At that time, Merodach Baladan the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah; for he heard that he had been sick, and had recovered. Hezekiah was pleased with them, and showed them the house of his precious things, the silver, the gold, the spices, and the precious oil, and all the house of his armor, and all that was found in his treasures. There was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah didn’t show them. Then Isaiah the prophet came to king Hezekiah, and asked him, “What did these men say? From where did they come to you?” Hezekiah said, “They have come from a country far from me, even from Babylon.”
Then he asked, “What have they seen in your house?” Hezekiah answered, “They have seen all that is in my house. There is nothing among my treasures that I have not shown them.”
Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, “Hear the word of Yahweh of Armies: ‘Behold, the days are coming when all that is in your house, and that which your fathers have stored up until today, will be carried to Babylon. Nothing will be left,’ says Yahweh. ‘They will take away your sons who will issue from you, whom you shall father, and they will be eunuchs in the king of Babylon’s palace.’ ”
Then Hezekiah said to Isaiah, “Yahweh’s word which you have spoken is good.” He said moreover, “For there will be peace and truth in my days.”
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 Partly moved with the greatness of the miracle, partly…
Partly moved with the greatness of the miracle, partly because he showed himself enemy to his enemies, but chiefly because he would join with them whom God favored, and have their help, if occasion served.
This was the first king of Babylon, which overcame the Assyrians in the tenth year of his reign.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On v1 Isa 39:1 At that time Merodachbaladan, the son of…
Isa 39:1 At that time Merodachbaladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah: for he had heard that he had been sick, and was recovered.
Ver. 1. See 2Ki 20:12 &c. {See Trapp on "2Ki 20:12"} &c.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On v8 The history contained in this chapter is related in…
The history contained in this chapter is related in the same words, 2Ki 20:12, &c., only he who here is called Merodach is there called Berodach, merely by the change of one letter, which is very usual in the Hebrew language, especially in proper names, as Dimon is put for Dibon, Isa 15:9, and the same man is called Nebuchadnezzar and Nebuchadrezzar. This king is called Merodach from the idol so called, Jer 1:2, and Baladan from his father’s name. But whether this man was an Assyrian, or a Mede, or a Babylonian, it is not easy to determine, nor worth while to inquire. But this is certain, that about this time there were wars between the Assyrians and the Babylonians, the issue whereof was, that the latter subdued the former.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv1, 5 Hence we may learn these lessons: - 1. That…
Hence we may learn these lessons: - 1. That humanity and common civility teach us to rejoice with our friends and neighbours when they rejoice, and to congratulate them on their deliverances, and particularly their recoveries from sickness. The king of Babylon, having heard that Hezekiah had been sick, and had recovered, sent to compliment him upon the occasion. If Christians be unneighbourly, heathens will shame them. 2. It becomes us to give honour to those whom our God puts honour upon. The sun was the Babylonians' god; and when they understood that it was with a respect to Hezekiah that the sun, to their great surprise, went back ten degrees, on such a day, they thought themselves obliged to do Hezekiah all the honour they could. Will all people thus walk in the name of their God, and shall not we? 3. Those that do not value good men for their goodness may yet be brought to pay them great respect by other inducements, and for the sake of their secular interests. The king of Babylon made his court to Hezekiah, not because he was pious, but because he was prosperous, as the Philistines coveted an alliance with Isaac because they saw the Lord was with him, Gen 26:28. The king of Babylon was an enemy to the king of Assyria, and therefore was fond of Hezekiah, because the Assyrians were so much weakened by the power of his God. 4. It is a hard matter to keep the spirit low in the midst of great advancements. Hezekiah is an instance of it: he was a wise and good man, but, when one miracle after another was wrought in his favour, he found it hard to keep his heart from being lifted up, nay, a little thing then drew him into the snare of pride. Blessed Paul himself needed a thorn in the flesh, to keep him from being lifted up with the abundance of revelations. 5. We have need to watch over our own spirits when we are showing our friends our possessions, what we have done and what we have got, that we be not proud of them, as if our might or our merit had purchased and procured us this wealth. When we look upon our enjoyments, and have occasion to speak of them, it must be with humble acknowledgements of our own unworthiness and thankful acknowledgements of God's goodness, with a just value for the achievements of others and with an expectation of losses and changes, not dreaming that our mountain stands so strong but that it may soon be moved. 6. It is a great weakness for good men to value themselves much upon the civil respects that are paid them (yea, though there be something particular and uncommon in them) by the children of this world, and to be fond of their acquaintance. What a poor thing was it for Hezekiah, whom God has so dignified, to be thus over proud of the respect paid him by a heathen prince as if that added any thing to him! We ought to return the courtesies of such with interest, but not to be proud of them. 7. We must expect to be called to an account for the workings of our pride, though they are secret, and in such instances as we thought there was no harm in; and therefore we ought to call ourselves to an account for them; and when we have had company with us that have paid us respect, and been pleased with their entertainment, and commended every thing, we ought to be jealous over ourselves with a godly jealousy lest our hearts have been lifted up. As far as we see cause to suspect that this sly and subtle sin of pride has insinuated itself into our breasts, and mingled itself with our conversation, let us be ashamed of it, and, as Hezekiah here, ingenuously confess it and take shame to ourselves for it.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1–8 At that time Merodachbaladan, the son of Baladan, king…
At that time Merodachbaladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon,.... The same is called Berodach, Kg2 20:12 which, according to Hillerus (z), is the same with Barmerodach, the son of Merodach; though it is generally took to be a slip of the scribe's there, or a change of letter, as is common in names; he was either afterwards made a god of, or he had his name from an idol of the Babylonians so called, Jer 50:1, which signifies "a pure lord." Jerom observes it, as the opinion of the Jews, that he was the father of Nebuchadnezzar, which is not probable. Kimchi takes him to be the same with Esarhaddon, the son of Sennacherib; but he was king of Assyria, not of Babylon; it is most likely that he is the Assyrian king, whom Ptolemy in his canon calls Mardocempad; his other name Baladan, which is compounded of two words, "bal" and "adan", and both of them signify lord, he took from his father, for he is called the son of Baladan; by Josephus (a) he is called Baladas, who says that Berosus the Chaldean makes mention of a king of Babylon by this name. Bishop Usher (b) thinks he is the same that is called by profane writers Belesis, and Belessus, and Nabonasarus; his name consists of the names of three idols, Merodach, an idol of the Babylonians, as before observed, and Bal, the contraction of Baal, and Adon, the same with Adonis:
he sent letters and a present to Hezekiah; by his ambassadors, which was always usual in embassies and visits, and still is in the eastern countries; the purport of which embassy was to congratulate him upon his recovery, and to inquire concerning the miracle that was wrought in his land; either the destruction of the Assyrian army in one night by an angel, or rather the sun's going back ten degrees, Ch2 32:31 and, as Josephus (c) says, to enter into an alliance with him; and this seems to be the true reason of sending these ambassadors; or the king of Babylon had lately fallen off from the Assyrian monarch, and therefore was desirous of entering into a league with Hezekiah the king of Assyria's enemy, in order to strengthen himself against him, and secure his liberty he had just gained:
Read full note →
for he had heard that he had been sick, and was recovered; which both gives a reason of the embassy, and points at the time when it was; very probably the same year of his sickness and recovery.
(z) Onomast. Sacr. p, 603. (a) Antiqu. l. 10. c. 2. sect. 2. (b) Annales Vet. Test. p. 87, 88. (c) Ibid.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On v1 The king of Babylon sends ambassadors with letters and…
The king of Babylon sends ambassadors with letters and a present to Hezekiah, who shews them his treasures, ver, 1, 2, Isaiah foretells the Babylonish captivity, ver. 4-7. His resignation, ver. 8.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1, 6, 8 The Babylonish monarch sends letters of congratulation and a
CHAPTER XXXIX
The Babylonish monarch sends letters of congratulation and a
Read full note →
present to Hezekiah, on account of his recovery from his late
dangerous illness, 1.
The king of Judah shows the messengers of Merodach-baladan all
the treasures of his house and kingdom, 2.
The prophet takes occasion from this ostentatious display of
the king to predict the captivity of the royal family, and of
the people, by the Babylonians, 3-8.
NOTES ON CHAP. XXXIX
Hitherto the copy of this history in the second book of Kings has been much the most correct; in this chapter that in Isaiah has the advantage. In the two first verses two mistakes in the other copy are to be corrected from this: for הזקיהו hizkiyahu, read ויחזק vayechezek, and was recovered; and for וישמע vaiyishma, he heard, read וישמח vaiyismach, he rejoiced.
Verse 1. At that time Merodach-baladan] This name is variously written in the MSS. Berodach, Medorach, Medarech, and Medurach.
"And ambassadors"] The Septuagint add here και πρεσβεις; that is, ומלאכים umalachim, and ambassadors; which word seems to be necessary to the sense, though omitted in the Hebrew text both here and in the other copy, 2Kg 20:12. For the subsequent narration refers to them all along, "these men, whence came they?" c. plainly supposing them to have been personally mentioned before. See Houbigant.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv1–8 At that time - That is, soon after his…
At that time - That is, soon after his recovery; or after he had amassed great wealth, and was surrounded with the evidences of prosperity 2Ch 32:27-31.
