and Arphad, whereas they are vanity and a lie. They
are nothing; he is the great I AM: they are the creatures of men's fancy and the works of men's
hands; he is the Creator of all things. 5. Presumptuous sinners are ready to think that, because
they have been too hard for their fellow-creatures, they are therefore a match for their Creator.
This and the other nation they have subdued, and therefore the Lord himself shall not deliver
Jerusalem out of their hand. But, though the potsherds may strive with the potsherds of the
earth, let them not strive with the potter. 6. It is sometimes prudent not to answer a fool
according to his folly. Hezekiah's command was, “Answer him not; it will but provoke him to
rail and blaspheme yet more and more; leave it to God to stop his mouth, for you cannot.” They
had reason enough on their side, but it would be hard to speak it to such an unreasonable
adversary without a mixture of passion; and, if they should fall a railing like him, Rabshakeh
would be much too hard for them at that weapon. 7. It becomes the people of God to lay to heart
the dishonour done to God by the blasphemies of wicked men, though they do not think it
prudent to reply to those blasphemies. Though they answered him not a word, yet they rent
their clothes, in a holy zeal for the glory of God's name and a holy indignation at the contempt
put upon it. They tore their garments when they heard blasphemy, as taking no pleasure in their
own ornaments when God's honour suffered.
5. JAMISON, “Syrian — rather, “Aramean”: the language spoken north and east of
Palestine, and understood by the Assyrians as belonging to the same family of languages as their

43. own: nearly akin to Hebrew also, though not intelligible to the multitude (compare 2Ki_5:5-7).
“Aram” means a “high land,” and includes parts of Assyria as well as Syria.
Jews’ language — The men of Judah since the disruption of Israel, claimed the Hebrew as
their own peculiarly, as if they were now the only true representatives of the whole Hebrew
twelve tribes.
ears of ... people on ... wall — The interview is within hearing distance of the city. The
people crowd on the wall, curious to hear the Assyrian message. The Jewish rulers fear that it
will terrify the people and therefore beg Rab-shakeh to speak Aramean.
6. K&D, “The concluding words, in which the Assyrian boasts of having Jehovah on his side,
affect the messengers of Hezekiah in the keenest manner, especially because of the people
present. “Then said Eliakim (K. the son of Hilkiyahu), and Shebna, and Joah, to Rabshakeh,
Pray, speak to thy servants in Aramaean, for we understand it; and do not speak to (K. with)
us in Jewish, in the ears of the people that are on the wall.” They spoke Yehudı̄th, i.e., the
colloquial language of the kingdom of Judah. The kingdom of Israel was no longer in existence,
and the language of the Israelitish nation, as a whole, might therefore already be called Judaean
(Jewish), as in Neh_13:24, more especially as there may have been a far greater dialectical
difference between the popular speech of the northern and southern kingdoms, than we can
gather from the biblical books that were written in the one or the other. Aramaean ('aramı̄th),
however, appears to have been even then, as it was at a later period (Ezr_4:7), the language of
intercourse between the empire of Eastern Asia and the people to the west of the Tigris
(compare Alex. Polyhistor in Euseb. chron. arm. i. 43, where Sennacherib is said to have erected
a monument with a Chaldean inscription); and consequently educated Judaeans not only
understood it, but were able to speak it, more especially those who were in the service of the
state. Assyrian, on the contrary, was unintelligible to Judaeans (Isa_28:11; Isa_33:19), although
this applied comparatively less to the true Assyrian dialect, which was Semitic, and can be
interpreted for the most part from the Hebrew (see Oppert's “Outlines of an Assyrian Grammar”
in the Journal Asiatique, 1859), than to the motley language of the Assyrian army, which was a
compound of Arian and Turanian elements. The name Sennacherib (Sancherı̄bh = ‫ב‬ ִ‫ר‬ֵ‫י־י‬ ִ‫ה‬ ַ‫ן־אס‬ ִ‫,ס‬ lxx
Sennachereim, i.e., “Sin, the moon-god, had multiplied the brethren”) is Semitic; on the other
hand, the name Tartan, which cannot be interpreted either from the Semitic or the Arian, is an
example of the element referred to, which was so utterly strange to a Judaean ear.
7. CALVIN, “11.Then said Eliakim. This circumstance again shews how deeply Hezekiah was
depressed, when by his ambassador he entreats so humbly the servant of his enemy. It shews also with
what pride Rabshakeh was puffed up, when he rejected so insolently all entreaties; and the refusal was
the more shameful, because what was requested was not of great value. From these matters we learn
that it was not owing to Hezekiah that he did not pacify the rage of the enemy; for forgetful almost of his
royal rank, Hezekiah endearours with all possible modesty to soothe him. If at any time we happen to be
oppressed by unjust violence, let us not be ashamed to yield up our rights and to supplicate with humility.
Now, when Hezekiah was so submissive, because he saw that he was unable to resist the king of
Assyria, this tends powerfully to magnify the glory of God in preserving a nation which was nearly ruined.
For that deliverance would have been less remarkable, if they had been rescued only from an ordinary

44. danger; but when they were not far from destruction, so much the more manifest is the hand of God, who
by an extraordinary miracle subdued and ruined an enemy that had already set his feet on their neck.
(2Kg_19:31.)
Speak, I pray thee, to thy servants in the Syrian language. (38) They request that he will not speak in this
manner in the presence of the people; because it is difficult to restrain a people naturally giddy and fickle,
for they are easily moved, and tremble at the smallest alarm. (39) They would have wished that
Rabshakeh should not speak to them in the Jewish language, because they were desirous to enter into
any moderate terms of peace. For that good king tried every method of allaying the rage of that tyrant, but
without any success. (40) These ambassadors therefore gain nothing from Rabshakeh; when he is
entreated, he grows worse, and (as is usually the case with haughty men) becomes moro insolent.
(38) “ Aramean. 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.” —
Alexander.
(39) “ suppose Eliakim perceived the people to be frightened with big words, and therefore entreated him
in the name of the other commissioners sent to treat with him, to speak no longer in the Jews’ language,
but in his own; for he was not sent to treat with the people, but with them who understood
the Syrian tongue very well.” — White.
(40) “Mais c’ temps perdu.” “ it was time thrown away.”
12 But the commander replied, “Was it only to your
master and you that my master sent me to say these
things, and not to the people sitting on the wall—who,
like you, will have to eat their own excrement and
drink their own urine?”

45. 1.BARNES, “Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee? - To Hezekiah, and
to you alone. A part of my purpose is to address the people, to induce them to leave Hezekiah,
and to offer no resistance to the Assyrian.
To the men that sit on the wall ... - The meaning of this is, that the inhabitants of the city,
if they do not surrender, will be subjected to the severest evils of famine. If they did not
surrender, it was the purpose of the Assyrian to lay siege to the city, and to reduce it. But it was
often the work of years to reduce and take a city. Nebuchadnezzar spent thirteen years before
Tyre, and the Greeks employed ten in reducing ancient Troy. The sense here is, therefore, that
unless the people could be induced to surrender to Sennacherib, they would be subjected to all
the horrors of a siege, when they would be reduced to the most deplorable state of necessity and
want. The idea in the whole verse is clearly expressed in the parallel place in 2Ch_32:11 : ‘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?’ In regard to the indelicacy
of this passage, we may observe:
1. That the Masoretes in the Hebrew text have so pointed the words used, that in reading it the
offensiveness would be considerably avoided. It is common in the Hebrew Scriptures, when a
word is used in the text that is indelicate, to place another word in the margin, and the vowel-
points that belong to the word in the margin are applied to the word in the text, and the word in
the margin is thus commonly read. In accordance with this custom among the Jews, it is evident
that more delicacy might have been observed by our translators in this, and in some other places
of the Scriptures.
2. The customs, habits, and modes of expression of people in different nations and times,
differ. What appears indelicate at one time or in one country, may not only be tolerated, but
common in another. Many things are esteemed indelicate among us which are not so in polite
and refined France; many expressions are so regarded now which were not in the time when the
Bible was translated into English. Many things may be to us offensive which were not so to the
Syrians, the Babylonians, and the Jews; and many modes of expression which are common now,
and consistent with all our notions of refinement, may appear improper in some other period of
the world. There are many things in Shakespere, and in most of the Old English writers, which
cannot now be read without a blush. Yet need I say that those expressions will be heard with
unconcern in the theater by those whose delicacy is most offended by some expression in the
Bible? There are things infinitely more offensive to delicacy in Byron, and Moore, and even
Burns, than there are in the Scriptures; and yet are these not read without a murmur by those
who make the loudest complaints of the slightest departure from delicacy in the Bible?
3. There is another remark to be made in regard to this. Isaiah is not at all responsible for the
indelicacy of the language here. He is simply a historian. He did not say it; nor is he responsible
for it. If there is indelicacy in it, it is not in recording it, but in saying it; and the responsibility is
on Rabshakeh. If Isaiah undertook to make a record of an important transaction, what right had
he to abridge it, or contract it, or to make it different from what it was?
4. And again: it was of importance to give the true character of the attack which was made on
Jerusalem. The coming of Sennacherib was attended with pride, and insolence, and blasphemy;
and it was important to state the true character of the transaction. and to record just what was
said and done. Hence, Isaiah, as a faithful historian, recorded the coming of the Assyrians; the
expressions of their haughtiness, insolence, and pride; their vain boasting, and their reproaches
of Yahweh; and for the same reason he has recorded the gross and indelicate language which
they used to add to the trials of the Jews. Let him who used the language, and not him who
recorded it, bear the blame.

