Comments on Isaiah 22 This chapter is a difficult one to discern the meaning of. It appears to contain three chronologically disjointed pieces that are probably bound together by the theme of the leadership of Israel. The first section (v. 1-4) appears to be prophetic of Babylon's sack of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzer (with possible eschatological implications). The second (v. 5-13) would be the apparently historical account of Ahaz's behavior under the events of chapter 7. And the third (v. 14-25) appears to be the indictment of an unjust steward who is a historical figure named Shebna, apparently Ahaz's palace overseer. With regard to this character Shebna, we learn from chapter 36, at the confrontation between Sennacherib king of Assyria and Hezekiah king of Judah, that Shebna has been demoted to scribe and replaced by Eliakim. The events of that siege portray Hezekiah as a repentant king who appeals to the Lord through Isaiah on behalf of the people of Jerusalem. So, the events of v. 5-13 are not the same as those described in chapter 36. Verses 5-13 probably occurred under Shebna's tenure as overseer of the palace under King Ahaz and are therefore related to the events in chapter 7 (cp. 22:10 and 7:3 where the collection of water in pools is addressed in both accounts, a probable rhetorical link). However, no explicit reference is made to Shebna's presence in chapter 7, we only learn of his existence here. Regardless, it is a safe assumption given the history of events and the knowledge that he was overseer and subsequently deposed previous to Sennacherib's siege. So, for the purposes of this chapter it will be assumed that Shebna was overseer under Ahaz and with Ahaz's death he continued on in this role under Hezekiah until Isaiah intervened under the command of the Lord. As chapters 13-23 of Isaiah are attacks on Israel's gentile neighbors, the placement of the account of Isaiah's hand in Shebna's being deposed from palace overseer figures in curiously. In ch. 22, Shebna's father is not mentioned as was customary among Jews at the time. This omission by Isaiah probably indicates Shebna was not an Israelite. As the subject of chapters 13-23 are attacks on non-Israelite nations, Shebna becomes the figure of the non-Israelite individual among Israel. And a prominent individual at that, one with the power to lead those at Jerusalem astray from the Lord their God. As such, The Lord takes it upon Himself to have Shebna removed from his powerful position via the prophet Isaiah. As the ideal king among Israel is one from David's lineage that is anointed by the Lord's prophet, Shebna instead is a gentile leader that is deposed by the Lord's prophet. Abraham Heschel's _The Prophets_ reviews the historical setting and religious implications of events relevant to this chapter in his section on Isaiah. While not commenting directly on Shebna he does comment on the relationship between Isaiah and the various kings of Judah. Shebna, being the assistant to King Hezekiah, would be implicated in the various exchanges. In summary of Heschel's comments, with the death of Sargon of Assyria a number of the nations which were tributary to Assyria, including both Babylon and Judah, rebelled against the newly established Sennacherib of Assyria. As Sennacherib went about exerting his military might to once again force these various nations to pay tribute, Judah was facing imminent invasion. Hezekiah favored alliance with Egypt against Assyria, but Isaiah strictly forbade it (hence the repeated warnings appearing in later chapters of not relying on Egypt, but rather relying on the Lord, cf. Isa 31). We are not told specifically what Shebna's offense was, just that Eliakim was in the Lord's favor for the position that Shebna currently held. Thus, Isaiah's command from the Lord to have Shebna replaced by a follower of the Lord without a direct reason stated would imply that the general context of the historical setting establishes the reason for his being deposed: he was pro-alliance and was persuading Hezekiah to be so. We could even speculate that Shebna was an Egyptian himself and was placed in such a high position so as to be a prominent diplomat between the two potentially allied nations. The next question is then, why did Isaiah put this kind of personal business in a book of prophecy that deals with the nation of Israel in specific and all peoples in general? I believe the answer to this is that the Lord takes a keen interest in Israel's well being. This being the case, He will make use of any faithful servants, assuming there are any, in favor of unfaithful ones so as to promote His own interests. This would be played out in the history of these events as given the wicked king Ahaz, a wicked palace overseer wouldn't have made