Merodach-baladan, the son of Balddan, king of Babylon - In the parallel place in 2Ki 20:12, this name is written Berodach-baladan, by a change of a single letter. Probably the name was written and pronounced both ways. Merodach was an idol of the Babylonians Jer 50:2 : ‘Babylon is taken, Bel is confounded, Merodach is confounded.’ This idol, according to Gesenius, was probably the planet Mars, or Mars the god of war. To this god, as well as to Saturn, the ancient Semitic nations offered human sacrifices (see Gesenius’ Lex. and Corem. in loc.) The word ‘Balddan’ is also a compound word, and means ‘Bel is his lord.’ The name of this idol, Merodach, was often incorporated into the proper names of kings, and of others. Thus we have the names Evil-Merodach, Messi-Mordachus, Sisimor-dachus, Mardocentes, etc. In regard to the statement of Isaiah in this verse, no small degree of difficulty has been felt by commentators, and it is not until quite recently that the difficulty has been removed, and it has been done in a manner to furnish an additional and most striking demonstration of the entire and minute accuracy of the sacred narrative. The difficulty arose from several circnmstances:
Read full note →
1. This king of Babylon is nowhere else mentioned in sacred history.
2. The kingdom of Assyria was yet flourishing, and Babylon was one of its dependencies.
For, only nine years before, Salmanassar the Assyrian monarch is said to have transported the inhabitants of Babylon to other parts 2Ki 17:24, and Manasseh, not many years after, was carried captive to Babylon by the king of Assyria 2Ch 33:11. These instances incontestably prove that at the time of Hezekiah, Babylon was dependent on the Assyrian kings. Who, then, it is asked, was this Merodach-baladan, king of Babylon? If he was governor of that city, how could he send an embassy of congratulation to the Jewish sovereign, then at war with his liege lord? The canon of Ptolemy gives us no king of this name, nor does his chronology appear reeoncilable with sacred history.
‘In this darkness and doubt,’ says Dr. Wiseman, ‘we must have continued, and the apparent contradiction of this text to ether passages would have remaimed inexplicable, had not the progress of modern Oriental study brought to light a document of the most venerable antiquity. This is nothing less than a fragment of Berosus, preserved in the chronicle of Eusebius. This interesting fragment informs us, that after Sennacherib’s brother had governed Babylon, as Assyrian viceroy, Acises unjustly possessed himself of the supreme command. After thirty days he was murdered by Merodach-baladan, who usurped the sovereignty for six months, when he was in turn killed, and was succeeded by Elibus. But after three years, Sennacherib collected an army, gave the usurper battle, conquered, and took him prisoner. Having once more reduced Babylon to his obedience, he left his son Assordan, the Esarhaddon of Scripture, as governor of the city.’
The only objection to this satement, or to the entire consistency of this fragment with the Scripture narrative is, that Isaiah relates the murder of Sennacherib, and the succession of Esarhaddon before Merodach-baladan’s embassy to Jerusalem. But to this Gesenius has well replied, that this arrangement is followed by the prophet in order to conclude the history of the Assyrian monarch, which has no further connection with the subject, so as not to return to it again.
By this order, also, the prophecy of his murder is more closely connected with the history of its fulfillment (Isa 37:7; compare Isa 37:38). And this solution, which supposes some interval to have elapsed between Sennacherib’s return to Nineveh, and his death, is rendered probable by the words of the text itself. ‘He went and returned, and dwelt in Nineveh; and it came to pass,’ etc. Isa 37:37-38)
Thus we have it certainly explained how there was a king, or rather a usurper in Babylon at the time when it was really a provincial city of the Assyrian empire. Nothing was more probable than that Merodach-baladan, having seized the throne, should endeavor to unite himself in league and amity with the enemies of his master, against whom he had revolted. Hezekiah, who, no less than himself, had thrown off the Assyrian yoke, and was in powerful alliance with the king of Egypt, would be his first resource. No embassy, on the other hand, could be more welcome to the Jewish monarch who had the common enemy in his neighborhood, and who would be glad to see a division made in his favor by a rebellion in the very heart of that enemy’s kingdom. Hence arose that excessive attention which he paid to the envoys of the usurper, and which so offended Isaiah, or rather God, who, as a consequence, threatened the Babylonian captivity (see Dr. Wiseman’s Lectures on Science and Revealed Religion, pp. 369-371 Ed. And. 1837).
Sent letters - The Septuagint adds, καὶ πρέβεις kai presbeis - ‘and ambassadors.’
And a present - It was customary among the Orientals, as it is now, to send a valuable present when one prince sent an embassage for any purpose to another. It is stated in 2Ch 32:31, that one object of their coming was to make inquiry ‘of the wonder that was done in the land;’ that is, of the miracle in regard to the retrocession of the shadow on the sun-dial of Ahaz. It is well known that, from the earliest periods, the Babylonians and Chaldeans were distinguished for their attention to astronomy. Indeed, as a science, astronomy was first cultivated on the plains of Chaldea; and there the knowledge of that science was scarcely surpassed by any of the ancient nations. The report which they had heard of this miracle would, therefore, be to them a matter of deep interest as an astronomical fact, and they came to make inquiry into the exact truth of the report.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv1, 8 And. Septuagint add, "ambassadors and presents." See 4 Kings…
And. Septuagint add, "ambassadors and presents." See 4 Kings xx. 12. (Calmet)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v1 1At that time Merodach-baladan, the son of Baladan, king…
2. THE BABYLONISH EMBASSY
Isa_39:1-8
Read full note →
1At that time Merodach-baladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah: for he had heard that he had been sick, and was recovered. 2And Hezekiah was glad of them, and showed them the house of his 1precious things, the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the precious ointment, and all the house of his 23armour, and all that was found in his treasures: there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah showed them not.
3Then came Isaiah the prophet unto king Hezekiah, and said unto him, What said these men? and from whence came they unto thee? And Hezekiah said, They are come from a far country unto me, even from Babylon. 4Then said he, What have they seen in thine house? And Hezekiah answered, All that is in 5mine house have they seen: there is nothing among my treasures that I have not shewed them. Then said Isaiah to Hezekiah, Hear the word of the Lord of hosts: 6Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day, shall be carried to Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the Lord. 7And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be 4eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon. Then said Hezekiah to Isaiah, Good is the word of the Lord which 8thou hast spoken. He said moreover, For there shall be peace and truth in my days.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
On Isa_39:1. The text of 2Ki_20:12 sqq., reads בְּרֹאדַךְ בַּלְאֲדָן instead of מְרֹאדַךְ. According to the monuments the reading of Isaiah appears to be decidedly the correct one. For the name in Assyrian is “Marduk-habal-iddina,” i. e. Merodach gave a (or the) son (Schrader, p. 213). The form בראדך seems to have sprung from the attraction of sound of the three following words, which begin with ב. What has been said shows that Merodach-Baladan does not mean “Merodacus Baladani filius,” as our text and 2 Kings seem to understand it. [This imputed misunderstanding seems quite gratuitous in the Author.—Tr.]. We have here, also, an evidence of a later writer who was indifferently acquainted with the subject.—On ספרים comp. on Isa_37:14,—Our text differs from 2Ki_20:12, in reading וישׁמע and ויחזק. Both seem to me traceable to correction. The editor of the text in Isaiah might take offence at the double כִּי, and thus have replaced the first by וְ. But he also stumbled at its only being said 2 Kings: “he had heard that Hezekiah was sick.” For it seemed to him that the wonderful recovery of Hezekiah, and the proof it gave of his being a ruler under the protection of a mighty god, had as much to do with the Babylonian’s sending an embassy.
On Isa_39:2. Here, too, the two texts differ. The וישׁמע of 2Ki_20:13, is the more difficult reading, compared with which וישׂמח appears an emendation: being the easier and more natural reading.
On Isa_39:3. At the end of the verse our text has אלי after באו, which is wanting in 2Ki_20:14.
On Isa_39:5. Our text has צבאות at the end, which is wanting 2Ki_20:16. It may be here the same as in the case of chapּ Isa_37:32, compared with 2Ki_19:31.
On Isa_39:6. Our text has בבל, 2Ki_20:17, בבלה.
On Isa_39:7. Our text has יקחו; 2Ki_20:18 only K’ri has this reading, whereas K’thibh reads יקח. Certainly the latter is the more difficult, and יקחו appears as an emendation. The sing may be taken either as the predicate of an indefinite subject (one) or, more correctly, as seems to me, as predicate of a definite subject, which, however, is present only in idea, viz.: the king of Babylon.