46. 2. CLARKE, “That they may eat their own dung “Destined to eat their own dung”
- ‫לאכל‬ leechol, that they may eat, as our translation literally renders it. But the Syriac reads ‫מאכל‬
meechol, that they may not eat, perhaps rightly, and afterward ‫ומשתות‬ umishshethoth, or ‫ושתות‬
ushethoth, to the same purpose. Seventeen of Dr. Kennicott’s MSS., ten of De Rossi’s and two of
my own, read ‫מימי‬ meymey, the water; mine have ‫מימי‬‫שניהם‬ meymey sheneyhem, and write in the
margin ‫מימי‬‫רגליהם‬ meymey regaleyhem, the water of their feet, a modest way of expressing urine.
3. GILL, ” But Rabshakeh said, hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee,
to speak these words?.... That is, to them only, that he should use a language only understood
by them:
hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall; and therefore it is proper to speak
in a language which they understand, and to let them know that if they will not surrender up the
city, but will attempt to hold out a siege, they must expect
that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you? suggesting that
they must expect a close siege, which would not be broke up until the city was taken; the
consequence of which would be such a famine, that they would be reduced to such extremities.
The Jews have substituted other words in the margin, instead of those in the text, as more
cleanly, and less offensive; for "dung" they put "excrement", and for "piss" they read "the waters
of the feet"; and had we in our version put excrement and urine instead of these words, it would
have been more decent.
4. PULPIT, “Hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall? Rabshakeh was contravening all
diplomatic usage, and no doubt was conscious of it. But the pride and arrogance of the Assyrians
rendered them as careless of diplomatic etiquette as, at a later date, were the Romans (see Polybius,
29:11, § 6; Liv; 45:12). That they may eat, etc.; rather, to eat. That is, with no other result than that of
being reduced, together with you, to the last extremity of famine, when the siege comes.
5. JAMISON, “Is it to thy master and thee that I am sent? Nay, it is to the men on the wall,
to let them know (so far am I from wishing them not to hear, as you would wish), that unless
they surrender, they shall be reduced to the direst extremities of famine in the siege (2Ch_32:11,
explains the word here), namely, to eat their own excrements: or, connecting, “that they may
eat,” etc., with “sit upon the wall”; who, as they hold the wall, are knowingly exposing
themselves to the direst extremities [Maurer]. Isaiah, as a faithful historian, records the filthy
and blasphemous language of the Assyrians to mark aright the true character of the attack on
Jerusalem.
6. K&D, “The harsh reply is given in Isa_36:12. “Then Rabshakeh said (K. to them), Has my
lord sent me to (K. ‫ל‬ ַ‫ע‬ ַ‫)ה‬ the men who sit upon the wall, to eat their dung, and to drink their

47. urine together with you?” - namely, because their rulers were exposing them to a siege which
would involve the most dreadful state of famine.
7. CALVIN, “12.And Rabshakeh said. Hence we see the fierceness and insolence of the enemy, and
hence also it is evident that Hezekiah’ kingdom was on the brink of ruin; for here Rabshakeh speaks like
a conqueror, and does not address Hezekiah as a king, but as if he had been his slave. When therefore
we see Rabshakeh swelled with so much pride, we ought at the same time to recollect that Hezekiah was
entirely overwhelmed and destitute of all confidence, so that he was looked upon as ruined. Hence we
also infer that Rabshakeh was not sent for the purpose of offering any conditions of peace, but rather to
obtain an unconditional surrender, and to strike the people with alarm; for Sennacherib had sent him for
this purpose with a powerful army. Hence also he boasts that he has nothing to do with the king, that he
addresses the people for their advantage, and, in order to terrify them still more, mentions the distress
and calamities into which they will throw themselves if they choose to obey Hezekiah; that they will perish
through hunger, and will be compelled to eat and drink what is revolting; and therefore, that their wisest
course will be to surrender in good time, and to provide for their safety.
13 Then the commander stood and called out in
Hebrew, “Hear the words of the great king, the king of
Assyria!
1.BARNES, “Then Rabshakeh stood - Indicating the posture of a man who intends to speak
to them at a distance.
And cried with a loud voice - So that those on the wall could bear.
The words of the king ... - (See the note at Isa_36:4)
2. PULPIT, “Then Rabshakeh stood; i.e. "rose from a sitting or reclining posture"—to attract attention,
and the better to make himself heard. He continued his speech in Hebrew, and at the same time
purposely raised his voice to a loud pitch. The envoys would have been justified in ordering the archers to
shoot him from the wall. But they seem to have been struck of a heap, as Epiphanes was by the audacity
of Popillius (see the comment on the preceding verse).

48. 3. GILL, “Then Rabshakeh stood, and cried with a loud voice in the Jews'
language,.... In which he spoke before; but now he raised up himself, and elevated his voice,
and strained himself to the utmost, that all the people might hear, and that he might strike a
terror into them, and stir them up to mutiny and rebellion, and oblige their governors to give up
the city into the hands of the Assyrians; this use he made of the request of Hezekiah's ministers,
perceiving hereby their fears, and the disposition of the people:
and said, hear ye the words of the great king, the king of Assyria; See Gill on Isa_36:4.
4. BI , “The bland insinuations of the enemies of God’s people
When Satan would tempt men from trusting in God and cleaving to Him, he doth it by
insinuating that in yielding to him they may better their condition; but it is a false suggestion,
and grossly absurd, and therefore to be rejected with the utmost abhorrence, when the world
and the flesh say to us, Make an agreement with us, and come out to us, submit to our dominion
and come into our interests, and you shall eat every one of his own vine, they do but deceive us,
promising liberty when they would lead us into the basest captivity and slavery.
One might as good take Rabshakeh’s word as theirs for kind usage and fair quarter; therefore,
when they speak fair, believe them not. Let them say what they will, there is no land like the land
of promise, the holy land. (M. Henry.)
5. JAMISON, “Rab-shakeh speaks louder and plainer than ever to the men on the wall.
6. K&D, “After Rabshakeh had refused the request of Hezekiah's representatives in this
contemptuous manner, he turned in defiance of them to the people themselves. “Then
Rabshakeh went near, and cried with a loud voice in the Jewish language (K. and spake), and
said, Hear the words (K. the word) of the great king, the king of Asshur. Thus saith the king,
Let not Hizkiyahu practise deception upon you (‫ה‬ ִ‫ס‬ַ‫,י‬ K. ‫היא‬ ִ‫ס‬ַ‫;))י‬ for he cannot deliver you (K. out
of his hand). And let not Hizkiyahu feed you with hope in Jehovah, saying, Jehovah will
deliver, yea, deliver us: (K. and) this city will not be delivered into the hand of the king of
Asshur. Hearken not to Hizkiyahu: for thus saith the king (hammelekh, K. melekh) of Asshur,
Enter into a connection of mutual good wishes with me, and come out to me: and enjoy every
one his vine, and every one his fig-tree, and drink every one the water of his cistern; till I come
and take you away into a land like your land, a land of corn and wine, a land of bread-corn
and vineyards (K. a land full of fine olive-trees and honey, and live and do not die, and
hearken not to Hizkiyahu); that Hizkiyahu to not befool you (K. for he befools you), saying,
Jehovah will deliver us! Have the gods of the nations delivered (K. really delivered) every one
his land out of the hand of the king of Asshur? Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad?
where the gods of Sepharvayim (K. adds, Hena‛ and ‛Ivah)? and how much less (‫י‬ ִ‫כ‬ְ‫,ו‬ K. ‫י‬ ִⅴ) have
they delivered that Samaria out of my hand? Who were they among all the gods of these (K. of
the) lands, who delivered their land out of my hand? how much less will Jehovah deliver
Jerusalem out of my hand!? The chronicler also has this continuation of Rabshakeh's address in
part (2Ch_32:13-15), but he has fused into one the Assyrian self-praise uttered by Rabshakeh on

