Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Isaiah 36:7
But if thou say to me, We trust in the LORD our God: [is it] not he, whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away, and said to Judah and to Jerusalem, Ye shall worship before this altar?
7. Not only is Hezekiah destitute of earthly help, but he has forfeited the protection of his own deity, by what from the heathen point of view seemed an act of sacrilege, the abolition of the local sanctuaries (see 2Ki 18:4).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
But if thou say to me – If you shall make this plea, that you believe Yahweh will protect you in your revolt. The word thou here refers to Hezekiah, or to the ambassadors speaking in his name. In 2Ki 18:22, it is, but if ye say unto me; that is, you ambassadors. The sense is substantially the same.
Is it not he … – This is given as a reason why they should not put their confidence in Yahweh. The reason is, that he supposed that Hezekiah had removed all the altars of Yahweh from all parts of the land, and that they could not calculate on the protection of a God whose worship bad been abolished. It is probable that Sennacherib and Rabshakeh had beard of the reformation which had been effected by Hezekiah; of his destroying the groves and altars which had been consecrated in the reign of his father to idolatry, and perhaps of the fact that he had even destroyed the brass serpent which Moses had made, and which had become an object of idolatrous worship 2Ki 18:4, and he may have supposed that all these altars and groves had been devoted to Yahweh, and were connected with his worship. He did not seem to understand that all that Hezekiah had done was only to establish the worship of Yahweh in the land.
High places – The worship of idols was usually performed in groves on high places; or on the tops of hills and mountains. It seems to have been supposed that worship in such places was more acceptable to the Deity. Perhaps it may have been because they thus seemed nearer the residence of the gods; or, perhaps, because there is sublimity and solemnity in such places – a stillness and elevation above the world which seem favorable to devotion (see 1Sa 9:12; 1Ki 3:4; 2Ki 12:2; 2Ch 33:19). Chapels, temples, and altars, were erected on such places 1Ki 13:22; 2Ki 17:29, and ministers and priests attended there to officiate (1Ki 12:32; 2Ki 17:32). Even the kings of Judah, notwithstanding the express prohibition of Moses Deut. 12, were engaged in such acts of worship 2Ki 12:4; 2Ki 14:4; 2Ki 15:4, 2Ki 15:35; 2Ch 15:17; 2Ch 20:33; and Solomon himself sacrificed in chapels of this kind 1Ki 3:2. These places Hezekiah had destroyed; that is, he had cut down the consecrated groves, and had destroyed the chapels and temples which had been erected there. The fact that Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah, had been distinguished for worshipping in such places had probably led the king of Assyria to suppose that this was the proper worship of the God of the Jews; and now that Hezekiah had destroyed them all, he seems to have inferred that he was guilty of gross irreligion, and could no longer depend on the protection of Yahweh.
And said to Judah and Jerusalem – He had commanded them to worship only in Jerusalem, at the temple. This was in strict accordance with the law of Moses; but this seems to have been understood by Sennacherib as in fact almost or quite banishing the worship of Yahweh from the land. Probably this was said to alienate the minds of the people from Hezekiah, by showing them that he had taken away their rights and privileges of worshipping God where they chose.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 7. But if thou say – “But if ye say”] Two ancient MSS. have tomeru in the plural number; so likewise the Septuagint, Chaldee, and the other copy, 2Kg 18:22.
Ye shall worship before this altar – “To worship only before this altar”] See 2Ch 32:12.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
7. The Assyrian mistakesHezekiah’s religious reforms whereby he took away the high places(2Ki 18:4) as directed againstJehovah. Some of the high places may have been dedicated toJehovah, but worshipped under the form of an image inviolation of the second commandment: the “brazen serpent,”also (broken in pieces by Hezekiah, and called Nehushtan, “apiece of brass,” because it was worshipped by Israel) wasoriginally set up by God’s command. Hence the Assyrian’sallegation has a specious color: you cannot look for help fromJehovah, for your king has “taken away His altars.”
to Jerusalem (Deu 12:5;Deu 12:11; Joh 4:20).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But if thou say to me, we trust in the Lord our God,…. In his promises, providence, power, and protection, and not in human counsels and strength; not in allies and auxiliaries, as Pharaoh king of Egypt; should this be replied, Rabshakeh has something to say to that; having shown the vanity of trusting in the above things, he now proceeds to beat them off of all trust in the Lord their God:
is it not he, whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah hath taken away; the question might easily be answered in the negative; no, he has not; the high places and altars which Hezekiah took away were the high places and altars of Heathen gods, of false deities, and not of the true God of Israel, and which was to his honour and glory; but Rabshakeh would make a crime of it, and, ignorantly supposing that these were the altars and high places of the God of Israel, would insinuate that the taking of these away must be displeasing to him, and consequently Hezekiah and his people could not hope for any protection from him, whom he had so highly affronted; but all this talk was the fruit of ignorance, as well as of malice:
and said to Judah, and to Jerusalem, ye shall worship before this altar? the altar of the Lord, in the temple at Jerusalem, and before that only, confining their religious worship to one place, and their sacrifices to one altar; which was so far from being displeasing to God, as he would insinuate, that it was entirely agreeable to his will: and therefore there was no weight or strength in this kind of reasoning.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
7. And if thou shalt say to me. Rabshakeh employs an argument which consists of three parts. Either Hezekiah thinks that he has sufficient strength to resist, or he expects assistance from Egypt, or he trusts in God. If he trusts in himself, he is mistaken; for what is he when compared to my king? As to Egypt, it will render him no assistance, but on the contrary will inflict serious damage. It remains therefore that he expects some assistance from God. But he has thrown down his altars and curtailed his worship; will he not rather be punished on that account? In short, this Rabshakeh takes away from the pious king all assistance, both divine and human.