On Isa_39:8. 2Ki_20:19 has הֲלֹא אם where our text has simply הלא אם does not occur elsewhere. Ewald (§ 324 b), takes it in the sense of “yea, if only.” But that is neither grammatically justified, nor does it give a clear meaning. According to my view of the context (see Exeg. and Crit. below) הלא = nonne. I, therefore, take אִם not as a particle expressive of desire, as many do, but it has its conditional meaning,—“if, in so far as.” The כִּי in the text of Isaiah has essentially the same meaning, as Delitzsch also has admitted. For it says, that between the sentiments that Hezekiah had betrayed in reference to the ambassadors and his affirmation “good is the word,” etc., there was no contradiction, because, in fact, while he lived peace and fidelity would certainly be undisturbed. At least, our text can be so understood. Whether its author really meant this, is another question. For it were possible, too, that he substituted for the obscure הלא אם the general, indefinite כי perhaps only in its pleonastic sense, that introduces the oratio recta.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1. As the text needs no special comment, it may be well for the better understanding of the circumstances involved, to present briefly the chief points of Babylonian history relating to them, according to the data of the Assyrian monuments as far as the latter have been deciphered. Our chapter speaks of two Baladans, viz.: Merodach-Baladan, who sent the embassy and Baladan his father. Yet there appears in this a misunderstanding. According to the Assyrian monuments (comp. Lenormant,les premieres civilizations, Paris, 1874, Tom. II, in the essay “un patriote babylonien,” p. 210) our Merodach-Baladan was a son of Jakin. Comp. also the ostentatious inscription of Tiglath-Pileser mentioned above at Isa_21:1, which states that he received the homage of “Merodach-Baladan, son of Jakin, king of the sea, in the city of Sapiga.” We remarked above at Isa_21:1, that by tihamtu (תְּהוֹם, “sea, sea-land”) is to be understood south Chaldea, the watery region at the mouth of the united rivers Tigris and Euphrates. Merodach-Baladan, when he did homage to Tiglath-Pileser, was king of Bit-Jakin (such was the name of the residence and of the small territory of his father), and so remained till the year 721. In the year 721, when Sargon ascended the throne, this energetic man, who was an enthusiast for the independence of Babylon, succeeded in mounting the throne of all Chaldea in Babylon. The canon of Ptolemy names Mardocempad, under this year as king of Babylon, a name that is universally regarded as identical with Merodach-Baladan. Sargon states, that in the first complete year of his reign (i. e., in the year 721), after having in the year 722 completed the conquest of Samaria, he marched against Merodach-Baladan. But his undertaking was not successful. For Merodach-Baladan maintained himself, and reigned, according to the Canon, yet twelve years as acknowledged king of Babylon. Not till the year 710 did Sargon again take the field against him. The struggle extended into the year 709, ending in the dethronement of Merodach-Baladan (see the interesting description of this campaign in Lenormant,l. c. p. 243 sqq.). In this year Sargon himself mounted the throne of Babylon. The Canon, from the year 709 onwards, names Ἀρκέανος, i. e, Sarrukin or Sargon, as king of Babylon. But the courage of Merodach-Baladan was not yet broken. He fled back into his own hereditary land Bit-Jakin, a narrow strip of land on the Persian gulf, extending from Schat-el-arab to Elam. Sargon marched against him again and stormed first the strongly fortified position where Merodach-Baladan awaited him, then the city Dur-Jakin, his opponent’s last refuge on the mainland. Merodach-Baladan escaped with great difficulty. But still he did not submit. Sargon was compelled, in the beginning of the year 705, to send his son Sennacherib against the obstinate rebel. But not long after, Sennacherib received in camp the intelligence of the murder of his father by a certain Belkaspai, probably a patriotic Chaldean and adherent of Merodach-Baladan’s.
Then there followed a period of two or three years, filled up with the strifes of various pretenders to the crown, and hence designated by the Canon as καιρὸς ἀβισίλευτος. Thus it appears by the account of Polyhistor in Eusebius (chron. armen. ed.Mai, p. 19), that after Sargon’s death, his son and a brother of Sennacherib ascended the Babylonian throne. But after a short term this one was obliged to give place to a certain Hagisa, who, after not thirty days’ reign, was killed by Merodach-Baladan. That this was our Merodach-Baladan can scarcely be doubted. The implacable enemy of the Assyrians boldly raised his head anew. Sennacherib marched against him and conquered him at Kis, a city that Nebuchadnezzar afterwards incorporated in the city territory of Babylon by means of his great wall. Sennacherib gave the throne of Babylon to a certain Belibus or Elibus, the son of a “wise man,” whom, says the king, “they had brought up in the company of the small boys in my palace.” Hence this Belibus was not an independent pretender, as would seem according to Polyhistor, but a subordinate king recognized by Sennacherib after the expulsion of Merodach-Baladan. According to the Canon of regents (Schrader, p. 319), this expedition against Merodach-Baladan fell in the year 704 B. C. In the year 700 Sennacherib accomplished his unfortunate expedition against Judah and Egypt, according to the entirely credible testimony of the Assyrian monuments. The news of his defeat appears to have been the signal for a new insurrection to the Chaldean patriots. For in the following year (699), according to the Taylor-cylinder (Schrader, p. 224), we find Sennacherib on the march against the rebellious Babylonians. Merodach-Baladan had allied himself with a young prince Suzub, son of Gatul, of the race of Kalban, and Belibus found it best to enter into negotiations with these opponents. For this, according to Berosus, he was deposed and carried prisoner to Assyria. Sennacherib first attacked Suzub, whose troops were defeated; he himself escaped. Then Sennacherib turned against Merodach-Baladan, who gave way before the threatening danger. He fled by ship to the city Nagit-Raggi, situated on an island in the Persian gulf. The territory of Bit-Jakin was desolated. Sennacherib made his son Esar-Haddon king of Akkad and Sumir, i. e., Babylon (699). After that were eleven years of quiet. During this period, Merodach-Baladan, whom the king of Elam, Kudhir-Nakhunta, had made lord of a strip of the coast, had moved the discontented elements of Babylon and Chaldea to emigrate in mass into his land. This led Sennacherib to build a fleet in Nineveh (they were called “Syrian ships” because Phœnician seamen manned them), with which he attacked the island and the coast possessed by Merodach-Baladan, and entirely devastated them (see the remarks on Isa_43:14). At this point Merodach-Baladan disappears from history. It is related that the in fluential Babylonians then forsook him. On the other hand, they moved the king of Elam to send that Suzub to Babylon. Suzub, indeed, ascended the throne of Babylon. Their purpose was to cut Sennacherib from his own land. But the latter returned in time and defeated his opponents in two battles. He took Suzub prisoner, but spared his life. This happened in the year 687. But in the following year Suzub escaped from prison, was again proclaimed king in Babylon, and, in alliance with Umman-Menan, king of Elam, the successor of Kudhir-Nakhunta, and with Nabusnmiskim, the eldest son of Merodach-Baladan, he opposed a considerable army to Sennacherib at Kalul on the Tigris. Sennacherib conquered again, and still again in another battle, by which he utterly destroyed the power of his opponents. He then resolved utterly to destroy Babylon: and this resolve was actually executed (685). Yet only four years after, the city was rebuilt. Sennacherib died 681, and his son and successor determined to put an end to the everlasting strife with the Babylonians by an opposite policy. He raised Babylon to equal rank with Nineveh, and made it his residence.
The eldest son of Merodach-Baladan, Nabusu-miskun, was taken prisoner at the battle of Kalul and beheaded by Sennacherib. His brother next of age to him, Nabozirnapsatiasir, reigned after him in the land Bit-Jakin. A third brother, Nahib-Marduk, submitted to the Assyrians on the condition that he be put in possession of the land Bit-Jakin. Esar-Haddon, in the year 676, actually invaded the land and conquered it. Probably Nabozirnapsatiasir then lost his life (Lenormant, l. c., p. 303). Nahir-Marduk’s son, Nabobelsum, returned to the sentiments of his grandfather. He took part in the insurrection made by Samulsumukin, the second son of Esar-Haddon and viceroy of Babylon, against his elder brother Asurbanipal, great king of Assyria (651). Asurbanipal conquered. Samulsumukin burned himself in his palace in Babylon (648). After many negotiations, and finally after an expedition that devastated the whole land of Elam, the king of Elam, Ummanaldas, was obliged to promise that he would surrender Nabobelsum. The latter procured his death at the hands of a master of the horse. Asurbanipal, when the head of the corpse was sent to him, had it preserved in salt. A small bas-relief, found in the palace of Kujundschik, displays Asurbanipal banqueting in a garden with his wives, and the head of Nabobelsum hanging before him on a tree. Only thirty-five years later Nineveh was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and Cyaxares (605)!
According to our chapter, the embassy of Merodach-Baladan to Hezekiah fell in the time when the former reigned undisputed king of Babylon. As shown above, this was a period of twelve years, reaching from 721–709. It must not be supposed that Merodach-Baladan would not have sought the friendship of Hezekiah had he not heard of his victory over Sennacherib. An inscription of Sargon’s (Lenormant, l. c., 231) says of Merodach-Baladan: “For twelve years had he sent embassies contrary to the will of the gods of Babylon, the city of Bel, the judge of the gods.” These twelve years are manifestly the twelve years of Merodach-Baladan’s undisputed reign. During this period the latter had sought allies for the event of war breaking out again. Is it to be wondered if, under these circumstances, he should send such an embassy to Hezekiah? According to 2Ch_32:31, the messenger came from Babylon to Hezekiah “to inquire of the wonder that was done in the land.” The context shows that Hezekiah’s miraculous recovery and the miracle of the sun-dial are meant. It is, therefore, probable that the report of this miracle penetrated to distant lands. If it came to astrological Babylon, what wonder if the king of this city had his attention drawn to the king of Judea, especially as it was known of this people that more than once they had been an opponent or an ally of the Assyrians that was not to be despised.