49. his first and second mission. The encouragement of the people, by referring to the help of
Jehovah (2Ch_32:6-8), is placed by him before this first account is given by Isaiah, and forms a
conclusion to the preparations for the contest with Asshur as there described. Rabshakeh now
draws nearer to the wall, and harangues the people. ‫יא‬ ִ ִ‫ה‬ is construed here with a dative (to
excite treacherous hopes); whereas in 2Ch_32:15 it is written with an accusative. The reading
‫דוֹ‬ָ ִ‫מ‬ is altered from ‫י‬ ִ‫ד‬ָ ִ‫מ‬ in Isa_36:20, which is inserted still more frequently by the chronicler.
The reading ‫ר‬ִ‫עי‬ ָ‫ת־ה‬ ֶ‫א‬ with ‫ן‬ ֵ‫ת‬ָ ִ‫ת‬ is incorrect; it would require ‫ן‬ ֵ‫ת‬ָ ִ‫י‬ (Ges. §143, 1a). To make a be
rakhah
with a person was equivalent to entering into a relation of blessing, i.e., into a state of mind in
which each wished all prosperity to the other. This was probably a common phrase, though we
only meet with it here. ‫א‬ ָ‫צ‬ָ‫,י‬ when applied to the besieged, is equivalent to surrendering (e.g.,
1Sa_11:3). If they did that, they should remain in quiet possession and enjoyment, until the
Assyrian fetched them away (after the Egyptian campaign was over), and transported them to a
land which he describes to them in the most enticing terms, in order to soften down the
inevitable transportation. It is a question whether the expansion of this picture in the book of
Kings is original or not; since ‫ה‬ָ‫וּ‬ ִ‫ע‬ְ‫ו‬ ‫ע‬ַ‫נ‬ ֵ‫ה‬ in Isa_36:19 appears to be also tacked on here from
Isa_37:13 (see at this passage). On Hamath and Arpad (to the north of Haleb in northern Syria,
and a different place from Arvad = Arad), see Isa_10:9. Sepharvayim (a dual form, the house of
the Se
pharvı̄m, 2Ki_17:31) is the Sipphara of Ptol. v. 18, 7, the southernmost city of Mesopotamia,
on the left bank of the Euphrates; Pliny's Hipparenum on the Narraga, i.e., the canal, ne
har
malka, the key to the irrigating or inundating works of Babylon, which were completed
afterwards by Nebuchadnezzar (Plin. h. n. vi. 30); probably the same place as the sun-city,
Sippara, in which Xisuthros concealed the sacred books before the great flood (see K. Müller's
Fragmenta Historicorum Gr. ii. 501-2). ‫ן‬ ֶ in Isa_36:18 has a warning meaning (as if it followed
‫לכם‬ ‫מרו‬ ָ ‫ה‬ ); and both ‫י‬ ִ‫כ‬ְ‫ו‬ and ‫י‬ ִⅴ in Isa_36:19, Isa_36:20, introduce an exclamatory clause when
following a negative interrogatory sentence: and that they should have saved,” or “that Jehovah
should save,” equivalent to “how much less have they saved, or will He save” (Ewald, §354, c;
comp. ‫י‬ ִⅴ‫ף־‬ፍ, 2Ch_32:15). Rabshakeh's words in Isa_36:18-20 are the same as those in
Isa_10:8-11. The manner in which he defies the gods of the heathen, of Samaria, and last of all of
Jerusalem, corresponds to the prophecy there. It is the prophet himself who acts as historian
here, and describes the fulfilment of the prophecy, though without therefore doing violence to
his character as a prophet.
7. COFFMAN, “The strategy of Rabshakeh here was to destroy the faith of the people in their king
Hezekiah, and in their God Jehovah, and in themselves. If he could have accomplished that, there would
not have been very much left for Jerusalem to rely upon. One may only admire the arrogant and skillful
verbal assault upon the city.
All the promises about every man eating of his own vine and fig-tree, etc., all but concealed the brutal
truth that all of that period of peace would last "only" until Sennacherib carried them away to Assyria
(Isaiah 36:17); and even that terrible fate was disguised by the promise that Assyria was a productive and
fruitful land "like your own land!" But he did not mention the long lines of captives strung together with
hooks and bridles through their noses, ears and lips, or the fact of their ultimate destination in the

50. brickyards, mines, and factories where they would be worked to death, starved to death or beaten to
death. What an unconscionable liar Rabshakeh really was?
Note the boast in Isaiah 36:19 that Sennacherib had defeated the gods of Hamath, Arpad and
Sepharvaim, along with those of Samaria; but it was not Sennacherib who had won those victories. They
belonged to Shalmaneser or Sargon, or Tiglath-pileser III.
Hamath was a city on the Orontes river on the northern border of Israel; Arpad was a citadel on the road
between Damascus and Hamath (Jeremiah 49:23); Sepharvaim cannot certainly be identified, but the
context indicates that it was in Syria. See The New Bible Dictionary (in loco).
In Isaiah 36:20, Rabshakeh classified Jehovah along with all the other gods of the nations destroyed by
the Assyrians, having already stated in Isaiah 36:10 that "Jehovah" had commanded him to destroy
Jerusalem, posing in that remark as one who was acting upon Jehovah's orders! As Jamieson said, "This
contradicts what was said in Isaiah 36:10. Liars need good memories (which evidently Rabshakeh did not
have). He here classes Jehovah with the idols of other lands, and even thinks him to be inferior."[
8. CALVIN, “13.Therefore Rabshakeh stood, and cried with a loud voice in the Jewish language. The
Prophet shews by what expedients Rabshakeh endeavored to shake the heart of the people, and first
relates that he spoke in the Jewish language, though the ambassadors entreared him not to do so. It was,
indeed, exceedingly shocking that the holy language, which had been consecrated to the mysteries of
heavenly wisdom, was profaned and prostituted to wicked blasphemies; and this must undoubtedly have
been a sore temptation to weak minds. But this should lead us to remark, that no enemies are more
destructive than those who speak the same language as ourselves. At the present day we find this to be
true in many who learn our language, that is, our way of speaking, that they may be able to insinuate
themselves into the ears of weak and ignorant persons, so as to draw them aside from the true faith.
Thirty years ago, the Papists had a language which was barbarous and totally at variance with the style of
the Holy Spirit; scarcely were they heard to utter a word which breathed of Christian piety; but now they
have succeeded in acquiring such skill as to know how to cloak their impieties under the ordinary
language of Scripture, as if they were speaking in a Christian manner. Thus we see that it was Satan who
framed that style; for he is their teacher and instructor as truly as he formerly was the teacher and
instructor of Rabshakeh.
When the Prophet says that he stood, he expresses the fierceness and insolence of the wicked man; for
the very attitude shews how haughtily he conducted himself. Formerly he stood, but now he placed
himself in such an attitude as to be better seen, and strike greater terror into the Jews.
Hear the words of the great king. Having already spoken of the greatness of his king, he repeats his
commands. It is customary with Satan to exaggerate in words the power of the enemies, and to represent
the dangers as greater than they really are, in order to compel us to lose courage; for when our eyes are
dazzled by the vain splendor of earthly objects, we faint. We ought therefore to contrast the power of God
with all dangers; and if we have that power constantly placed before our eyes, there is nothing that can do
us injury. With high disdain and great insolence the enemies will boast of their greatness and strength,
and, on the other hand, will meek at our feebleness and our small numbers; but if the Lord is with us, we
have nothing to fear.

51. 14 This is what the king says: Do not let Hezekiah
deceive you. He cannot deliver you!
1.BARNES, “Let not Hezekiah deceive you - By inducing you to put your trust in Yahweh
or in himself; or with promises that you will be delivered.
Not be able to deliver you - In 2Ki_18:29, it is added, ‘out of his hand;’ but the sense is
substantially the same.
2. PULPIT, “Thus saith the king. It is scarcely probable that Sennacherib had expressly empowered
Rabshakeh to make a speech to the Jewish people, much less that he had dictated its words. But the
envoy regards himself as having plenary powers to declare the king's mind. Let not Hezekiah deceive
you. By vain hopes of resisting the Assyrian arms successfully (comp. Isa_36:5-7).
3. GILL, ” Thus saith the king,.... The king of Assyria, whom he personated, whose general
and ambassador he was; so he spake to command the greater awe of the people, and the more to
terrify them:
let not Hezekiah deceive you; with fair words, promising protection and safety, making
preparations for the defence of the city, and to oblige the besiegers to break up the siege of it:
for he shall not be able to deliver you; but if he was not, his God, whom he served, and in
whom he trusted, was able to deliver them, and did deliver them; though he endeavoured to
dissuade them from trusting in him, or hearkening to Hezekiah's persuasions thereunto, as in
the following verse.
4. CALVIN, “14.Thus saith the king. While he claims for his master the name of king, he speaks of
Hezekiah as a private individual, without adding any title.
Let not Hezekiah impose upon you. He goes on to utter impudent calumnies against him, and at the same
time vomits out his venom against God himself; for he calls it “” and “” for Hezekiah to rely on his favor,
and to exhort his subjects to cherish the same confidence. But with similar calumnies are we now
assailed by the Papists, who say that we bewitch the minds of men and lead them to destruction, and
who have no pretext for saying so, except that we teach them that they ought to hope in the true God. But
we have no reason to wonder that the same things which were spoken against the good king are likewise
brought forward against us, since they proceed from the same inventor and teacher of slander, Satan.
For he will not be able to deliver you. Rabshakeh’ assertion, that they cannot be delivered by the hand of
Hezekiah, is indeed true, unless God assist; and Hezekiah did not lay claim to this or rob God of the
honor due to him, but, on the contrary, testified that his own safety and that of the people were in the

