22:1 The cryptic phrase “valley of vision” corresponds to “wilderness of the sea” (21:1) and is an indication of the comparison being made between Babylon and Jerusalem. Many commentators take the phrase to be sarcastic, for vision is what Judah does not appear to have. This is likely one of the nuances of the phrase, but it probably refers also to the bleak vision of Isaiah as he contemplates the fate of Jerusalem. “What do you mean” probably refers to the people’s unthinking rush to the housetops, rather like the Ephesus crowd’s reaction to Paul (Acts 19:28–40).

22:2–3 The commotion intensifies as the whole city appears to take to the streets for a celebration, even though the reverse would be more fitting. They have been abandoned by their leaders, and the streets are full of dead bodies. The situation is described in 2 Kings 25, as Zedekiah and other leaders flee and the city is sacked by Nebuchadnezzar.

22:4 As in Isaiah 21:3–4, the prophet is again gripped by sorrow, which is characteristic of biblical preachers of judgment (e.g., Jer. 9:1; Mic. 1:8). The supreme example of this is the Christ’s lament over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37–39. The tears of Isaiah are not for show (“look away from me”); neither will he listen to false words of comfort.

22:5–6 As so often is the case, a particular disaster is linked to the ultimate judgment. Yahweh “has a day”; just as he judges throughout history, there will come a time when final judgment is pronounced. The imagery is vivid and suggests a scene of sound and fury, signifying nothing.49 There is panic as the walls of the city collapse, while cries for help bounce off the surrounding mountains. The mention of Elam to the east of Babylon fits better with the siege of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar, since in Isaiah’s time it was an independent power allied with Babylon against Assyria. It is probable that some Elamites formed part of the Babylonian army that attacked Jerusalem in 587 BC. However, the term may also be used here in a more general sense as a hostile nation, as in Isaiah 21:2.

22:7 This vividly gives the sense of approaching doom: chariots fill the broad valleys, while horsemen wait at the city gates to prevent escape. The enemy has encountered no opposition while sweeping through the country and is now poised to attack and destroy the city.

22:8–9 “He” is Yahweh himself; whatever the secondary causes and whoever the earthly power, he is the one who controls history—as much when he punishes his people as when he saves them. With frantic intensity, preparations are made to hold back the invader as the defenses of Jerusalem are repaired. The water supply of Jerusalem is a key element in its defense, but the details of its location are uncertain. Hezekiah at some point built a tunnel under the old city of Jerusalem connecting the Gihon Spring to the east with the Pool of Siloam on the west, thus securing a supply of water inaccessible to an invader.

22:10–11 A survey is likely made of all the houses to see if any material could be used to reinforce the walls and make the city less vulnerable. The reservoir may be the same as the lower pool (v. 9). Yet all of this seems to be reliance on worldly methods and evidence of lack of faith in the Creator and Lord of history. Thus Motyer argues, “Hezekiah’s tunnel contradicted the way of faith.”50 On the face of it, that is what the passage seems to say. However, this is hard to reconcile with the other biblical accounts of Hezekiah and the water supply. Second Kings 20:20 sees this achievement as part of the activities that showed “all his might” (cf. 2 Chron. 32:30).51 Also, Sennacherib fails to take Jerusalem, so the events of Isaiah 22:2–3 better fit Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24:10–17) or Zedekiah (2 Kings 25:4–7) than Hezekiah. It is possible that there may be a reference to the Assyrian attack on Ashdod in 711 BC (Isa. 20:1); there must have been fear in Jerusalem when that occurred, followed by inappropriate revelry as the Assyrians returned home.

It is also possible that in the early years of Hezekiah, before he had time to establish himself, many members of his court flirted with Egypt and even Babylon, since Hezekiah himself succumbed to the latter temptation (ch. 39). Chronologically, the visit of Merodach-baladan was before the invasion of Sennacherib, but there are good theological and canonical reasons for the order of events presented in chapters 36–39. Here the court is still dominated by figures like Shebna, who would almost certainly be pro-Babylonian and pro-Egyptian and would play a major part in the festivities. This means that we do not have to see Hezekiah’s tunnel as an alternative for faith, while still recognizing that there are those both then and later who rely on it rather than trusting Yahweh.