2. At that time—shewed them not.
Isa_39:1-2, The author would say that Hezekiah gave ear to the words of those ambassadors (see Text. and Gram.). Probably there is in this an intimation that they already made propositions of a political nature not displeasing to Hezekiah. And as he was pleased to hear what they said, so he wished them to see the things that gave him joy. There appears to me, therefore, in this antithesis of hearing and showing, to be a hint of Hezekiah’s sin. נכת is an obscure word both as to derivation and meaning. In Gen_37:25; Gen_43:11נְכאֹת either means spices in general, or, which is more likely, a particular sort of spice (storax—or tragacanth gum. Comp. Leyrer in Herzog’sReal-Eycyclop. XIV p. 664). Many expositors are disposed to recognize in our נכתה (K’ri, 2Ki_20:13, נכתו) the same word, and to understand by בית נ׳ a spice magazine; on which Leyrer, l. c., remarks that this would imply a great monopoly carried on by the kings of Judah in this particular. Others generalize the meaning and regard “spicery house” as a denominatio a potiori for “provision house” in general. Others, finally, derive נְכוֹת, not from נָכָא (“to beat, pound,” hence נכאת, “that which is pounded in a mortar”), but from a root כּוּת, not used in Hebrew, but which is kindred to כִּוּם, “to gather, preserve,” and in Arabic means (Pi. kajjata) “to cram, stuff full.” Of this נכת would be a Niphal form (Isa_30:12), and mean “provision, treasure.” Thus Hitzig, Knobel, Fuerst (Lex. under כּוּם and כּוּת), Delitzsch (comp. Ewald, Gesch. d. V. Isr. III. p. 690, Anm. 1). The items that follow, in which, beside gold, silver and spiceries (בשׂמים, the most general expression for aromatic substances, comp. Leyrer, L. c., p. 661) are particularly named, of course correspond best with a word of such general significance as “provision.” Still the subject is not satisfactorily cleared up. On “the precious ointment,” Movers (who translates בית נכת “styrax house”) makes the following remark: “Here Jewish expositors, no doubt on the best grounds, understand the balsam oil got from the royal gardens, comp. 2Ch_32:27. Olive oil, that was obtained in all Judea, was not stored in the treasuries along with gold, silver and aromatics, but in special store-houses, 2Ch_32:28” (Phön. II. 3, p. 227 Anm.). בית כלים is likely “the arsenal,” as כלים often signifies all sorts of war implements, and the arsenal doubtless was of prime importance to those ambassadors. In this case כלים is identical with the בית היער of Isa_22:8. It appears that Hezekiah in this display observed a climax descendens, beginning with the precious articles of luxury and ending with the things of practical need. אוצרות (probably the store-houses like e. g. Joe_1:17; 2 Chronicles 11, etc.) to contain stores in case of siege. It is to be noted that had this embassy come after the over throw of Sennacherib, Hezekiah would verilv have had nothing to show “in his dominion” outside of Jerusalem. For the whole land outside of the capital had been in the power of the enemy, who would have left little worth seeing. “His store-house, the spiceries, the fine oil,” do not intimate specially war-booty. Moreover it would then need to read: Hezekiah showed them the spoil he had taken from the Assyrians. Comp. on Isa_39:6.
3. Then came Isaiah—my days.
Isa_39:3-8. Apart from the internal probability of it, one may conclude from יבאו that Isaiah came to the king with the inquiry of Isa_39:3 while the ambassadors were still in Jerusalem. For this Imperfect can only have the meaning that the coming was in a certain sense still an incompleted transaction, although the king had then shown them every thing (Isa_39:4). The Prophet regarded them as advenas, arrivals, and that is a quality they have as long as they are in Jerusalem (comp. Isa_37:34 with 2Ki_19:33; Jos_9:8 with Gen_42:7). But it also seems very probable to me that the Prophet addressed his inquiries to the king in the presence of the ambassadors, and that “these men” is to be understood δεικτικῶς. This suits entirely the free and exalted position that the prophets assumed as the immediate messengers and instruments of Jehovah, even toward the kings themselves. Comp. on Isa_7:14. If thereby those ambassadors enjoyed the opportunity of observing for once a genuine prophet of the true God in the exercise of his office, and if thereby the true God Himself drew near to them, it was one of those revelations of His being such as the Lord at times vouchsafed to the heathen, e. g., Moses before Pharaoh, Balaam before Balak, Elisha before Naaman, Daniel before the kings of Babylon. To the question what said these men? Hezekiah gives no answer, and Isaiah presses it no further. Their very presence there and the reception they found were adequate proof that Hezekiah allowed himself to treat with them, that once again, as he had done by the Egyptian alliance (27–32), he had extended to the world-power at least the little finger. That, in his answer, he lays stress on the far country, betrays an attempt to excuse himself. One cannot show men the door who come from a distance to show one honor and friendship. And Hezekiah ought not to do that. Neither ought he to indulge in vain boasting nor to seek false supports. O, had he only known how ill-timed both were in the case of Babylon! He would surely, without violating the duties of hospitality, have, yet avoided with anxious care every approach to more intimate relations. That he adds the name Babylon so briefly to the preceding “they are come from a far country unto me” seems to betray a certain embarrassment, a presentiment of having committed a fault. [See remarks of tr. below.]
We stand here on a boundary of immeasurable importance. Assyria is done away, but Babylon rises aloft. Ahaz had formally introduced Assyria by seeking its help. Here Babylon offers itself. With cat-like friendliness it creeps up. Hezekiah ought to have maintained an attitude of polite refusal. His vanity betrayed him into boasting and coquetting. Still by just this he yielded himself to the world-power. The Theocracy was later, under Zedekiah, ground to pieces between. Egypt and Babylon. Only by leaning solely and wholly on the Lord could it maintain itself between the southern and the northern world-power, between the Nile kingdom on the one hand, and the Euphrates-Tigris kingdom on the other. Hezekiah had unfortunately indulged in intimacies both with Egypt and with Babylon. The necessary consequence was that the Theocracy succumbed to the mightier of these. Hence it is announced to him that the precious things, of which he had made a boastful display, must go to Babylon, yea, that the posterity that was to issue from him who as yet was childless, would once do chamberlain service in the palace of the kings of Babylon. With this the Prophet points to a new and fatal future. Here, between the first and second parts of Isaiah, we stand on the bridge between Nineveh and Babylon. For what Nineveh was for the first part of Isaiah, Babylon is for the second.
Let it be particularly noted that Isaiah says: that which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day (Isa_39:6). Had Hezekiah’s treasures been emptied by the event narrated 2Ki_18:14 sqq., the Prophet could not have spoken so. For then what the fathers had gathered came into the hands of Sennacherib; and whether, after the defeat of the latter, all was found again, one must doubt very much. Sennacherib, who knew that he would not be pursued, could take all the spoils with him. Therefore the expression: “what thy fathers have laid up shall be carried captive to Babylon” favors the view that Hezekiah showed the ambassadors the gatherings of his fathers, that therefore this embassy did not come after the defeat of Sennacherib. [If the foregoing has any force, it would equally prove that the Babylonish captivity must have preceded the invasion of Sennacherib, “for then, after the latter event, what the fathers had gathered cams into the hands of Sennacherib,” etc., as just above.—TR.]
That סָרִים is not simply the “eunuch” appears from Gen_37:36; Gen_39:1. The word often stands for court officer, chamberlain generally (1Ki_22:9; 2Ki_8:6; 2Ki_9:32; 2Ki_25:19, etc.). It is clear that בניך must not be understood of direct generation, and that is agreeable to usage. Hezekiah’s son Manasseh went, indeed, as prisoner to Babylon (2Ch_33:11), but he did not act as chamberlain. Yet the prophecy was fulfilled by what is related Dan_1:3.
Hezekiah humbly submits himself to the declaration of the Lord. The expression Good is the word,etc. involves in general the sense of approval and acquiescence (comp. 1Ki_18:24), especially that of submission under a severe judgment, but one that is recognized as just (comp. 1Ki_2:38; 1Ki_2:42). For the meaning of כִּי(הלא אם, 2Ki_20:19), see Text. and Gram. I fall back on the conjecture given above, that the ambassadors were present at this interview. If one then considers that the prophecy of Isa_39:6-7 presupposes war between Babylon and Judah, and that this poorly corresponds with the assurances of friendship just interchanged between Hezekiah and the ambassadors, he can see that the word of the Prophet would embarrass these parties. It would the king, because it must seem strange that he, at the moment when an honorable embassy had brought him offers of peace and friendship, should call the announcement of the termination of the friendship (though it should turn to his disadvantage) a “good word.” It might appear as if he, Hezekiah, were a weather-cock, an unreliable man, who in turning about knew how to transform himself from a friend into an enemy. To ward off this evil appearance from himself, Hezekiah speaks these words, which are primarily, addressed to the ambassadors. He would say: is it not self-evident that I call the prophetic word good only on the assumption that peace and truth shall continue while I live? By this construction disappears also the objection that has been made to Hezekiah, as if he betrayed by this expression a sentiment like that depraved motto: “apres moi le deluge.”