52. hand of God. But the enemy found it necessary to employ some pretext, as wicked men commonly do at
the present day, when they slander our doctrine; for they employ pretexts which give high plausibility to
what they say, and which actually deceive men, when they are not closely examined.
15 Do not let Hezekiah persuade you to trust in the
Lord when he says, ‘The Lord will surely deliver us;
this city will not be given into the hand of the king
of Assyria.’
1.BARNES, “Make you trust in the Lord - Rabshakeh knew that Hezekiah was professedly
devoted to Yahweh, and that he would endeavor to induce the people to trust in him. The Jews
had now no other refuge but God, and as long as they put their confidence there, even
Rabshakeh knew that it was hazardous to attempt to take and destroy their city. It was his
policy, therefore, first to endeavor to undermine their reliance on God, before he could have any
hope of success. The enemies of God’s people cannot succeed in their designs against them until
they can unsettle their confidence in Him.
2. CLARKE, “This city shall not be delivered - ‫ולא‬ velo, And this city. Ten of Kennicott’s
MSS., and nine of De Rossi’s, with one (ancient) of my own, add the conjunction.
3. GILL, ” Neither let Hezekiah make you trust in the Lord,.... Hezekiah trusted in the
Lord himself, and he endeavoured, both by his own example, and by arguments, to persuade his
people to do so likewise; of this Rabshakeh was sensible, and was more afraid of this than of any
thing else, and, therefore laboured this point more than any other; see 2Ch_32:6;
saying, the Lord will surely deliver us, this city shall not be delivered into the hand
of the king of Assyria: which he might say with the greatest confidence, since the Lord had
promised to defend it, Isa_31:5 and especially if his sickness, and recovery out of it, and
promises then made to him, were before this, as some think; since it is expressly promised by
the Lord, that he would deliver him and the city out of the hand of the king of Assyria, Isa_38:6.
4. PULPIT, “Neither let Hezekiah make you trust in Jehovah. There is nothing improbable in
Rabshakeh's having thus spoken. Isaiah had long been encouraging Hezekiah to resist Sennacherib by
promises of Divine aid (Isa_30:31; Isa_31:4-9). Hezekiah would naturally repeat these premises to the
people, and could not give their effect in simpler words than by saying, "Jehovah will surely deliver us:

53. this city shall not be delivered into the hand of the King of Assyria." Spies and deserters would naturally
tell the Assyrian envoys what he had said.
5. JAMISON, “The foes of God’s people cannot succeed against them, unless they can shake
their trust in Him (compare Isa_36:10).
6. CALVIN, “15.And let not Hezekiah make you trust in Jehovah. He quotes the exhortation by which
Hezekiah encouraged the people, and speaks lightly of it as an idle and unfounded speech. Hence we
see plainly that wicked men, though they assert the power of God, treat it with contempt; for although he
does not openly deny that God can assist, if he choose, yet, by sapping the foundations of their faith, he
does all that he can to reduce the power of God to nothing. His intention is, to discourage the hearts of
the people in such a manner that they may be constrained, as if in despair, to submit and receive laws
from a victorious tyrant.
But in order to destroy their confidence in the assistance of God, he employs also another expedient, by
flattering their hearts with the allurements of a more comfortable life; for there is nothing to which we are
more prone than to revolt from God, when we are drawn away by the appearance of advantage. If the
world flatter and caress, the hope of eternal salvation quickly passes away; for our senses are always
fixed on the present state of things. Fortified by this resource, Rabshakeh advises, “ not depend on an
uncertain hope, but rather receive what is certain.” And this discourse is powerfully fitted to persuade; for
nothing is more agreeable to men than to have in hand what they consider to be desirable; and they are
so impatient of delay that they prefer an immediate advantage to what is very distant. Rabshakeh,
therefore, reasons thus: “ promises to you the assistance of God, but we do not see it; he holds you in
suspense about what is uncertain; but my king proraises to you those things which are at hand, and will
assuredly bestow them.” This might appear to be a strong argument; but we must observe the sophistry;
for by the same stratagem does Satan frequently attack us, and lead us aside from confidence in God.
The Lord calls us to the hope of eternal life; that hope is concealed, “ we hope (Rom_8:25) for what we do
not see;” he promises that he will be our deliverer, and yet allows us to languish and hint.; so that it
appears that our hope is vain, if we look at the present condition of things. On this ground Satan attacks
us. “ dost thou hope in vain? What is the fruit of thy faith? What dost thou expect beyond the world?” In
short, this is our daily lamentation. When Christ calls us to heaven, Satan endeavors to keep us still on
the earth; and therefore we must adhere firmly to the promises, that, “ against hope,” (Rom_4:18,) we
may trust in God, and not suffer ourselves to be drawn away from him by any allurements.
16 “Do not listen to Hezekiah. This is what the king of
Assyria says: Make peace with me and come out to
me. Then each of you will eat fruit from your own vine
and fig tree and drink water from your own cistern,

54. 1.BARNES, “Hearken not to Hezekiah - Do not listen to his entreaties to confide in him,
and in Yahweh; do not unite with him in endeavoring to make any resistance or opposition to us.
Make an agreement with me by a present - The Septuagint read this, Ει ʆ βούλεσθε εᆒλογ
ηθᇿναι Ei boulesthe eulogethenai - ‘If you wish to be blessed, or happy, come out to me.’ The
Hebrew is literally, ‘Make with me a blessing’ (‫ברכה‬ be
rakah). The idea of its being done ‘by a
present,’ is not in the Hebrew text. The word ‘blessing’ here probably means the same as peace.
‘Make peace with me,’ perhaps because peace was regarded as a blessing; and perhaps the word
is used with a reference to one of the significations of: ‫ברך‬ barak, which is to kneel down, and
this word may refer to their kneeling down; that is, to their offering allegiance to the king of
Assyria. The former is, however, the more probable sense, that the word means peace, because
this was an evident blessing, or would be the source of rich blessings to them. It is not, however,
used in this sense elsewhere in the Bible. The Chaldee renders it, ‘Make peace (‫שׁלמא‬ shalama')
with me.’
And come out to me - Surrender yourselves to me. It is evident, however, that he did not
mean that be would then remove them from their city and country, but he demanded a
surrender, intending to come and remove them at some other period Isa_36:17.
And eat ye every one of his own vine - An emblem of safety, when every man might be
permitted to partake of the fruit of his own labor. All that he now professed to desire was, that
they should surrender the city, and give up their means of defense, and then he would leave
them in security and quietness, until it should please his master to come and remove them to a
land as fertile as their own.
And drink ye every one - Another emblem of security and happiness. This promise was
made to induce them to surrender. On the one hand, he threatened them with the dreadful evils
of famine if they refused and allowed their city to be besieged Isa_36:12; and on the other, he
promised them, for a time at least, a quiet and secure residence in their own city, and then a
removal to a land not inferior to their own.
2. CLARKE, “Make an agreement - ‫ברכה‬ berachah, make a blessing with me; i.e., Give me
a ransom for the city, and I will not destroy it; give me the yearly tribute thou hast promised.
3. GILL, ” Hearken not to Hezekiah,.... To his exhortations and persuasions to trust in the
Lord; nor would he have them obey him in things civil, any more than hearken to him in things
sacred, though their liege lord and sovereign; for his view and endeavour were to stir them up to
mutiny and rebellion; and so the Targum,
"do not obey Hezekiah:''
or receive any orders from him, or pay any regard to them:
for thus saith the king of Assyria, make an agreement with me by a present; or,
"make a blessing with me" (i); either send a large and liberal gift to secure his favour, and their

55. happiness; a most insolent and unrighteous demand this, when he had already received three
hundred talents of silver, and thirty talents of gold, to withdraw his army; or make a blessed
peace with me; suggesting that it would turn more to their account to give up themselves to him,
than to be in the condition they were; so the Targum,
"make peace with me:''
this sense Ben Melech gives; and the Septuagint version is, "if ye would be blessed" (k), or
happy,
come out to me; forsake your king, throw off your allegiance to him, surrender yourselves and
city to me:
and eat ye everyone of his vine, and everyone of his fig tree: and drink ye everyone
the waters of his own cistern; promising liberty and property, but does not tell them how
long they should enjoy them; he signifies that they should enjoy everything that was necessary,
convenient, and delightful; vines and fig trees are mentioned, because common in Judea, and all
had cisterns near them for their use; unless this last clause is to be understood of everyone
having their own wives; see Pro_5:15 as the other clauses may design the enjoyment of their
estates and possessions, without any molestation or infringement of them; see Mic_4:4.
4. PULPIT, “Make an agreement with me by a present; literally, make a blessing with me. Delitzsch
paraphrases, "Enter into a connection of mutual good wishes with me." Vance Smith translates boldly,
"Make peace with me;" and Mr. Cheyne, "Make a treaty with me." There seems to be no doubt
that b'rakah, besides its primary sense of "blessing," had two secondary senses, "present" and "treaty."
Here "treaty" is no doubt intended. Come out to me; i.e. "come out of Jerusalem, and surrender
yourselves" (comp 1Sa_11:3; Jer_38:17). And eat ye drink ye. Peace being made, the Jews could
leave the protection of their walled cities, and disperse themselves over their lands, where they could live
in plenty and security, at any rate for a time. They would be safe front the terrible extremities hinted at
in Isa_36:12, and might confidently await the great king's ultimate disposal of them, which would be
determined widen the war in these parts was over. The waters of his own cistern; rather, of his own
well. All cultivators had wells in their plots of ground. Cisterns, or reservoirs, in which the rain-water was
stored, were comparatively uncommon
5. JAMISON, “agreement ... by ... present — rather, “make peace with me”; literally,
“blessing” so called from the mutual congratulations attending the ratification of peace. So
Chaldee. Or else, “Do homage to me” [Horsley].
come out — surrender to me; then you may remain in quiet possession of your lands till my
return from Egypt, when I will lead you away to a land fruitful as your own. Rab-shakeh tries to
soften, in the eyes of the Jews, the well-known Assyrian policy of weakening the vanquished by
deporting them to other lands (Gen_47:21; 2Ki_17:6).
6. CALVIN, “16.Do not listen to Hezekiah. While he labors to turn away the hearts of the people from
Hezekiah, he at the same time invites them to pleasures, that they may forget God and not expect
anything from him. It is as if he had said, “ not believe God, but rather believe my king.” Thus Satan deals
with us; for, darkening the goodness of God by his clouds, and holding out to us the masks of false hope,
he secretly and indirectly creeps into the place of God, or employs creatures to entangle us in his nets.