much difference. But, with king Hezekiah, a reasonably good king (as kings of Judah go), the retaining of a palace overseer who was unfaithful to the Lord could have caused considerable problems. So, the Lord had Isaiah step in and fix the problem by having Eliakim named as palace overseer. Shebna was then demoted to scribe, a position of considerably lesser importance, but his presence might have been desirable given his past political experience. Isaiah's actions at the command of the Lord show forth a type of the Lord exercising His will upon the temporal things of the earth. Thus, this fairly specific historical event becomes a more general message of the Lord's intervention in the affairs of man in order to place His servants in the positions He wants them to be so as to achieve His purposes. v1-4 Note the JPS renders the portions of this section which are Isaiah's comments and feelings in the present tense as though Isaiah is referring to an event that he just witnessed. Also note that the events described in v. 1-4 did not occur until well after Shebna's natural lifetime with the sack of Jerusalem by Babylon. Given this, the chapter has a blatantly prophetic flavor which was fulfilled by Nebuchadnezzer's sack of Jerusalem. But, given the eschatological implications of the Prophets and their ties with John's Revelation, Jerusalem is to be partially sacked yet again on the Day of the Lord. This strophe describes a scene of mourning where the survivors go out into the streets and onto rooftops and bewail the dead. The scene describes a group that was totally overwhelmed by some terrible force and their own military leaders fled in fear or cowardice and the rest were captured and executed rather than putting up some kind of resistance. Isaiah contrasts the former cheering and revelry heard in the town (cross reference with 5:11- 12 implies this is a symbol of secularized elitism) with the mourning now to be heard. This kind of speech by Isaiah is a classical series of covenant curses, compare Lev. 26 and Deut. 28. As a result of this desolation he sees, Isaiah mourns himself knowing that has they been faithful to the Lord none of this would have happened. v1 The JPS, NAS and KJV render the title of the pronouncement as being aimed at the "Valley of Vision". The JPS footnote indicates that the Hebrew is unclear. No one seems to have any good idea what this is in reference to. Perhaps it is an allusion to the "images", or idols, that Isaiah repeatedly attacks Israel as worshipping. v5-13 is framed entirely as someone commenting on past events in the JPS translation. This is probably intended by Isaiah as part of Shebna's indictment as it explains that he was part and parcel to during the events of chapter 7. The result is that the Lord goes on in v. 14-25. to condemn Shebna. This is not to say that similar types of events will not again occur in Jerusalem, it simply focuses the message to a degree that allows Shebna to be critiqued for his actions. The overall message of this section is to note that when there was an impending invasion (v. 5-7), the people made physical preparations for war not spiritual preparations (v. 8-11). And rather than humbling themselves on the eve of destruction by repenting and pleading with the Lord for protection they chose instead to consume whatever they had in a pleasurable feast because they would soon be dead (v. 12-13). It should be noted that Lev. 26 specifically documents a series of statements by the Lord where He says He will use a variety of means to get Israel to repent, and foreign invasion is one of them. So, the v. 11 statement accusing them of taking no thought to the one who designed the event is particularly biting. v5-6 The references to the various nations of Elam, Kir and Shoa are difficult to determine the meaning of. Elam is a nation referenced by Isaiah and other contemporary prophets that is noted as separate from other large nations of the time, but apparently was on occasion confederate with Assyria during Isaiah's time and later Babylon before it was ultimately usurped by the Persian empire. Kir is apparently a Moabite city (15:1). Shoa may be a district in Assyria (cf. Ezek. 23:23), but the name "Shoa" does not appear in the KJV, RSV or NAS, they render the term "crying". Historically none of these nations are noted as attacking Jerusalem. The JPS footnote also indicates that the meaning of the Hebrew in parts of these verses is unclear. So, the result is that we cannot determine what the intent of these verses is. We may safely assume that it is intended to portray some invading force that encroaches on Jerusalem, but who and when? The JPS offers the possible identification of the event as when Assyria laid siege to Jerusalem (chapter 36), but it is also possible that the events