It may be seen from 1Ki_21:27 sqq. that the Lord lets Himself be moved by a penitent mind to postpone punishment beyond the lifetime of the man whom it primarily threatens.—שׁלום ואמת occurs again Jer_33:6; comp. Isa_14:13; Est_9:30. It means here, manifestly, peace and faithfulness in the sense of political peaceableness and fidelity to alliances.5
The only Scripture that can seem to give positive support to the (so commonly accepted) injurious view of Hezekiah’s conduct in the case before us is 2Ch_32:25; 2Ch_32:31. 2Ch_32:31 clearly relates to the transactions of our text. But Isa 3225 as clearly does not, and must not be brought in to shed light on them. It is in the context separated from them by the statement of 2Ch_32:26, viz.: that “Hezekiah humbled himself for the pride of his heart, both he and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the wrath of the Lord came not upon them in the days of Hezekiah.” What follows this verse is but descriptive proof of the last statement in it, and included in this proof is 2Ch_32:31. See the comm. of Dr. O. Zoeckler in the Lange, B. W. in loc. p. 27. The rendering of the Eng. Ver. “Howbeit” for וכן 2Ch_32:31 is forced, and that by the pressure of the very opinion here combated. It means “And so” or “in this manner.” The particle introduces the additional statement of the trial Hezekiah underwent, and refers to the prosperity just described as having providentially led to it. Ver.31 does not imply reproach of Hezekiah or anything contrary to what may be included under the statement of 2Ch_32:26. עזבו, God “left him,” does not. For it remains to be determined to what he left him. The context must supply this, and we must not understand simply divine desertion in general, especially as that conflicts with all the recorded facts. The verse itself only supplies the event of the Babylonian embassy, and we may include of course Isaiah’s interpretation of it. To that the Lord left Hezekiah. Comp. 2Ch_12:5 “and therefore I have left (עזבתי) you in the hand of Shishak.” It is gratuitous to infer that God left Hezekiah to the workings of his own heart, It is equally so to infer that, because God so left Hezekiah, therefore Hezekiah must first have left God, as in the case just cited. Without leaving God or his own humility (2Ch_32:26) Hezekiah might be thus left of God to this extraordinary providence. Comp. Psa_22:1 with Mat_27:46. לנסותו וגו׳ “to try him,” etc., does not imply reproach any more than the trial of Abraham Gen_22:1. The sentiment of these words and even the very words are drawn from Deu_8:2; Deu_8:16. As an obvious quotation from the most familiar part of the Law, the only proper completion of their sentiment must be found in the completion of the quotation. That must be; “to know what was in his heart to know whether he would keep his (God’s) commandment or not.” The records of Isa_39:8, and 2Ki_20:19 furnish the only documentary information of what was revealed by this trial to be in Hezekiah’s heart. It was nothing but resignation and acquiescence in the will of God, the only form of obedience and keeping God’s commandment that the case admitted. It is, therefore, not only gratuitous to infer that the trial revealed the sinful vanity of Hezekiah’s heart, it is contrary to the very record. That he showed his treasures is thought to be evidence of such vanity. But this is only prejudice growing out of the very assumptions now combated. Why should this hospitality be so bad in Hezekiah, when that of Solomon to the queen of Sheba, substantially the same, is mentioned only with approval, and is even elevated to typical importance?
As for the rest of Hezekiah’s answer Isa_39:8 b; 2Ki_20:19 b, “Good is the word of the Lord,” etc., it may be interpreted best in the light of Deu_8:16. A promise of good is given there for the latter days of those that stand the proof of God’s trials and keep His commandments. Hezekiah had the consciousness of such integrity (Isa_38:3), he therefore gratefully rested in the expectation of such good for his latter days; in which he was also justified by the terms of Isaiah’s prophecy, if not by some more explicit announcement (2Ch_32:26).
The event of the Babylonian embassy, as it appears in our book, must be viewed as subservient to the ends of prophecy. It is told for the sake of the prophecy in Isa_39:5-7. Our Author himself well remarks (at the beginning of the introduction to chapters 36–39), that our chapters “show how ‘from afar’ (מרהוק) was begun the spinning of the first threads of that web of complications, that were at last so fatal.” The event of the embassy was providentially ordered for prophetic purposes. It may be compared to such events as Melchizedec, Esau selling his birth-right, the queen of Sheba’s visit, the birth of Maher-shal-al, the wise men of the east at the crib of Christ, the inquiring Greeks, Joh_12:20-24. The questions of Isaiah, and the replies of Hezekiah as recorded, bring out precisely the traits needed for the prophecy about to be made. The “from a far country” was a providentially indited expression, like that of Caiaphas Joh_11:49, sqq. Previous prophecy, likely familiar to Hezekiah, had made known that a visitation of wrath was coming on Judah “from far” Isa_10:3, Isa_30:27. Now this event strangely brings to Jerusalem and its king representatives of the very people that were to be the instruments of this wrath, and the Prophet appears, and identifies them and their destiny. And from this onward the Babylonians become more distinctly the theme of prophecy. Hezekiah submits, not like one receiving a well merited rebuke, but like Moses when the people were turned back from Kadesh-Barnea. All that the Author says about negotiations looking to alliance between Hezekiah and Babylon, does not pretend to be more than shrewd conjecture. As it does not find one word of corroboration in the Scripture, it would be well to make little or no account of it. Comp. the Author’s conjectures on Isa_7:10-16, and the additions by TR. That follow—TR.]
Footnotes:
[1]Or, spicery.
[2]Or, jewels.
[3]Heb. vessels or, instruments.
[4]chamberlain.
[5] [In his conjectural interpretation of Hezekiah’s conduct and its relation to Isaiah’s prophecy the Author has only built on a foundation dating back to the earliest traditionary exposition. And the building, one must admit, agrees with the foundation. He has only built further than others, but in the same style. Yet, when so much is built, and of such a sort, one is constrained to look at the foundation to see if such a structure is justified. The Author admits that he resorts to conjecture; his confidence is in the natural reasonableness of it. But his work may be challenged down to the very foundation as, not only without warrant in Scripture, but actually against Scripture. See Baehr, on 2 Kings 20 p. 211. And if this appear to be so, then the judgment of expositors against Hezekiah, though it be the judgment of ages, must be reversed.]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. On Isa_36:4 sqq. “Haec proprie est Satanae lingua et sunt non Rabsacis sed ipsissimi Diaboli verba, quibus non muros urbis, sed medullam Ezechiae, hoc est, tenerrimam ejus fidem oppugnat.”—Luther. “In this address the chief-butler, Satan performs in the way he uses when he would bring about our apostacy. 1) He urges that we are divested of all human support, Isa_36:5; Isaiah 2) We are deprived of divine support, Isa_36:7; Isaiah 3) God is angry with us because we have greatly provoked Him by our sins, Isa_36:7; Isaiah 4) He decks out the splendor, and power of the wicked, Isa_36:8-9; Isaiah 5) He appeals to God’s word, and knows how to turn and twist it to his uses. Such poisonous arrows were used by Satan against Christ in the desert, and may be compared with this light (Mat_4:2 sqq.). One needs to arm himself against Satan’s attack by God’s word, and to resort to constant watching and prayer.”—Cramer.
The Assyrian urges four particulars by which he would destroy Hezekiah’s confidence, in two of which he was right and in two wrong. He was right in representing that Hezekiah could rely neither on Egypt, nor on his own power. In this respect he was a messenger of God and announcer of divine truth. For everywhere the word of God preaches the same (Isa_30:1-3; Isa_31:1-3; Jer_17:5; Psa_118:8-9; Psa_146:3, etc.). But it is a merited chastisement if rude and hostile preachers must preach to us what we were unwilling to believe at the mild and friendly voice of God. But in two particulars the Assyrian was wrong, and therein lay Hezekiah’s strength. For just on this account the Lord is for him and against the Assyrian. These two things are, that the Assyrian asserts that Hezekiah cannot put his trust in the Lord, but rather he, the Assyrian is counseled by the Lord against Hezekiah. That, however, was a lie, and because of this lie, the corresponding truth makes all the deeper impression on Hezekiah, and reminds him how assuredly he may build on the Lord and importune Him. And when the enemy dares to say, that he is commissioned by the Lord to destroy the Holy Land, just that must bring to lively remembrance in the Israelite, that the Lord, who cannot lie, calls the land of Israel His land (Joel 4:2; Jer_2:7; Jer_16:18, etc.), and the people of Israel His people (Exo_3:7; Exo_3:10; Exo_5:1, etc.).
2. On Isa_36:12. [“In regard to the indelicacy of this passage we may observe: 1) The Masorets in the Hebrew text have so printed the words used, that in reading it the offensiveness would be considerably avoided. 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. 3) Isaiah is not at all responsible for the indelicacy of the language here. He is simply an historian. 4) 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, insolence and blasphemy; and it was important to state the true character of the transaction, and to record just what was said and done. Let him who used the language, and not him who recorded it bear the blame.”—Barnes in loc.].
3. On Isa_36:18 sqq. “Observandum hic, quod apud gentes olim viguerit πολύθεια adeo, ut quaevis etiam urbs peculiarem habuerit Deum tutelarem. Cujus ethnicismi exemplum vivum et spirans adhuc habemus apud pontificios, quibus non inscite objici potest illud Jeremiae: Quot civitates tibi, tot etiam Dei (Jer_2:28).”—Foerster.