56. He holds out pleasures, and some kind of more agreeable life, with this boast, “ shews it to you at a
distance, I present it to you.”
Though Hezekiah is mentioned, yet the comparison is actually made between God and the king of
Assyria; for Hezekiah, as he was the servant of God, made no false pretensions, and did not boast of any
vain confidence, but, relying on true and most certain promises, faithfully exhorted the people to seek
God; but Rabshakeh adorned his king by robbing God, and yet was the servant of Satan, to withdraw the
people from confidence in God to all impiety.
Make with me a blessing. (41) “ make a blessing” is to conduct themselves in a friendly manner; as if he
had said, “ not give any hostile indication, or risk a battle. Surrender, make your submission to my king.”
Sennacherib does not merely demand that he shall be heard, but likewise that the people shall swear
allegiance to hint; and, in order to allure them to him the more powerfully, he makes use of the
word blessing as a cloak to that bondage which was in itself hateful. He bids them purchase a quiet life,
and other conveniencies which they formerly enjoyed, by that miserable revolt; that is, by forsaking
Hezekiah and going out to him; for to revolt from a pious king, whom God had appointed, and who was a
type of Christ, was more wretched and miserable than anything else that could befall them, and could not
take place without denying God himself, who had set up in Judea that token of heavenly favor.
(41) “ [an agreement] with me [by] a present, or seek my favor by a present. — Hebrews Make with me a
blessing. — Eng. Ver. εἰ βούλεσθε σὐλογηθὢναι “ you wish to be blessed.” — Sept. “ out to me for the
sake of peace, and bless me, and bring me a peace-offering.” — Jarchi. ‫ברכה‬ (berachah,) blessing is here
figuratively used for peace; for since blessings commonly ran in this form, Peace to thee, to you, it
appears that peace was called blessing. The Chaldee interpreter has therefore rendered it correctly, —
‫עבדו‬ ‫עמי‬ ‫,שלמא‬ (guabdu gnimmi shalma,) make peace with me.” —Rosenmuller.
17 until I come and take you to a land like your own—
a land of grain and new wine, a land of bread and
vineyards.
1.BARNES, “Until I come - These are the words of the king of Assyria delivered by
Rabshakeh. It was proposed that they should remain safely in Jerusalem until Sennacherib
should himself come and remove them to his own land. He was now engaged in the siege of

57. Lachish Isa_36:2, and it is probable that he purposed to take some other of the unsubdued
towns in that part of Palestine.
And take you away - It was common for conquerors in ancient times to remove a
vanquished people from their own country. They did this either by sending them forth in
colonies to people some unsettled region, or by removing the body of them to the land of the
conqueror. This was done for various purposes. It was sometimes to make slaves of them;
sometimes for the purposes of triumph; but more commonly to secure them from revolt. In this
manner the ten tribes were removed from the kingdom of Samaria; and thus also the Jews were
carried to Babylon. Suetonius says (chapter xxi.) of Augustus. that he removed the Suevi and the
Sicambri into Gaul, and stationed them on the Rhine. The same thing was also practiced in
Egypt, for the purpose of securing the people from revolt Gen_47:21.
A land like your own land - A fertile land, abounding in the same productions as your
own.
And wine - Palestine was celebrated for the vine. The idea is, that in the land to which he
would remove them, they should not want.
2. CLARKE, “And vineyards - The other copy, 2Ki_18:32, adds here: “A land of oil-olive,
and of honey; that ye may live, and not die: and hearken not unto Hezekiah when he seduceth
you.”
3. GILL, “Until I come and take you away to a land like your own land,..... Some have
thought, as Jerom observes, that the land of Media was meant, which bore some likeness to the
land of Judea in situation and fruitfulness. Maimonides thinks that Africa is intended (l).
Rabshakeh names no land, nor could he name any like, or equal to, the land of Canaan; he could
not conceal his intention to remove them from their own land to another; this having been
always done by the king of Assyria to people conquered by him, and as was usual for conquerors
to do, that so the conquered might have no expectation or opportunity of recovering their own
land:
a land of corn and wine, a land of bread and vineyards; corn for bread, and vineyards
for wine, and both for food and drink; such a land was the land of Judea. The description agrees
with Deu_8:8. Rabshakeh was well acquainted with the land of Judea; and this seems to
confirm the conjecture of the Jews, that he was one of their people, since he could speak their
language, and describe their land so well; all this he said to sooth and persuade them to a
voluntary surrender.
4. PULPIT, “Until I come and take you away. It was so much thee usual policy of Assyria to remove to
a new locality a conquered people, which had given them trouble, that Rabshakeh felt safe in assuming
that the fate in store for the Jews, if they submitted themselves, was a transplantation. Sargon had
transported the Israelites to Gozan and Media (2Ki_18:11), the Tibarcni to Assyria, the Commageni to
Susiana. Sennacherib himself had transported into Assyria more than two hundred thousand Aramaeans.
It might be confidently predicted that, if he conquered them, he would transplant the Jews. Rabshakeh
tries to soften down the hardship of the lot before them by promises of a removal to a land equal in all
respects to Palestine. To a land like your own land. This was certainly not a general principle of
Assyrian administration. Nations were removed from the far north to the extreme south, and vice
versa, from arid to marshy tracts, from fertile regions to comparative deserts. The security of the empire,

58. not the gratification of the transported slaves, was the ruling and guiding principle of all such changes. A
land of corn and wine, a land of bread and vineyards. The writer of Kings adds, "a land of oil olive and of
honey." (On the productiveness of Palestine, see Num_13:27; Num_14:7;Deu_1:23; Deu_8:7-
9; Deu_11:11, Deu_11:12.)
5.CALVIN, “17.Till I come and take you away. He now adds another condition far harder than the
former; for he declares that peace cannot be made with Sennacherib in any other way than by the people
going into banishment. This was nothing else than to abandon the worship of God and degenerate into
superstition, and voluntarily to quit the inheritance which God had given them. But because he addresses
a people whose distressed condition and extreme danger had struck them with terror, he insolently
commands them to save their lives.
Into a land of corn and wine. Here we see more clearly that Rabshakeh’ speech is nothing else than an
image of the temptations by which Satan daily attacks our faith; for there is nothing which Satan more
constantly attempts (42) than to withdraw us from confidence in God by the allurements and pleasures of
this world; that we ought to enjoy peace and quietness, and to purchase them at any price; and that
happiness consists in plentiful abundance of good things. But most of all, he makes a wicked use of
adversity to press upon us, and more eagerly urge us to shake off the yoke of God. Gently indeed, and by
secret and unseen methods, he insinuates himself; but, after having once inveigled and caught us in his
net, so as to lead us to value present advantages more highly than those which are future, he adds this
condition, that he shall hold us entirely bound and devoted to him; which we certainly cannot avoid, when
he holds us entangled by his plausible hopes, and by the relish of present objects.
Into a land like your own land. Because the word banishment was harsh and disagreeable, and it was not
easy to part with the delightfulness of their native country, in order to shew that they sustain no loss by
leaving it, he says, that the country into which they are about to be conveyed is equally fertile and
productive. (43)Thus he draws a veil over their eyes, that they might not think that they were losing
anything. Yet he cunningly passes by what ought above all other things to be valued by them, the worship
of God, the temple, the kingdom, the order of holy government, and everything else that belonged to the
heavenly inheritance. Without these what happiness can there be? Let every one therefore learn diligently
to apply his mind to spiritual blessings; “ to dwell in the house of God,” is justly pronounced to be a far
more valuable blessing than all the luxuries and prosperity of the world. (Psa_84:4.) Thus shall we guard
against being led away by the hope of present objects and deprived of true happiness; for this is a
dreadful punishment by which the Lord takes vengeance on the unbelief of men, and which all godly
persons ought to dread, that they may not faint or give way under any distresses and calamities.
(42) “Car tonte son etude est.” “ his whole study is.’”
(43) “ has been disputed what particular land is here meant, some saying Mesopotamia, to which others
object that it was not a winegrowing country. But, as Knobel observes, there its no need of supposing that
the Assyrian’ description was exactly true he may indeed have intended merely to promise them in
general country as abundant as their own.” — Alexander.

