John Calvin Commentary Isaiah 36

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 this doctrine, he predicted the calamities that would befall his nation and, at the same time, promised that God would be merciful to them, would drive back the Assyrians, and would defend Jerusalem and the Holy Land. What had already been accomplished made it evident that he had not spoken in vain, for God intended that this history should also be testified to posterity. Indeed, for the people of that age, it was no less advantageous that such a record should be preserved.

The Prophet had often threatened that God's vengeance was near and that the Assyrians were ready at His bidding to be employed by Him as scourges. At the same time, He promised that He would assist Jerusalem even when matters had come to the worst. Both were accomplished. Yet, the greater part of the nation passed by these evident judgments of God as if with closed eyes, and just as basely despised the assistance that was offered to them. Their gross stupidity was all the more inexcusable.

But for the small number of believers, it was advantageous to perceive such illustrious proofs of God's hand, so that greater credit might afterward be given to Isaiah. The Prophet also could then pursue his course more ardently and with unshaken firmness, since God had given so splendid an attestation of his doctrine from heaven.

And because God's truth scarcely obtains from us the honor due to it unless it is supported by strong proofs, God has also provided generously for our weakness. This allows us to perceive, as in a mirror, that God's power accompanied Isaiah's words and that what he taught on earth was confirmed from heaven.

More especially, his calling was manifestly sealed when God delivered Jerusalem from the grievous siege of Sennacherib, at a time when no hope of safety remained. Believers then saw that they had been rescued from the jaws of death by God's hand alone. For this reason, I have said that this event was a seal to authenticate the prophecies that might otherwise have been called into question.

In the fourteenth year. Not without reason does the Prophet specify the time when these things happened. At that time, Hezekiah had restored the worship of God throughout all his dominions (2 Kings 18:4). Not satisfied with this, he sent messengers in various directions to invite the Israelites to come quickly from every place to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices. His aim was that, after long disunion, they would unite again in holy harmony of faith and worship God according to the Law's injunctions.

While the kingdom was in this condition—superstitions removed, the Temple cleansed, and thus the true worship of God restored—Judea was invaded by the king of Assyria. Fields were pillaged, cities were taken, and the whole country fell under his authority. Jerusalem alone, with a few inhabitants, was left, and in that city, Hezekiah was shut up as in a prison.

We must now consider what thoughts might have occurred to the pious king and to other people. For if we judge this calamity according to fleshly perception, we will think God was unjust in allowing His servant to be reduced to such extremities. The king's piety seemed to deserve that the Lord would preserve him in safety and free from all trouble, since his whole desire was to maintain the true worship of God.

This was no small trial of Hezekiah's faith and ought to be continually before our eyes when we are subjected to similar temptations. The Lord did not punish Hezekiah for carelessness, pleasures, or luxury, and much less for superstitions or unholy contempt of the Law. As soon as he began to reign, he labored with the utmost zeal, care, and industry to restore the purity of religion. God, therefore, intended to test his faith and patience.

Then the king of Assyria sent Rabshakeh. The order of the narrative may have been altered here; for he had formerly said that Sennacherib had taken all the cities of Judea, and now he says that he sent Rabshakeh from Lachish, implying that he was besieging it, and consequently he had not yet stormed them all.

But it should be observed that historical connection is frequently disturbed, and that what was first in the order of time often 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. By this figure, it might be said that all the cities were taken, because those that remained were few, and Hezekiah had no means of communication 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 shown how eager Hezekiah was for peace; for he labored to obtain it on any terms. He had delivered up “three 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 that had been attached to its doors to make up that sum, because his treasury was exhausted (2 Kings 18:14).

But as such gulfs are insatiable, when he had received that money, he next demanded more and sought to impose harsher conditions. This was done partly 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 opportunity to renew the war.

Yet it should be noted that the people were justly punished for their iniquities, as had been foretold; for although true religion flourished in external worship, yet their life was not changed for the better, 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.

And Eliakim went to him. Eliakim was previously 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 (Isaiah 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) means scribe; 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.

Say now to Hezekiah. He relates that the three ambassadors, though they were attended by all the magnificence that still remained in the kingdom, were not only repulsed, but disdainfully treated by the tyrant’s 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 they render it as I pray; but it would be unsuitable for a proud and an 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, (the verb being '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 to 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.

I have said (only a word of the lips.) In the sacred history (2 Kings 18:20), the word used is, You have said. This may be explained as a declaration of what kind of courage Rabshakeh thinks Hezekiah possesses, as if he had said, “Such are your deliberations.” In this passage, the use of the first person, “I have said,” does not alter the sense, because Rabshakeh, as if he had examined Hezekiah’s counsels and fully understood them all, ironically reproaches him: “I see what you are thinking, but they are words of the lips.”

This passage is explained in various ways. Some interpret it as, “You say that you do not merely have words of the lips,” that is, “You boast that you excel not only in the use of words but also in courage and wisdom.” Others interpret it as, “You have words indeed, but wisdom and courage are necessary in war.”

Some think that by “words” are meant “prayers.” I do not approve of that interpretation, for it is excessively far-fetched and unnatural. Therefore, I view it as follows: “Hezekiah 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; 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; 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. Undoubtedly, the Egyptians were liberal in promising mountains of gold, though they gave nothing in reality. But as we will find that he speaks of the Egyptians soon afterward in a specific manner, I have no doubt that here he ridicules Hezekiah, as if he fed the people's expectations by empty boasting while he was not provided with military preparations.