Isaiah 22:15-25

Denunciation of Shebna

This section contains Isaiah’s only invective against an individual. He denounces Shebna, the king’s chief minister, who may have been a leader of the party which favoured alliance with Egypt. The prophecy was delivered before Sennacherib’s invasion (701 b.c.), because at that time we read that Eliakim held the office Isaiah here promises him, while Shebna occupied a subordinate position (Isaiah 36:3; Isaiah 37:2).

15-25. The deposition of Shebna. The elevation of Eliakim.

15. Over the house] i.e. steward of the royal palace, a very high office sometimes held by a king’s son (2 Chronicles 26:21).

16. What hast] RV ’what doest.’ Shebna was apparently a foreigner, who ostentatiously presumed to treat Jerusalem as his native place. A sepulchre] Kings and great men in the East used to prepare their tombs in their life-time.

17. Carry, etc.] RV ’hurl thee away violently as a strong man, yea he will wrap thee up closely.’

18. Large country] i.e. a broad land, where it may roll on and on and not return. There the chariots, etc.] RV ’there shall be the chariots of thy glory, thou shame of thy lord’s house.’ The chariots are another feature of Shebna’s ostentation.

19. I will.. shall he] Though the person is changed, the subject is the same (viz. Jehovah) in both clauses. Such changes of person are common in Hebrew (Isaiah 1:29; Isaiah 10:12).

22. The key] the symbol of the office. The v. shows the powerful influence exercised by this official. He had the right of admitting to, or excluding from, the king’s presence. This is symbolically applied to Christ (Revelation 3:7).

24,23. The office of Eliakim is to be firmly established. His family will rest upon him, and all kinds of dependents cluster round him. Eliakim means ’God establishes.’

25. The burden, etc.] i.e. the vessels hanging upon the nail; figuratively put for the dependents upon a great man.

25. Perhaps the prophet may revert in thought to the fall of Shebna, but the continuation of the figure of the nail seems to point to Eliakim, whose fall, if he abused his power, would involve the ruin of his dependents. Neither the promises nor the denunciations of the prophecy need be considered as absolute, but rather conditional. Eliakim did indeed succeed to Shebna’s office (see prefatory note), but we do not know that Shebna suffered the penalty of exile (Isaiah 22:18); this may have been averted by repentance.