59. 18 “Do not let Hezekiah mislead you when he says,
‘The Lord will deliver us.’ Have the gods of any
nations ever delivered their lands from the hand of the
king of Assyria?
1.BARNES, “Hath any of the gods of the nations ... - This is said to show them the
impossibility, as he supposed, of being delivered from the arm of the king of Assyria. He had
conquered all before him, and not even the gods of the nations had been able to rescue the lands
where they were worshipped from the hands of the victorious invader. He inferred, therefore,
that Yahweh, the God of Palestine, could not save their land.
2. PULPIT, “Beware lest Hezekiah persuade you; rather, seduce you (comp. Deu_13:6; 1Ki_21:25).
Sennacherib claims to be entitled to the people's allegiance, and represents Hezekiah as a rebel, who
seeks to draw them away from their duty. Hath any of the gods of the nations delivered his land? The
successes of the Assyrians, and the religious character of their wars, justified this boast. The pervading
idea of the inscriptions is that wars arc undertaken for the glory of the Assyrian deities, particularly of
Asshur, for the chastisement of his enemies, and with the object of establishing in each country, as it is
brought under subjection, the laws and worship of Asshur. The nations fight under the protection of their
own gods, and thus each war is a struggle between the Assyrian deities and those of the nation with
which they arc contending. Hitherto, undoubtedly, Assyria had met with almost uniform success
(see Isa_10:5-14).
3. GILL, “Beware lest Hezekiah persuade you,.... To trust in the Lord, stand up in your
own defence and not listen to these proposals; or, lest he "deceive you" (m); with vain words;
whom he would represent not only as not being their lawful king, and therefore never gives him
that title, but also as a deceiver and impostor, of whom they should be cautious, and guard
against:
saying, the Lord will deliver us; and therefore need not fear the boasts and threats, the
force and fury, of the enemy:
hath any of the gods of the nations delivered his land; over whom he presided, and to
whom the people of it were devotees:
out of the hand of the king of Assyria? this reasoning would have had some weight in it
had the Lord God of Israel been like the gods of the nations, but he is not; he is the Former and

60. Maker of all things, and sits in the heavens, and does whatsoever he pleases in heaven and in
earth; and therefore, though they could not deliver their nations that worshipped them, it did
not follow that the God of Israel could not deliver Hezekiah and his people.
4. CALVIN, “18.Lest perhaps Hezekiah deceive you. This is another argument different from the
former, by which he endeavors to withdraw the people from Hezekiah and from confidence in God.
Formerly he boasted that he was God’ servant, and that God had sent him to destroy Judea, and on that
ground he assured himself of certain victory; but now he openly insults God himself. At the first onset
wicked men do not usually betray their scorn and impiety, but at length the Lord makes known their
dispositions, and constrains them to discover the venom of their own heart. Now therefore the wicked
Rabshakeh bursts forth with greater violence, and boasts that he will gain the victory over God himself.
Have any of the gods of the nations rescued their land? He speaks in the person of his master, that he
had obtained great victories over many and powerful nations. They had their “” by whose protection they
thought that they were defended; and therefore Sennacherib thought that he had vanquished the “”
themselves, because he had vanquished the nations which relied on their aid. The consequence is, that
he breaks out into such insolence as not to hesitate to compare himself to the living God, and is impelled
by such rage that he brings his own strength into conflict with the power of God.
Thus, although at first wicked men conceal their contempt of God, yet they afterwards shew that they
claim everything for themselves, and that they are “ God.” (44) (Eph_2:12.) In words, indeed, they pretend
to ascribe victories to their idols; but afterwards, as Habakkuk says, they
“ to their net, and offer incense to their drag.”
(Hab_1:16.)
We see hypocrites do this also at the present day; for they run to do honor to their idols after having
obtained a victory, but immediately afterwards boast of their plans, and wisdom, and courage, and military
forces; which plainly shews that they ascribe to themselves and not to their idols all that has happened.
By such insolent boasting, therefore, he shewed that it was a lie, when he said that he acknowledged
God to be the author of his victories. Besides, it was impossible that these words should not give dreadful
agony to the heart of the good king, when he was informed that the promises of God were condemned as
false, when that wicked man openly insuited God and linked their cause with idols. And these things are
related, in order that we may behold the patience of the good king, and may resolve to imitate him when
anything of the same kind shall take place.
Have they delivered? When he sets himself in opposition to all the gods, and declares that he is more
powerful than they are, this is so much at variance with common sense, that it is abhorred even by wicked
men themselves; yet if the Lord press hard upon them, if he put them to the torture, he speedily extorts
from them such language. When they make a premeditated speech, they pretend that they are
worshippers of God, but afterwards God constrains them to bring out and acknowledge what was lurking
within. Let us therefore learn, that superstition is always accompanied by pride; so that they who do not
know God, do not scruple to rise up against everything that is called God; and let us not be astonished at
the rebellion and insolence of wicked men, for nothing but the pure knowledge of God can teach us
humility. And yet that wicked man cannot be excused as if he justly reproached idols with their weakness

61. and uselessness; for we ought to observe his sentiments and the purpose of his heart, since he does not
ridicule the superstition and vain confidence of the nations, but in the idols themselves he pours contempt
on the power of God. In like manner, when Dionysius the tyrant ridiculed his gods, he fought with God
and defied him to a contest; for he attacked, in opposition to his conscience,such a deity as his mind
could comprehend. The same observation might be made on all other infidels who treated with scorn
false religions which they supposed to be from God.
Here we ought also to observe another kind of blasphemy, by which the majesty of God is wickedly
dishonored; which is, that Rabshakeh confounds God with idols, and represents him to be one of the
multitude. For what blasphemy is it to confound the immortal God and creator of all things with what is
most detestable, to confound truth with falsehood, glory with shame, heaven with earth?
“ Lord is great,” says David, “ worthy of the highest praise; he is to be feared above all gods. For all the
gods of the nations are nothing; but the Lord made the heavens. Majesty and honor are before him;
strength and beauty are in his sanctuary.” —
(Psa_96:4.)
(44) “Et n’ que faire de luy “ “ have nothing to do with him.”
19 Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? Where
are the gods of Sepharvaim? Have they rescued
Samaria from my hand?
1.BARNES, “Where are the gods of Hamath ... - In regard to these places, see the notes
at Isa_10:9-11.
Where are the gods of Sepharvaim? - Sepharvaim was probably in Mesopotamia.
Ptolemy mentions a city there of the name of Sipphara, as the most southern city of
Mesopotamia, which is probably the same. It is evident that it was in the vicinity of Hamath and
Arphad, and these are known to have been in Mesopotamia. When Shalmaneser carried Israel
away captive from Samaria, he sent colonies of people into Palestine in their stead, among
whom were the Sepharvaim 2Ki_17:24, 2Ki_17:31.
And have they delivered Samaria - (See the note at Isa_10:11). The author of the Books
of Chronicles expresses this in a more summary manner, and says, that Rabshakeh joined
Yahweh with the gods of the nations in the same language of reproach: ‘And he spake against the
God of Jerusalem, as against the gods of the people of the earth, which were the work of the
hands of man,’ 2Ch_32:19.

62. 2. CLARKE, “Where are the gods - Many MSS. add the conjunction here also: And, or
But, where are the gods, etc.
For other matters relative to this chapter, see the notes on 2Ki_18:13 (note), etc.
Of Sepharvaim - The other copy, 2Ki_18:34, adds, of “Henah and Ivah.”
Have they delivered - ‫וכי‬ vechi. The copulative is not expressed here by the Septuagint,
Syriac, Vulgate, and three MSS.; nor is it in any other copy. Ib. Houbigant reads ‫הכי‬ hachi, with
the interrogative particle; a probable conjecture, which the ancient Versions above quoted seem
to favor.
3. GILL, ” Where are the gods of Hamath and Arphad?.... What is become of them?
where are they to be found? where's their power to protect and defend the people they presided
over? thus they might be justly derided, but not so the God at Israel; these places are mentioned
in Isa_10:9. Hamath was a city in Syria, thought by some to be the same afterwards called
Antiochia and Epiphania, from Antiochus Epiphanes: Arphad is joined with it in Jer_49:23 as a
city of Syria; perhaps originally founded and inhabited by the Arvadite, mentioned with the
Hamathite, in Gen_10:18,
where are the gods of Sepharvaim? another place in Syria, the city Sipphore; not the
Sipphara of Ptolemy (n), in Mesopotamia, or that, near Babylon, Abydenus (o) makes mention
of, but a city in Syro-Phoenicia, 2Ki_17:24,
and have they delivered Samaria out of my hand? the gods of the above places, which
were worshipped in Samaria, or the gods peculiar to that place; though Samaria was not taken
by the present king of Assyria, Sennacherib, but by a predecessor of his, Shalmaneser,
2Ki 17:3,6, which yet is here boasted of as a conquest of the present king.
4. PULPIT, “Where are the gods of Hamath? (comp. Isa_10:9). Sargon had reduced Hamath in his
third year, b.c. 720. He had "swept the whole land of Hamath to its extreme limit," taken the king prisoner,
and carried him away captive to Assyria, where he flayed and burned him; removed most of the
inhabitants, and replaced them by Assyrians; plundered the city of its chief treasures, and placed an
Assyrian governor over it. Among the treasures taken were, no doubt, the images of the Hamathite gods,
which were uniformly carried off by the Assyrians from a conquered city. And Arphad. Arphad, or Arpad
(Isa_10:9), had joined with Hamath in the war against Assyria, and was taken by Sargon in the same
year. Of Sepharvaim. Scpharvaim, or Sippara, was besieged and captured by Sargon in his twelfth year,
b.c. 710. A severe example was made of the inhabitants. A discovery made by Mr. Hormuzd Rassam, in
1881, is thought to prove that Sippara was situated at Abu-Habbah, between Baghdad and the site of
Babylon, about sixteen miles from the former city. "Hena" and "Ivah," joined with Sepharvaim by the
author of Kings (2Ki_18:31), seem to be omitted by Isaiah as unimportant. They are thought to have been
towns upon the Euphrates, not very distant from Babylon, and have been identified respectively with
Anah and Hit. But the identification is in both cases uncertain. Have they delivered Samaria? Delitzsch
and Mr. Cheyne translate, "How much less have they delivered Samaria?" Kay, "Verily have