here could be those in chapter 7 as well, or even some future events. It is also possible that the events described in v. 5-13 could be potentially prophetic and not historic in that it is what would have happened to Jerusalem had Shebna not been replaced by Eliakim. Thus, these other nations might have been allied with Assyria in its attack on Jerusalem and the consequences would have been entirely different from those documented in chapter 36. This seems like kind of a stretch though as Isaiah does not make any kind of qualifying remarks to indicate that this is the case. v8-11 address the leaders in Jerusalem more specifically than the general populace here as it would be their responsibility to look after marshal issues. While the behavior of the general populace is commented on in v. 13, this also reflects the attitudes of their leaders, as the leaders are not encouraging them to repent or prepare in any way. Thus, Isaiah's main thrust is at the leaders of Israel, more particularly Shebna. v8 The Forest House was built by Solomon as a store for valuable weapons, cf. 1 Ki. 10:16-17. It rested upon four rows of cedar columns and was located in the royal palace. The symbolism here is that their attention turned towards physical weapons rather than spiritual protection. v10-11 The collection of physical water rather than spiritual water, compare 48:21. v12 makes reference to tonsuring, a form of ritualized mourning where the individual shaves a part or all of their head to show their great distress or self-inflicted humility. v14-25 recounts the Lord's statements concerning Shebna and Eliakim. The JPS groups v. 14 with v. 5-13, so they would apparently make the object of this verse Israel rather than Shebna. While the indictment applies just as readily to that portion of Israel that participated in the acts, it seems to me that the issue that Isaiah is more fully addressing is Shebna's role in this events, so I would tend to make him the primary target of v. 14 and subsequently group it with v. 15-25. Isaiah's focus on the leaders in Jerusalem in v. 8-11 also support this interpretation. v14 is a rather interesting statement by the Lord that seems to indicate that only in dying can some kind forgiveness be achieved. Rather odd, compare 1 Cor. 5:5. v15 directly implicates this historical figure named Shebna. The fact that his father's name is not referenced probably indicates he is not an Israelite. v16-19 presents a series of statements indicating Shebna is an individual more interested in self-promotion and self-exaltation than anything else, one who would exalt himself to the position of Israel's patriarchs (given that he may be a foreigner that would be particularly offensive to those of natural Israel). The result is the Lord condemns him and informs him that he will die an ignominious death and bring shame upon his master's house. The latter references may have more spiritual implications indicating spiritual death and so forth. Broadening this reading to apply to all corrupt rulers in Jerusalem could provide an interpretation to the sack by Babylon where the rulers of Jerusalem were exiled. And, of course, a typical covenant curse is that of foreign invasion and lack of appropriate family burial. v20-24 details the replacement of Shebna with Eliakim who will be invested with the Lord's authority in his decision making. Eliakim will become a strong support for all of the goods and vessels of David's Throne and as a result will honor his fathers. Many commentators state Eliakim here is a type of Christ, which seems reasonable, given the good report of him and the references to the Davidic authority. But, they go on further to state that the "pegs" (KJV:nails) are a direct reference to Jesus' crucifixion in that his hands were nailed to the cross. This seems like a stretch to me, and there are a lot better references to him elsewhere in Isaiah, so I would not push it here. Here is the Strong's entry on the Hebrew term in question: 03489 yathed {yaw-thade'} from an unused root meaning to pin through or fast; TWOT - 932a; n f AV - pin 13, nail 8, stake 2, paddle 1; 24 1) pin, stake, peg, nail 1a) pin, peg, tent pin, tent stake 1b) nail, pin (fig.) 1c) pin (used in weaving) The imagery is one of reliability and sturdiness (ct. v. 23 making reference to ELiakim with v. 25 making reference to Shebna), and not one of being crucified. The same term appears in v. 25 and it is referred to as being cut down. This would suggest it is in fact a wood peg that is cut as oppossed to a metal nail or spike which would be pulled rather than cut. v22 Compare Matt. 16:19. v25 appears to pick up the theme of commenting upon Shebna's imminent demotion from v. 19 and compares his peg that is about to give way to Eliakim's sturdy and reliable peg (v. 23).