22:12–13 Instead of weeping, as the prophet had done, the citizens of Jerusalem indulge in merriment and feasting, living only for the moment. In uncertain times this is at best irresponsible and at worst faithless. Paul takes up part of verse 13 and applies them to those who see nothing beyond the grave (1 Cor. 15:32).

22:14 Isaiah himself has confessed his iniquity, and his sin has been atoned for, but nothing like that is happening here. It is not that God is unwilling to forgive, but there must be repentance and confession of sin for atonement to happen; apart from that there is no prospect but death. Again the title of God as “Lord of hosts” reminds us that he alone rules in heaven and earth.

22:15 The pride and complacency of the people is illustrated in this brief portrait of Shebna, a high official who finds his identity in his pride and, instead of looking to Yahweh, seeks to preserve that pride beyond this life via an ostentatious tomb. The phrase “this steward” strikes a somewhat contemptuous note, as this high official is cut down to size. “Over the household” suggests something like a prime minister, who would sometimes act as deputy to the king; indeed, it is used in that sense of Jotham when his father, Uzziah, contracts leprosy (2 Kings 15:5).

22:16 The tomb is probably built on the hilly area across the Kidron Valley, perhaps near the modern village of Silwan, where there are many fine tombs, including one reputed to be that of daughter of the Pharaoh whom Solomon married. In any case, Shebna, instead of carrying out the duties of his office, is concerned only for his future reputation. Psalm 49:11–14 is a sober comment on the likes of Shebna, as the psalmist reflects on the end of such people who build elaborate tombs but are “like the beasts that perish.” Similarly, Job 3:13–19 speaks of the inevitable democracy of the grave, where small and great lie together. It is surely improbable that Shebna actually carves and cuts the tomb personally, but he doubtless comes to watch its progress.

22:17–18 Nothing is known of the circumstances of Shebna’s death; he receives no state funeral in a magnificent tomb but rather is tossed aside in a “wide land,” perhaps implying deportation to Assyria. “Glorious chariots” may be the carriages he drove in and out of the city while surveying the progress of his tomb. He has demeaned his high office and is a disgrace to the royal house.

22:19 More immediately, Shebna will lose his high position and be demoted to “secretary” (Isa. 36:3). Oswalt comments that the fact he still keeps a post reflects the bureaucratic compromises that, then as now, make government a matter of balancing various factions.52

22:20 Attention now shifts to a very different kind of leader, Eliakim, who replaces Shebna as chief minister. “My servant” is an especially important title in the book: it is first applied to Isaiah in 20:3 and then to Israel and the Messiah in chapters Isaiah 40–55 and again Isaiah 65–66. Elsewhere it is used frequently of Moses and David and also of Job (Job 1:8). It is a term of both privilege and responsibility.

22:21–22 This authority will be expressed outwardly in the robe and sash of office. This is no mere “power dressing” but will involve genuine authority exercised in a fatherly way for the good of the people, anticipating the king who will reign in righteousness (32:1). The “key of the house of David” may be a literal symbol of office like the robe and sash but certainly involves admitting or excluding from the king’s presence. That latter sense is echoed in the letter to the church in Philadelphia, where the free offer of the gospel is the key to admission to the presence of the King (Rev. 3:7). Such authority requires great integrity from the holder of the office.

22:23–24 Much will hang on Eliakim; like a peg in the wall, he will carry a heavy weight. Unlike Shebna, who was a disgrace, he will be a credit to his father’s house, which could mean either the family of which he is a member or the royal house itself. The responsibility is comprehensive; he must be a good example to the younger members of the family and care for various apparently insignificant items that could easily be neglected.

22:25 This verse comes as a shock and reminds us that no human leader, however good or gifted, can bring about ultimate salvation. The work of Eliakim and the reforms of Hezekiah are necessary and valuable but do not change Judah’s immediate destiny. Only beyond the fires of exile and the coming of the true King will Israel be fully restored. Only Yahweh of hosts can not only promise but actually deliver on all his promises.