63. they delivered," regarding the sentence as ironical. Sennacherib can see no distinction between the cities
where Jehovah was worshipped, and those which acknowledged any other tutelary god. As Samaria fell,
why should not Jerusalem fall?
5. JAMISON, “Hamath ... Arphad — (See on Isa_10:9).
Sepharvaim — literally, “the two scribes”; now Sipphara, on the east of Euphrates, above
Babylon. It was a just retribution (Pro_1:31; Jer_2:19). Israel worshipped the gods of
Sepharvaim, and so colonists of Sepharvaim were planted in the land of Israel (thenceforth
called Samaria) by the Assyrian conqueror (2Ki_17:24; compare 2Ki_18:34).
Samaria — Shalmaneser began the siege against Hoshea, because of his conspiring with So of
Egypt (2Ki_17:4). Sargon finished it; and, in his palace at Khorsabad, he has mentioned the
number of Israelites carried captive - 27,280 [G. V. Smith].
6. SBC, “I. These inquiries may, by a slight accommodation, be used as showing some
characteristics of false gods, and showing by implication the glory and worship which are due to
the one living Lord. Men have a distinct right to inquire for their gods. Almighty God Himself
does not shrink from this test of personality and nearness. He will be inquired of. He has
proclaimed Himself accessible.
II. Many a man has felt the most intense pain on observing what he supposed was God’s absence
from the scene of human affairs. God has been looked for, and looked for apparently in vain.
When His voice might have hushed the storm, not a sound was heard. In reply to this difficulty, I
suggest three things: (1) As a mere matter of fact, attested by a thousand histories known in our
own experience, God has appeared in vindication of His name and honour; (2) God Himself is
the only Judge as to the best manner and time of interposition; (3) The very absence of God,
being dictated by wisdom, and controlled by love, must be intended to have a happy effect upon
human faith. When God is absent, what if His absence be intended to excite inquiry in our
hearts? When God is absent, what if His absence be intended to develop the trust of our nature?
It is in having to grope for God we learn lessons of our own blindness and weakness and
spiritual incapacity. We know not what God may be working out for us in the very act of
withdrawing Himself for a small moment, and for a space immeasurably minute.
Parker, City Temple, 1871, p. 193.
7. CALVIN, “19.Where are the gods of Hamath and Arpad? It is supposed that Hamath was Antioch in
Syria, that Arpad was that city from which colonies were brought to Damascus, and that Sepharvaim was
a city situated in the country of Damascus. If this be true, Rabshakeh mentions the ancient names of
cities, from which many nations had formerly come, and which afterwards lost not only their celebrity, but
likewise their distinctive names, and aims at producing in them greater alarm, by reminding them of so
great revolutions. However that may be, he mentions chiefly the neighboring cities, the destruction of
which might affect them more deeply on account of their being better known to the Jews. And I have no
doubt that these places belonged to Syria and Israel; as if he had said, “ at these two kingdoms subdued,
which were presided over by their gods as their guardians. Will your God resist me?”

64. 20 Who of all the gods of these countries have been
able to save their lands from me? How then can the
Lord deliver Jerusalem from my hand?”
1. GILL, “Who are they amongst all the gods of these lands, that have delivered
their land out of my hand?.... Not one of them, it is suggested; wherefore then should it be
thought practicable,
that the Lord should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand? thus blasphemously setting the
Lord God of Israel upon a level with the fictitious gods of the Gentiles; though these could not,
the Lord could, being the Lord God Almighty. If Rabshakeh was an apostate Jew, he must have
known better; but the malice of such is usually the greatest.
2. JAMISON, “(Compare Isa_10:11; 2Ch_32:19). Here he contradicts his own assertion
(Isa_36:10), that he had “come up against the land with the Lord.” Liars need good memories.
He classes Jehovah with the idols of the other lands; nay, thinks Him inferior in proportion as
Judah, under His tutelage, was less than the lands under the tutelage of the idols.
3. CALVIN, “20.That Jehovah should rescue Jerusalem out of my hand? (45) The particle ‫כי‬ (ki) is
taken by commentators in both places interrogatively, “ the gods of the nations deliver? And will your God
deliver?” But in order to make the meaning flow more smoothly, I have preferred to render the second
clause, “ your God should deliver;” for the repetition of the same word marks a resemblance. Yet the
words appear also to contain irony; as if he had said in mockery, “ as the gods of the nations delivered
their worshippers, so will your God assist you.”
This insolence of ungodly men arises from their not understanding that God punishes the sins of men
when they suffer any adversity. And first they go wrong in this respect that they institute a wicked and
absurd comparison, “ have conquered that nation, and therefore I am better or stronger.” They do not
perceive that they were appointed to be the executioners of God’ anger for the punishment of iniquities;
for, although they say that they have received something from God, they do it hypocritically, and do not
consider his will or his justice. They afterwards rise higher, for they venture to make a comparison
between them and God himself, “ have conquered those over whom God presided, and therefore I have
conquered God himself.”
And here we see painted in a lively manner what was formerly expressed, —
“ Assyria, the rod of my indignation; but he thought not so.” (Isa_10:5.)
In that passage God forewarned believers, that although Sennacherib, in blind madness, lifted himself up

65. and attempted to overthrow all divine power, still they should continue to believe this doctrine, that he
could do nothing more than what he was permitted by heaven to do. It is our duty to acknowledge that
God inflicts punishment by the hand of wicked men, who may be regarded as the instruments of God’
anger; and therefore we ought to turn away our eyes from them, that we may look directly at God, by
whom we are justly punished. If wicked men are more powerful, let us not think that the arm of God is
broken, but let us consider that we do not deserve his assistance; for he arms enemies for our
destruction, supplies them with vigor and with armies, drives them backwards and forwards whenever he
thinks proper, and gives us up into their hands when we have turned away from him.
Accordingly, when the Turk now rises up haughtily against us, because he has already vanquished so
great a multitude of Christians, we need not be alarmed on that account, as if the power of God were
diminished, and as if he had not strength to deliver us. But we ought to consider in how many ways the
inhabitants of Greece and of Asia provoked his anger, by the prevalence of every kind of base and
shocking licentiousness in those countries, and by the dreadful superstitions and wickedness which
abounded. On this account very severe chastisement was needed for restraining the crimes of those who
made a false profession of the name of God. Hence came the prosperity of the Turk, and hence was it
followed by a shockingly ruinous condition throughout the whole of the east. Yet we see him insolently
raising his crest, laughing at our religion, and applauding his own in a strange manner; but still more does
he applaud himself, and “ to his net,” (Hab_1:16,) as we have already said of other infidels.
We ought, therefore, to direct our minds towards the judgments of God, that we may not think that the
Turk acquired such extensive dominion by his own strength. But the Lord allowed him greater freedom,
for the purpose of punishing the ungodliness and wickedness of men, and will at length restrain his
insolence at the proper time. Now, although prosperity is a token of the blessing of God, yet we must not
begin with it if we wish to form right views of God himself, as Mahometans and Papists infer from the
victories which they have gained, that God is in some respects subject to their control. But when we have
known the true God, blessings are added in the proper order to testify his grace and power.
Yet we ought always to beware of making the smallest claim for ourselves, for as soon as foolish
confidence has gained admission, we shall immediately be seized with such fury as to believe that even
God is not equal to us. At first, even wicked men will be shocked at anything so grossly irreligious; but
when we are maddened by such diabolical pride as to rob God and adorn ourselves with the spoils, we
easily fall into the practice of open insult. Sennacherib still retained some form of piety, for we shall
afterwards read (Isa_37:38) that “ was slain in the temple of his god, while he was worshipping there;”
and he undoubtedly wished that God would be gracious to him; but, as in this passage he treads under
his feet the Creator of heaven and earth along with the gods of the nations, so he would not have
hesitated, when an opportunity occurred, to act in the same manner towards his own idol.
(45) “ (when or where was it) that they delivered Samaria out of my hand? ‫כי‬ (ki) is not an interrogative
pronoun, (Who have delivered?) nor an interrogative particle, (Have they delivered?) but a connective
particle, dependent upon something not expressed.” — Alexander.