4. On Isa_36:21. Answer not a fool according to his folly (Pro_26:4), much less the blasphemer, lest the flame of his wickedness be blown into the greater rage (Sir_8:3). Did not Christ the Lord answer His enemies, not always with words, but also with silence (Mat_26:62; Mat_27:14, etc.)? One must not cast pearls before swine (Mat_7:6). After Foerster and Cramer.
5. On Isa_36:21. “Est aureus textus, qui docet nos, ne cum Satana disputemus. Quando enim videt, quod sumus ejus spectatores et auditores, tum captat occasionem majoris fortitudinis et gravius premit. Petrus dicit, eum circuire et quaerere, quem devoret. Nullum facit insidiarum finem. Tutissimum autem est non respondere, sed contemnere eum.”—Luther.
6. [On Isa_37:1-7. “Rabshakeh intended to frighten Hezekiah from the Lord, but it proves that he frightens him to the Lord. The wind, instead of forcing the traveler’s coat from him, makes him wrap it the closer about him. The more Rabshakeh reproaches God, the more Hezekiah studies to honor Him.” On Isa_37:3. “When we are most at a plunge we should be most earnest in prayer. When pains are most strong, let prayers be most lively. Prayer is the midwife of mercy, that helps to bring it forth.”—M. Henry, in loc.]
7. On Isa_37:2 sqq. Hezekiah here gives a good example. He shows all princes, rulers and peoples what one ought to do when there is a great and common distress, and tribulation. One ought with sackcloth, i. e., with penitent humility, to bring prayers, and intercessions to the Lord that He would look on and help.
8. On Isa_37:6 sq. “God takes to Himself all the evil done to His people. For as when one does a great kindness to the saints, God appropriates it to Himself, so, too, when one torments the saints, it is an injury done to God, and He treats sin no other way than as if done to Himself. He that torments them torments Him (Isa_64:9). Therefore the saints pray: ‘Arise, O God, plead thine own cause: remember how the foolish man reproacheth thee daily’ (Psa_74:22).”—Cramer.
9. On Isa_37:7. “God raises up against His enemies other enemies, and thus prepares rest for His own people. Example: the Philistines against Saul who pursued David, 1Sa_23:27.”—Cramer.
10. On Isa_37:14. Vitringa here cites the following from Bonfin Rerum Hungar. Dec. III. Lib. VI. p. 464, ad annum Isaiah 1444: “Amorathes, cum suos laborare cerneret et ab Vladislao rege non sine magna caede fugari, depromtum e sinu codicem initi sanctissime foederis explicat intentis in coelum oculis. Haec sunt, inquit ingeminans, Jesu Christe, foedera, quae Christiani tui mecum percussere. Per numen tuum sanctum jurarunt, datamque sub nomine tuo fidem violarunt, perfide suum Deum abnegarunt. Nunc Christe, si Deus es (ut ajunt et nos hallucinamur), tuas measque hic injurias, te quaeso, ulciscere et his, qui sanctum tuum nomen nondum agnovere, violatae fidei poenas ostende. Vix haec dixerat .… cum proelium, quod anceps ac dubium diu fuerat, inclinare coepit, etc.”
[The desire of Hezekiah was not primarily his own personal safety, or the safety of his kingdom. It was that Jehovah might vindicate His great and holy name from reproach, and that the world might know that He was the only true God. We have here a beautiful model of the object which we should have in view when we come before God. This motive of prayer is one that is with great frequency presented in the Bible. Comp. Isa_42:8; Isa_43:10; Isa_43:13; Isa_43:25; Deu_32:39; Psa_83:18; Psa_46:10; Neh_9:6; Dan_9:18-19. Perhaps there could have been furnished no more striking proof that Jehovah was the true God, than would be by the defeat of Sennacherib. The time had come when the great Jehovah could strike a blow which would be felt on all nations, and carry the terror of His name, and the report of His power throughout the earth. Perhaps this was one of the main motives of the destruction of that mighty army.”—Barnes, on Isa_37:2].
11. On Isa_37:15. “Fides Ezechiae verba confirmata magis ac magis crescit. Ante non ausus est orare, jam orat et confutat blasphemias omnes Assyrii. Adeo magna vis verbi est, ut longe alius per verbum, quod Jesajas ei nunciari jussit, factus sit.”—Luther.
12. On Isa_37:17. [“It is bad to talk proudly and profanely, but it is worse to write so, for this argues more deliberation and design, and what is written spreads further and lasts longer, and does the more mischief. Atheism and irreligion, written, will certainly be reckoned for another day.”—M. Henry].
13. On Isa_37:21 sqq. [“Those who receive messages of terror from men with patience, and send messages of faith to God by prayer, may expect messages of grace and peace from God for their comfort, even when they are most cast down. Isaiah sent a long answer to Hezekiah’s prayer in God’s name, sent it in writing (for it was too long to be sent by word of mouth), and sent it by way of return to his prayer, relation being thereunto had: ‘Whereas thou hast prayed to me, know, for thy comfort, that thy prayer is heard.’ Isaiah might have referred him to the prophecies he had delivered (particularly to that of chap. 10), and bid him pick out an answer from thence. The correspondence between earth and heaven is never let fall on God’s side.”—M. Henry.].
14. On Isa_37:31 sqq. “This is a promise of great extent. For it applies not only to those that then remained, and were spared the impending destruction and captivity by the Assyrians, but to all subsequent times, when they should enjoy a deliverance; as after the Babylonish captivity, and after the persecutions of Antiochus. Yea, it applies even to New Testament times from the first to the last, since therein, in the order of conversion to Christ, the Jews will take root and bring forth fruit, and thus in the Jews (as also in the converted Gentiles) will appear in a spiritual and corporal sense, what God at that time did to their fields in the three following years.”—Starke.
15. On Isa_38:1. “Isaiah, although of a noble race and condition, does not for that regard it disgraceful, but rather an honor, to be a pastor and visitor of the sick, I would say, a prophet, teacher and comforter of the sick. God save the mark! How has the world become so different in our day, especially in our evangelical church Let a family be a little noble, and it is regarded as a reproach and injury to have a clergyman among its relations and friends, not to speak of a son studying theology and becoming a servant of the church. I speak not of all; I know that some have a better mind; yet such is the common course. Jeroboam’s maxim must rather obtain, who made priests of the lowest of the people (1Ki_12:31). For thus the parsons may be firmly held in rein (sub ferula) and in political submission. It is not at all good where the clergy have a say, says an old state-rule of our Politicorum.” Feuerlein, pastor in Nuremberg, in his Novissimorum primum, 1694, p. 553. The same quotes Spener: “Is it not so, that among the Roman Catholics the greatest lords are not ashamed to stand in the spiritual office, and that many of them even discharge the spiritual functions? Among the Reformed, too, persons born of the noblest families are not ashamed of the office of preacher. But, it seems, we Lutherans are the only ones that hold the service of the gospel so low, that, where from a noble or otherwise prominent family an ingenium has an inclination to theological study, almost every one seeks to hinder him, or, indeed, afterwards is ashamed of his friendship, as if it were something much too base for such people, by which more harm comes to our church than one might suppose. That is to be ashamed of the gospel.”
16. On Isa_38:1. [“We see here the boldness and fidelity of a man of God. Isaiah was not afraid to go in freely and tell even a monarch that he must die. The subsequent part of the narrative would lead us to suppose that, until this announcement, Hezekiah did not regard himself as in immediate danger. It is evident here, that the physician of Hezekiah had not informed him of it—perhaps from the apprehension that his disease would be aggravated by the agitation of his mind on the subject. The duty was, therefore, left, as it is often, to the minister of religion—a duty which even many ministers are slow to perform, and which many physicians are reluctant to have performed.
No danger is to be apprehended commonly from announcing to those who are sick their true condition. Physicians and friends often err in this. There is no species of cruelty greater than to suffer a friend to lie on a dying bed under a delusion. There is no sin more aggravated than that of designedly deceiving a dying man, and flattering him with the hope of recovery, when there is a moral certainty that he will not and cannot recover. And there is evidently no danger to be apprehended from communicating to the sick their true condition. It should be done tenderly and with affection; but it should be done faithfully. I have had many opportunities of witnessing the effect of apprising the sick of their situation, and of the moral certainty that they must die. And I cannot now recall an instance in which the announcement has had any unhappy effect on the disease. Often, on the contrary, the effect is to calm the mind, and to lead the dying to look up to God, and peacefully to repose on Him. And the effect of that is always salutary.” Barnes in loc.]
17. On Isa_38:2. It is an old opinion, found even in the Chald., that by the wall is meant the wall of the temple as a holy direction in which to pray, as the Mahometans pray in the direction of Mecca. But הקיר cannot mean that. Rather that is correct which is said by Forerius: “Nolunt pii homines testes habere suarum lacrymarum, ut eas liberius fundant, neque sensu distrahi, cum orare Deum ex animo volunt.”
18. On Isa_38:8 :—
Non Deus est numen Parcarum carcere clausum.
Quale putabatur Stoicus esse Deus.
Ille potest Solis cursus inhibere volantes,
At veluti scopulos flumina stare facit.”
—Melanchthon.
