Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Isaiah 36:12
But Rab-shakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? [hath he] not [sent me] to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?
12. that they may eat ] Note the contrast in Isa 36:16. The clause, therefore, expresses not the desire or purpose of the king of Assyria, but the effect of submitting to Hezekiah’s insane policy.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
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.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 12. That they may eat their own dung – “Destined to eat their own dung”] leechol, that they may eat, as our translation literally renders it. But the Syriac reads meechol, that they may not eat, perhaps rightly, and afterward umishshethoth, or ushethoth, to the same purpose. Seventeen of Dr. Kennicott’s MSS., ten of De Rossi’s and two of my own, read meymey, the water; mine have meymey sheneyhem, and write in the margin meymey regaleyhem, the water of their feet, a modest way of expressing urine.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
12. Is it to thy masterand 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 bereduced to the direst extremities of famine in the siege (2Ch32:11, explains the word here), namely, to eat their ownexcrements: or, connecting, “that they may eat,” c., with”sit upon the wall” who, as they hold the wall, areknowingly exposing themselves to the direst extremities [MAURER].Isaiah, as a faithful historian, records the filthy and blasphemouslanguage of the Assyrians to mark aright the true character of theattack on Jerusalem.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
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.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The harsh reply is given in Isa 36:12. “Then Rabshakeh said (K. to them), Has my lord sent me to (K. ) the men who sit upon the wall, to eat their dung, and to drink their urine together with you?” – namely, because their rulers were exposing them to a siege which would involve the most dreadful state of famine.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
12. And Rabshakeh said. Hence we see the fierceness and insolence of the enemy, and hence also it is evident that Hezekiah’s 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.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(12) Hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall . . .?The words, which in their brutal coarseness have hardly a parallel in history, till we come to Bismarcks telling the Parisians that they may stew in their own gravy, imply that the Assyrians were in a position to cut off the supplies both of food and water.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
‘But the Rabshakeh said, “Has my master sent me to your master and to you to speak these words? Has he not sent me to the men who sit on the wall, those who will shortly eat their own excrement and drink their own urine with you?” ’
The Rabshakeh’s reply is that it was in fact to these people that his master wanted to send his message. It was not intended to be an official secret, it was intended to be received by all. Then he points out to the people the straits to which the siege will soon bring them. They will have nothing to eat and drink but their own excrement and urine (‘waters of the feet’). ‘With you.’ It will eventually be true of the leaders too.
There may in all this be an intended contrast, stressing the polite diplomacy of Judah, and the arrogant and crude diplomacy of Assyria. Judah are clearly gentlemen, whereas Assyria are merely bullies.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Isa 36:12. But Rabshakeh said, &c. This verse would be clearer, if read thus, Hath thy master sent me to my master and to thee [only] to speak these words? Hath he not sent me also to the men who sit upon the wall, &c. The meaning is, that they may be reduced to such extremity by a close and long siege, as to be obliged to surrender the city. Nothing can be more strongly marked than the insolence of Rabshakeh throughout this whole conference. Observe particularly the next verse.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
speak these words. See App-67.
sit upon the wall = maintain their posts: i.e. till reduced to these extremities.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
that they may: Isa 9:20, Lev 26:29, Deu 28:53-57, 2Ki 6:25-29, 2Ki 18:27, Jer 19:9, Lam 4:9, Lam 4:10, Eze 4:16
Reciprocal: 2Ki 18:26 – in the Syrian language 2Ch 32:11 – to give over Neh 4:5 – before the builders Psa 80:6 – our enemies Isa 3:1 – the Lord Isa 37:25 – with the sole
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
He explained that his message was for all the people, many of whom were sitting on the city wall listening, not just the politicians in Jerusalem. All the people were, after all, doomed to the horrible conditions of siege warfare. He wanted to separate the people from their king and his policy of resisting Sennacherib. He also wanted to shock and terrorize the people by using the most crude and disgusting terms he could to picture siege warfare.
The commander then resumed his prepared speech. In his second speech (Isa 36:13-21), the Rabshakeh used the word "deliver" eight times.