66. 21 But the people remained silent and said nothing in
reply, because the king had commanded, “Do not
answer him.”
1.BARNES, “But they held their peace - Hezekiah had commanded them not to answer.
They were simply to hear what Rabshakeh had to propose, and to report to him, that he might
decide on what course to pursue. It was a case also in which it was every way proper that they
should be silent. There was so much insolence, self-confidence, blasphemy, the proposals were
so degrading, and the claims were so arrogant, that it was not proper that they should enter into
conference, or listen a moment to the terms proposed. Their minds also were so horror-stricken
with the language of insolence and blasphemy, and their hearts so pained by the circumstances
of the city, that they would not feel like replying to him. There are circumstances when it is
proper to maintain a profound silence in the presence of revilers and blasphemers, and when we
should withdraw from them, and go and spread the case before the Lord. This was done here
Isa_37:1, and the result showed that this was the course of wisdom.
2. CLARKE, “But they held their peace “But the people held their peace” - The word
‫העם‬ haam, the people, is supplied from the other copy, and is authorized by a MS. which inserts
it after ‫אתו‬ otho.
3. GILL, ” But they held their peace, and answered him not a word,.... The three
ministers of Hezekiah; not as confounded, and unable to return an answer: they were capable of
saying many things in proof that the Lord God was greater than the gods of the nations, and in
favour of their king, Hezekiah, whom he had treated in a scurrilous manner; and could have
objected to him the king of Assyria's breach of faith and honour, but these things they waved,
and said nothing of; no doubt they said something to him, had some conference with him, or
otherwise what were they sent as commissioners about? but they made no answer to his
blasphemies and menaces:
for the king's commandment was, saying, answer him not: with respect to the above
things; when he sent them, he might be aware that he would behave in such a rude, insolent, and
blaspheming manner, and therefore the king gave them instructions how to conduct themselves,
should this be the case. Musculus thinks the king was on the wall, and heard all himself, and
gave orders to his ministers to make no reply; but this does not seem likely; what is here said of
the ministers is also said of the people, 2Ki_18:36
4. PULPIT, “They (i.e. the people, as in 2Ki_18:36) held their peace. Rabshakeh's attempt to shake
their fidelity had, at any rate, no manifest effect. For the king's commandment was, saying, Answer
him not. Hezekiah can scarcely have anticipated that Rabshakeh would so far depart from ordinary

67. usage as to make a speech to "the men on the wall." But he may have been in the immediate
neighbourhood, and, when apprised of the envoy's proceedings, may have sent the order. We are not to
suppose that the Jewish king was at a loss for an answer. He did not choose to bandy words with an
envoy who had behaved himself so outrageously.
5. JAMISON, “not a word — so as not to enter into a war of words with the blasphemer
(Exo_14:14; Jud_1:9).
6. K&D, “The effect of Rabshakeh's words. “But they held their peace (K. and they, the
people, held their peace), and answered him not a word; for it was the king's commandment,
saying, Ye shall not answer him. Then came Eliakim son of Hilkiyahu (K. Hilkiyah), the house-
minister, and Shebna the chancellor, and Joah son of Asaph, the recorder, to Hizkiyahu, with
torn clothes, and told him the words of Rabshakeh.” It is only a superficial observation that
could commend the reading in Kings, “They, the people, held their peace,” which Hitzig and
Knobel prefer, but which Luzzatto very properly rejects. As the Assyrians wished to speak to the
king himself (2Ki_18:18), who sent the three to them as his representatives, the command to
hear, and to make no reply, can only have applied to them (and they had already made the
matter worse by the one remark which they had made concerning the language); and the
reading ‫ישׁוּ‬ ִ‫ר‬ ֲ‫ח‬ַ ַ‫ו‬ in the text of Isaiah is the correct one. The three were silent, because the king had
imposed the duty of silence upon them; and regarding themselves as dismissed, inasmuch as
Rabshakeh had turned away from them to the people, they hastened to the king, rending their
clothes, in despair and grief and the disgrace they had experienced.
7. COFFMAN, “The rent garments of the three envoys whom the king had sent to receive the
communication from Sennacherib's messengers indicate the shameful, tragic nature of the word they
brought back. Their king had been insulted, unconditional surrender had been demanded, the captivity of
the people had been promised, their God, even the Holy One of Israel, had been blasphemed, Jerusalem
had been consigned to the ban and would be totally destroyed. Therefore, in sorrow, disgrace, grief, and
the utmost despair, indicated by their rent clothing, these envoys returned to Hezekiah. This was indeed a
dark moment in the history of God's chosen people. Under such dreadful circumstances as these,
Hezekiah reacted as a believer in Jehovah should have done; and that is fully developed in the next
chapter.
8. CALVIN, “21.And they were silent. This is added in order that we may more fully understand how
deep was the affliction which prevailed throughout the whole of Judea; for the good king, having hardly
any strength or means of defense, is therefore struck dumb even when an enemy insults him.
Ambassadors were sent to soothe the enemy; when they are unsuccessful they are enjoined to be silent,
that they might not provoke that savage beast, which already was too much excited, to cruelty. Yet it is
uncertain whether these words relate to the ambassador or to the people, against whom Rabshakeh
threw out these reproaches; and indeed it is probable, that it rather refers to those who guarded the walls,
who, though they were sharply piqued by the taunts of the enemy, yet were not provoked to quarrels or
disturbance, because they obeyed the kings command. Hence, also, we infer that it arose from the
peculiar kindness of God, that they were so much disposed to yield obedience when matters were
desperate.

68. It will perhaps be objected that they ought not to have been silent when such blasphemies were uttered
against God; for we ought not to conceal our sentiments when wicked men mock, and jeer, and reproach
God, even though our life should be put in danger. We ought, at least, to testify that we cannot patiently
endure that his honor and glory should be attacked. But it is not said that they were silent because they
expressed their assent, or cared nothing about the reproaches which were cast on God, and which,
though not a word was uttered by them, gave deep pain to the ambassadors, and prompted them to the
attitudes and tokens of grief; for afterwards, such is the bitterness of their sorrow that they tear their
garments, and by this token they shew that they hold such blasphemies in abhorrence and detestation.
But as it would have been of no avail for the ambassadors to debate with Rabshakeh, they returned
peaceably and without any tumult; and the people, because it was useless to make any disturbance,
reckoned it enough to meet the wicked man’ impertinence by silent groans. And it is no despicable
courage, even when we have it not in our power to utter a syllable, still not to shrink or flinch, but to
remain quietly in our place.
Hence we are also reminded, that we ought not always to contend with wicked men when they reproach
and tear in pieces the name of God; for amidst bitter strife and confused noise the truth will not be heard.
And yet we must not on that account give way to cowardice, by thinking that we ought to be excused for
being silent, whenever wicked men rise up against God; for our silence will have no excuse if we do not in
some way testify that it is highly displeasing to us, and if we do not, as far as lies in our power, declare
that nothing is more distressing to us than that the name of God should be dishonored. We must,
therefore, give expression to our zeal, that wicked men may not think that we have no regard for the
honor of God, and that we are not moved when they blaspheme it.
22 Then Eliakim son of Hilkiah the palace
administrator, Shebna the secretary and Joah son of
Asaph the recorder went to Hezekiah, with their
clothes torn, and told him what the field commander
had said.
1.BARNES, “With their clothes rent - This was a common mark of grief among the Jews
(see 2Sa_3:21; 1Ki_21:27; Ezr_9:3; Job_1:20; Job_2:12; Jer_36:24; and the notes at
Mat_26:65; notes at Act_14:14). The causes of their griefs were the insolence and arrogance of
Rabshakeh; the proposal to surrender the city; the threatening of the siege on the one hand, and
of the removal on the other, and the blasphemy of the name of their God, and the reproach of
the king. All these things filled their hearts with grief, and they hastened to make report to
Hezekiah.

69. 2. PULPIT, “With their clothes rent. Garments were "rent," not only as a sign of mourning, but
whenever persons were shocked or horrified
(see Gen_37:29; 1Sa_4:12; 2Sa_1:2; Ezr_9:3; 2Ch_34:19; Mat_26:65). The Jewish officials meant to
mark their horror at Rabshakeh's blasphemies.
3. GILL, ” Then came Eliakim, that was over the household,.... The first of the
commissioners sent to Rabshakeh:
and Shebna the Scribe, and Joah, the son of Asaph, the recorder, to Hezekiah: by
which it seems that he could not be with them on the wall, but was all the while in his own
palace, whither they came to him, to report the issue of their conference with Rabshakeh:
with their clothes rent; which was done perhaps not in the presence and within the sight of
Rabshakeh, but as they came along; and that partly on account of the blasphemies they had
heard, Mat_26:65, and partly through the grief of heart, for the distress and calamity they might
fear were coming on themselves, their king, their city, and country, Joe_2:13,
and told him the words of Rabshakeh; what he had said against him, and against the God
of Israel, his menaces and his blasphemies; they made a faithful report of the whole, as
messengers ought to do. What effect this had upon the king, we have an account of in the
following chapter.
4. CALVIN, “22.Then came Eliakim. We now see that Eliakim and the other ambassadors were not
silent as if they either approved of the impiety of Rabshakeh, or through dread of danger connived at such
blasphemies; for they tear their garments, and in that manner give visible display how highly they are
offended at those wicked slanders. I except Shebna, who was destitute of piety, and was only driven by
shame to assume the dress of mourning along with others as a matter of form. It was customary among
the Jews and other eastern nations, when they viewed anything with strong abhorrence, to tear their
garments; for those nations, having much greater warmth of temperament than we have who inhabit cold
countries, display greater vehemence in gesture, deportment, dress, and other outward signs. Here it
ought also to be observed, that they who took no notice of the insults offered to them as private
individuals, whenever they hear reproaches uttered against God, “ their garments;” for they who are ready
to take offense at an insult offered to them in their private, capacity, where patience was needed, and
who are unmoved when they learn that the name of God is dishonored, give evidence that they have no
zeal or piety.
Footnotes:
Isaiah 36:9 Or charioteers

70. New International Version (NIV)
Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978,
1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved
worldwide.