19. On Isa_38:12. “Beautiful parables that picture to us the transitoriness of this temporal life. For the parable of the shepherd’s tent means how restless a thing it is with us, that we have here no abiding place, but are driven from one locality to another, until at last we find a resting-spot in the church-yard. The other parable of the weaver’s thread means how uncertain is our life on earth. For how easily the thread breaks.” Cramer. “When the weaver’s work is progressing best, the thread breaks before he is aware. Thus when a man is in his best work, and supposes he now at last begins really to live, God breaks the thread of his life and lets him die. The rational heathen knew something of this when they, so to speak, invented the three goddesses of life (the three Parcas minime parcas) and included them in this little verse:
Clotho colum gestat, Lachesis trahit,
Atropos occat
But what does the weaver when the thread breaks? Does he stop his work at once? O no! He knows how to make a clever weaver’s knot, so that one cannot observe the break. Remember thereby that when thy life is broken off, yet the Lord Jesus, as a master artisan, can bring it together again at the last day. He will make such an artful, subtle weaver’s-knot as shall make us wonder through all eternity. It will do us no harm to have died.” Ibid.—Omnia sunt hominum tenui pendentia filo.
[“As suddenly as the tent of a shepherd is taken down, folded up, and transferred to another place. There is doubtless the idea here that he would continue to exist, but in another place, as the shepherd would pitch his tent in another place. He was to be cut off from the earth, but he expected to dwell among the dead. The whole passage conveys the idea that he expected to dwell in another state.” Barnes in loc.].
20. On Isa_38:17. [“Note 1) When God pardons sin, He casts it behind His back as not designing to look upon it with an eye of justice and jealousy. He remembers it no more, to visit for it. The pardon does not make the sin not to have been, or not to have been sin, but not to be punished as it deserves. When we cast our sins behind our back, and take no care to repent of them, God sets them before His face, and is ready to reckon for them; but when we set them before our face in true repentance, as David did when his sin was ever before him, God casts them behind His back. 2) When God pardons sin, He pardons all, casts them all behind His back, though they have been as scarlet and crimson. 3) The pardoning of sin is the delivering the soul from the pit of corruption. 4) It is pleasant indeed to think of our recoveries from sickness when we see them flowing from the remission of sin; then the cause is removed, and then it is in love to the soul.” M. Henry in loc.]
21. On Isa_38:18. [Cannot hope for thy truth. “They are shut out from all the means by which Thy truth is brought to mind, and the offers of salvation are presented. Their probation is at an end; their privileges are closed; their destiny is sealed up. The idea is, it is a privilege to live because this is a world where the offers of salvation are made, and where those who are conscious of guilt may hope in the mercy of God.” Barnes in loc.] God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2Pe_3:9). Such is the New Testament sense of these Old Testament words. For though Hezekiah has primarily in mind the preferableness of life in the earthly body to the life in Hades, yet this whole manner of representation passes away with Hades itself. But Hezekiah’s words still remain true so far as they apply to heaven and hell. For of course in hell, the place of the damned, one does not praise God. But those that live praise Him. These, however, are in heaven. Since then God wills rather that men praise Him than not praise Him, so He is not willing that men should perish, but that all should turn to repentance and live.
22. On Isa_39:2. “Primo (Deus) per obsidionem et bellum, deinde per gravem morbum Ezechiam servaverat, ne in praesumtionem laberetur. Nondum tamen vinci potuit antiquus serpens, sed redit et levat caput suum. Adeo non possumus consistere, nisi Deos nos affligat. Vides igitur hic, quis sit afflictionum usus, ut mortificent scilicet carnem, quae non potest res ferre secundas.” Luther.
23. On Isa_39:7. “God also punishes the misdeeds of the parents on the children (Exo_20:5) because the children not only follow the misdeeds of their parents, but they also increase and heap them up, as is seen in the posterity of Hezekiah, viz.: Manasseh and Amon.”—Cramer.
HOMILETICAL HINTS
[The reader is referred to the ample hints covering the same matter to be found in the volume on 2 Kings 18-20. It is expedient to take advantage of that for the sake of keeping the present volume within reasonable bounds. Therefore but a minimum is here given of what the Author offers, much of which indeed is but the repetition in another form of matter already given.—Tr.]
1. On Isa_37:36. “1) The scorn and mockery of the visible world. 2) The scorn and mockery of the unseen world.” Sermon of Domprediger Zahn in Halle, 1870.
2. On the entire 38. chapter, beside the 22 sermons in FEUERLEIN’S Novissimorum primum, there is a great number of homiletical elaborations of an early date; Walther Magirus, Idea mortis et vitae in two parts, the second of which contains 20 penitential and consolatory sermons on Isaiah 38. Danzig, 1640 and 1642. Daniel Schaller (Stendal) 4 sermons on the sick Hezekiah, on Isaiah 38. Magdeburg, 1611. Peter Siegmund Pape in “Gott geheilighte Wochenpredigten,” Berlin, 1701, 4 sermons. Jacob Tichlerus (Elburg) Hiskiae Aufrichtigkeit bewiesen in Gesundheit, Krankheit und Genesung, 18 sermons on Isaiah 38. (Dutch), Campen, 1636. These are only the principal ones.
3. On Isa_38:1. “I will set my house in order. This, indeed, will not be hard for me to do. My debt account is crossed out; my best possession I take along with me; my children I commit to the great Father of orphans, to whom heaven and earth belongs, and my soul to the Lord, who has sued for it longer than a human age, and bought it with His blood. Thus I am eased and ready for the journey.” Tholuck, Stunden der Andacht, p. 620.
4. On Isa_38:1. “Now thou shouldest know that our word ‘order his house’ has a very broad meaning. It comprehends reconciliation to God by faith, the final confession of sin, the last Lord’s Supper, the humble committing of the soul to the grace of the Lord, and to death and the grave in the hope of the resurrection. In one word: There is an ordering of the house above. In reliance on the precious merit of my Saviour, I order my house above in which I wish to dwell. Moreover taking leave of loved ones, and the blessing of them belongs to ordering the house. And finally order must be taken concerning the guardianship of children, the abiding of the widow, and the friend on whom she must especially lean in her loneliness, also concerning earthly bequests.” Ahlfeld, Das Leben im Lichte des Wortes Gottes, Halle, 1867, p. 522.
5. On Isa_38:2-8. This account has much that seems strange to us Christians, but much, too, that quite corresponds to our Christian consciousness. Let us contemplate the difference between an Old Testament, and a New Testament suppliant, by noticing the differences and the resemblances. I. The resemblances. 1) Distress and grief there are in the Old, as in the New Testament (Isa_38:3). 2) Ready and willing to help beyond our prayers or comprehension (Isa_38:5-6) is the Lord in the Old as in the New Testament. II. The differences. 1) The Old Testament suppliant appealed to his having done nothing bad (Isa_38:3). The New Testament suppliant says: “God be merciful to me a sinner,” and “Give me through grace for Christ’s sake what it pleases Thee to give me.” 2) The Old Testament suppliant demands a sign (Isa_38:7-8; comp. Isa_38:22); the New Testament suppliant requires no sign but that of the crucified Son of man, for He knows that to those who bear this sign is given the promise of the hearing of all their prayers (Joh_16:23). 3) In Hezekiah’s case, the prayer of the Old Testament suppliant is indeed heard (Isa_38:5), yet in general it has not the certainty of being heard, whereas the New Testament suppliant has this certainty.
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv2–8 glad--It was not the mere act, but the spirit…
glad--It was not the mere act, but the spirit of it, which provoked God (Ch2 32:25), "Hezekiah rendered not again according to the benefit done unto him, for his heart was lifted up"; also compare Ch2 32:31. God "tries" His people at different times by different ways, bringing out "all that is in their heart," to show them its varied corruptions. Compare David in a similar case (Ch1 21:1-8).
precious things--rather, "the house of his (aromatic) spices"; from a Hebrew root, to "break to pieces," as is done to aromatics.
Read full note →
silver . . . gold--partly obtained from the Assyrian camp (Isa 33:4); partly from presents (Ch2 32:23, Ch2 32:27-29).
precious ointment--used for anointing kings and priests.
armour--or else vessels in general; the parallel passage (Ch2 32:27), "treasuries . . . for shields," favors English Version. His arsenal.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 1. At that time — Soon after the recovery…
BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY THREATENED.
