This chapter is made up of “two” prophecies, one comprising the first fourteen verses, and addressed to the city of Jerusalem; and the other Isaiah 22:15-25 relating to the fall of Shebna, the prefect of the palace, and to the promotion of Eliakim in his place. They may have been delivered nearly at the same time, but the subjects are distinct.
The first Isaiah 22:1-14 relates to Jerusalem. It has reference to some period when the city was besieged, and when universal consternation spread among the people. The prophet represents himself as in the city, and as a witness of the alarm.
1. He describes Isaiah 22:1-3 the consternation that prevailed in the city at the approach of the enemy. The inhabitants flee to the tops of the houses, either to observe the enemy or to make a defense, and the city is filled with distress, mingled with the tumultuous mirth of a portion who regard defense as hopeless, and who give themselves up to revelry and gluttony, because they apprehended that they must at all events soon die.
2. The prophet then describes Isaiah 22:4-8 his own grief at the impending calamity, and especially at the state of things within the city. He portrays the distress; describes those who cause it, and the people engaged in it; and says that the valleys around the city are filled with chariots, and that the horsemen of the enemy have come to the very gate.
3. He then describes the preparations which are made in the city for defense Isaiah 22:9-11. The inhabitants of the city had endeavored to repair the breaches of the walls; had even torn down their houses to furnish materials, and had endeavored to secure the “water” with which the city was supplied from the enemy; but they had not looked to God as they should have done for protection. The scope of the prophecy, therefore, is, to reprove them for not looking to God, and also for their revelry in the very midst of their calamities.
4. The prophet then describes the state of “morals” within the city Isaiah 22:12-14. It was a time when they should have humbled themselves, and looked to God. He called them to fasting and to grief; but they supposed that the city “must” be taken, and that they must die, and a large portion of the inhabitants, despairing of being able to make a successful defense, gave themselves up to riot and drunkenness. To reprove this, was one design of the prophet; and perhaps, also, to teach the general lesson that men, in view of the certainty of death, should not madly and foolishly give themselves to sensual indulgence.
There has been a difference of opinion in regard to the event to which this prophecy refers. Most have supposed that it relates to the invasion by Sennacherib; others have supposed that it relates to the destruction of the city by Nebuchadnezzar. Vitringa and Lowth suppose that the prophet had “both” events in view; the former in Isaiah 22:1-5, and the latter in the remainder of the prophecy. But it is not probable that it has a twofold reference. It has the appearance of referring to a “single” calamity; and this mode of interpretation should not be departed from without manifest necessity. The general aspect of the prophecy has reference, I think, to the invasion by Sennacherib. He came near the city; the city was filled with alarm; and Hezekiah prepared himself to make as firm a stand against him as possible, and put the city in the best possible state of defense. The description in Isaiah 22:9-11 agrees exactly with the account given of the defense winch Hezekiah made against Sennacherib in 2 Chronicles 32:2, following; and particularly in regard to the effort made to secure the fountains in the neighborhood for the use of the city, and to prevent the Assyrians from obtaining it. In 2 Chronicles 32:2 ff, we are told that Hezekiah took measures to stop all the fountains of water without the city, and the brook ‘that ran through the midst of the land,’ in order that the Assyrians under Sennacherib should not find water; and that he repaired the walls, and built new towers of defense in the city, and placed guards upon them. These circumstances of “coincidence” between the history and the prophecy, show conclusively that the reference is entirely to the invasion under Sennacherib. This occurred 710 b.c.