By this slander Satan attempted not only to wound the heart of the king, that it might sink under the weight, of affliction, but to make an impression on the light and fickle multitude; because hitherto in the hearts of many there remained an attachment to superstition, and there was a strong tendency to fall back into this imposture, because the religion which was ancient, and to which they were long accustomed, had been changed, and, in their opinion, (31) Hezekiah was about to be chastised for his own rashness. In like manner, the Papists in the present day, whenever any adverse event befalls us, maintain that we are punished by God, because we have ventured to set aside ancient ceremonies. (32)
(31) “ A leur advis.”
(32) “ Pource que nous avons ose abolir les traditions et ceremonies qui estoyent en usage de long temps.” “Because we ventured to abolish the traditions and ceremonies which had been long used.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(7) Is it not he, whose high places . . .This was this impression left on the mind of the Rabshakeh by what he heard of Hezekiahs reformation. From the Assyrian stand-point a god was honoured in proportion as his sanctuaries were multiplied, but wherever he went, the Rabshakeh had found high places where Jehovah had been worshipped, which Hezekiah had desecrated. How could one who had so acted hope for the protection of his God?
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
7. The tantalizer turns now to the claim of a religious reformation on the part of Hezekiah. You trust in Jehovah, you say. But you have taken away his altars and high places, and restricted worship to Jerusalem, thus plundering the people of their broad privileges and liberal religion. The heathenish address is crafty, for it was spoken in Hebrew, and was intended for the people, listening in great crowds from the walls near at hand.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But if you say to me, “We trust in Yahweh our God.’ Is not this he whose high places and whose altars Hezekiah has taken away, and has said to Judah and to Jerusalem, “You shall worship before this altar?” ’
But what if they claimed to trust in Yahweh? This was the second possibility. That they trusted in their God, Yahweh. And it is now that he reveals how efficient the Assyrian intelligence system was. For they had received reports on what Hezekiah had been doing in Judah and Jerusalem, in getting rid of high places and altars and insisting on worship in the one place on the one altar. And to them this suggested an insult to Yahweh. So did Judah really think that Yahweh would support such a king, this destroyer of His sanctuaries?
The Assyrians clearly saw what Hezekiah had done as an anti-Yahweh act, a belittling of Yahweh, for to them the more high places and the more altars and the more images the greater the appreciation of a god. What they did not appreciate was that the religion of Judah was totally different, a unifying religion, meeting at the one sanctuary which was alone valid (like the Tabernacle of old). It was a religion that avoided a proliferation of altars which could result in the introduction of innovations which would mar the purity of their beliefs and religious thought and behaviour, and would really belittle God. For their God was a unique God, the only God, and could not be proliferated.
But he may also well have known the resentment that the reforms had caused, and be playing on the fact in the hearing of the people. ‘And has said to Judah and to Jerusalem, “You shall worship before this altar?” ’ This is a phrase guaranteed to stir up any grievance that there was, a dictatorial king demanding acknowledgement only of what he had established, rather than what they loved, the old traditions. He was not to know that that was what Yahweh had told him to do as well.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Isa 36:7. But if thou say, &c. It appears from this passage, what deep root idolatry had taken in the time of Ahaz, when Hezekiah, the great reformer of religion, seemed to have instituted a new one in the eyes of foreigners and strangers. Before this altar, means before the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem. See 2Ki 18:22.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
thou. Some codices read “ye”, as in 2Ki 18:22.
the LORD. Hebrew. Jehovah. App-4.
God. Hebrew. Elohim. App-4.
is it not He . . . ? Manifesting Rabshakeh’s ignorance.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
We trust: 2Ki 18:5, 2Ki 18:22, 1Ch 5:20, 2Ch 16:7-9, 2Ch 32:7, 2Ch 32:8, Psa 22:4, Psa 22:5, Psa 42:5, Psa 42:10, Psa 42:11
is it not: Deu 12:2-6, Deu 12:13, Deu 12:14, 2Ki 18:4, 2Ch 30:14, 2Ch 31:1, 2Ch 32:12, 1Co 2:15
Reciprocal: 2Ki 18:19 – What confidence Psa 118:9 – than to put Isa 36:15 – General Isa 36:18 – lest
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
The Rabshakeh knew about Hezekiah’s religious reforms in which he had removed many of the altars from the land (cf. 2Ki 18:1-7; 2 Chronicles 29-31). Evidently the commander believed that removing altars would antagonize Yahweh, but Hezekiah was really purifying Yahweh worship. However, many of the Judeans probably believed that the removal of those altars was a bad thing, and it was to those people that the Rabshakeh was evidently appealing.