1. At that time — Soon after the recovery of Hezekiah; for Merodach-baladan, governor or king of Babylon, had heard that Hezekiah had been sick and was now recovered. Much difficulty exists as to the time of this message. The most natural meaning of the biblical account of the time, is, that it was a short time after the complete rout of Sennacherib’s army. The invasion of Sennacherib was in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah’s reign. Isa_36:1. The expression, “at that time,” therefore, as the Scriptural account runs, means probably but a few years after the destruction of the Assyrian army, and but a few years before the end of Hezekiah’s reign, which was about 698 B.C., a sufficient time at least for the replenishment of his treasures, (2Ch_32:23,) with which he had before purchased peace of Sennacherib in his first invasion. 2Ki_18:15-16. This view of chronology is, according to Josephus and Jerome, and the fragments of Berosus in Eusebius’s Chronicle, so far as that chronicle relates to the case of Merodach-baladan. The name of Merodach-baladan is located by both the Assyrian Inscriptions and the Canon of Ptolemy between 721 and 709 B.C.; and Polyhistor gives him a short reign as king of Babylon, in 702 B.C. (See Dictionary of the Bible.) These authorities all concur with the biblical indefinite date at that time, and make the period of Hezekiah’s sickness to come easily after the Assyrian army had departed. Rawlinson’s dates (Monarchies, vol. ii) are against this by many years, but the conclusion results from insufficient determinations in respect to the history as yet furnished in the Inscriptions.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 1. Merodach-baladan, the son of Baladan] The form “Berodach”…
1. Merodach-baladan, the son of Baladan] The form “Berodach” in 2Ki_20:12 is less correct. Marduk-habal-iddina is described in the monuments as “son of Yakin”; but this is no reason for doubting the identity of the person. The latter is probably his dynastic title.
letters] a letter, as ch. Isa_37:14. LXX. adds καὶ πρέσβεις i.e. “ambassadors,” whose presence is assumed in the next verse.
Read full note →
for he had heard] So in 2Ki_20:12 correctly. The text here reads strictly “and he heard.” The motive here specified was merely a pretext to veil the real political object of the mission. This appears clearly enough in what follows. According to 2Ch_32:31 the embassy was prompted by scientific curiosity with regard to the miracle of the sun-dial.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 (1) Merodach-baladan.—The name is conspicuous in the Assyrian inscriptions…
XXXIX.
(1) Merodach-baladan.—The name is conspicuous in the Assyrian inscriptions of Sargon (Records of the Past, ix. 13), as having rebelled against him and set up an independent monarchy. He is described in them as son of Yakin, but this is, probably, a dynastic appellative, just as Jehu is described in the Assyrian records (Records of the Past, v. 41) as “the son of Khumri” (i.e., Omri). The mission had two ostensible objects: (1) congratulation on Hezekiah’s recovery; (2) to inquire and report as to the phenomenon of the sun-dial (2Ch_32:31). Really, we may believe the object of Merôdach-baladan was to open negotiations for an alliance with Judah. The “present,” interpreted after the manner of the East, would seem almost like an acknowledgment of Hezekiah’s hegemony, or even suzerainty, in such a confederacy.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1–8 This chapter is parallel with 2Ki_20:12-19, and scarcely differs…
This chapter is parallel with 2Ki_20:12-19, and scarcely differs from it at all. Ver. 1 has the additional words, "and was recovered;" ver. 2, the phrase, "was glad of them," for "hearkened unto them;" ver. 5, "Lord of hosts," for "Lord" simply; and ver. 8 makes Hezekiah"s last utterance an observation instead of a question. Otherwise the two accounts are almost word for word the same. Both relate the novel and important fact of ambassadors being sent to Hezekiah by the King of Babylon, shortly after his illness, and tell of the reception which he gave them, of the message which Isaiah was commissioned to deliver to him from God in consequence, and of Hezekiah"s acquiescence in the terms of the message when it was conveyed to him. The Isaianic authorship of the chapter is much disputed, but solely from reluctance to admit that a prophet could predict the subjugation of Judaea by Babylon more than a century before the event.
At that time. (comp. 2Ch_32:31, where it appears that a part of the business of the ambassadors was to inquire concerning the astronomical marvel which had recently occurred in the land) The embassy probably followed the illness of Hezekiah within a year. Merodach-Baladan. This is a more correct form than the "Berodach-Baladan" of 2Ki_20:12. The name is one common to several Babylonian kings, as to one who reigned about B.C. 1325, to a second who is placed about B.C. 900, and to a third who was contemporary with the Assyrian kings Sargon and Sennacherib. It is this last of whom we have a notice in the present passage. He appears first in the Assyrian inscriptions as a petty prince, ruling a small tract upon the seacoast, about the mouths of the Tigris and Euphrates. Tiglath-Pileser takes tribute front him about B.C. 744. In B.C. 721 we find him advanced to a more prominent position. Taking advantage of the troubles of the time, he shakes off the Assyrians yoke, and makes himself King of Babylon, where he has a reign of twelve years from B.C. 721 to B.C. 709. This reign is recognized by Sargon in his inscriptions ("Records of the Past," vol. 9. p. 14), and by the Greek chronologist, Ptolemy, in his "Canon." In B.C. 709 Sargon leads an expedition against him, and drives him out of Babylonia into the coast-tract, Chaldea, where he besieges him in his ancestral town Bit-Yakin, takes the city, and makes him prisoner (ibid., p. 15). On the death of Sargon, in B.C. 705, Merodach-Baladan escapes from confinement, and hastens once more to Babylon, where he is acknowledged as king, and has a second reign, which lasts six months (Alex. Polyhist. ap. Euseb., "Chronicles Can.," 1. 5. He is then driven from the country by Sennacherib, and, after various vicissitudes, obliged to become a refugee in Elam (G. Smith, "Hist. of Babylonia," pp. 125-128). The name of Merodach-Baladau is composed of the three elements, Merodach (equivalent to "Mar-duk"), the god, bal or pal, "son," and iddina, "has given," and thus signifies "Merodach has given (me) a son." The son of Baladan. "Baladan" is scarcely a possible Babylonian name. "Beladan" would, however, be quite possible, being a name formed on the model of Ishtardddin ("Eponym Canon," p. 30), Ninip-iddin (p. 35), Ilu-iddin (p. 57), etc. And the corruption of Beladan into Baladan would be easy. Merodach-Baladan III is called by Sargon "the son of Yakin;" but this is perhaps a tribal or local rather than a personal name. Compare Jehu"s appellation of "son of Omri" (ibid., p. 114). Sent letters and a present to Hezekiah. Hezekiah"s fourteenth year was B.C. 714. Merodach-Baladan had then been King of Babylon for eight years, and, knowing that he might at any time be attacked by Sargon, was naturally looking out for alliances with other powers, which Assyria equally threatened. He had recently concluded a treaty with Khumbanigas, King of Elam ("Records of the Past," vol. 9. p. 14), and had obtained the support of several of the Aramaean tribes on the Euphrates. He now apparently thought that Judaea, which Sargon was also threatening, (Isa_38:6) might be induced to join him. Hezekiah"s illness and "the wonder done in the land" (2Ch_32:31) furnished him with pretexts for an embassy, which probably had more serious objects than either congratulation or scientific inquiry.
Read full note →
HOMILIES BY E. JOHNSON Vers. 1-8. The dangers of prosperity.
I THE OSTENTATION OF HEZEKIAH. The Chronicler passes a censure upon him. After his recovery he "rendered not again according to the benefit done unto him; for his heart was lifted up: therefore was there wrath upon him, and upon Judah and Jerusalem". (2Ch_32:25) He gives a picture of his treasuries, and store-houses, his cities, his flocks and herds. An embassy comes from Babylon, partly to congratulate him on his recovery, partly to inquire concerning the portent of the sun-dial or step-clock. Under these pretexts political views were doubtless concealed. And Hezekiah delighted to receive the embassy, and displayed to them the whole of his treasures and the resources of his armoury, his palaces and his kingdom.
II THE REBUKE OF THE PROPHET. The prophet, in virtue of his Divine call and his insight into the heart of things, assumes an authority over the monarch, and, coming to him, inquires, "What have these men said? and whence came they to thee?" "He challenges the king to explain his conduct. Jehovah"s will is opposed to all coquetting with foreign powers." It is "weaving a web without his Spirit". (Isa_30:1) The answer of the king is indirect, perhaps evasive: "They have come from a far country, from Babylon as if hinting that hospitality to them was a duty. A second stem question follows: "What have they seen in the house of the king?" And the king replies that he has shown them all his treasures. There is that in the very manner and questions of the prophet which implies censure. What he sees in the act of the king is an uplifting of the heart; not merely pride in his resources and wealth as such, but reliance on worldly resources a desire to match himself with the great Eastern power on its own ground. And this is an affront to the Divine King in Zion, who had founded it that the afflicted of his people might find refuge therein. (Isa_14:32) "Not by might nor by power, but by the Spirit of the Lord of hosts" is ever the word, the principle, on which the kingdom must stand. If Hezekiah has violated this, there must be retribution, either in his person or in the persons of those he represents.
III THE PUNISHMENT. It was to correspond to his sin. "He thought to subscribe his quota to a profane coalition, and his treasures should be violently laid hold of by wolves in sheep"s clothing." Babylon had solicited friendship; she would end by enforcing slavery. Calm and dispassionate is the tone in which the prophet speaks. Charles the Great could not help weeping at the sight of the Northmen"s vessels, thinking of the calamities which those fell pirates would bring on the flourishing coasts of the Franks. Jeremiah weeps at the thought of the cruelty of the Babylonians. In Isaiah contentment with the patent will of God overcomes his emotional susceptibility. All the boasted treasures of the king are to be carried away to Babylon, and his descendants are to become servants in the palace there. The king bows before the authority of the prophet, recognizing his word as the word of Jehovah, and as good. And further, he is thankful for the respite granted for the promise that peace and steadfastness shall remain in his days. The chronicler says that he humbled himself for the pride of his heart, both he and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the wrath of Jehovah came not upon them in the days of Hezekiah. The picture of Hezekiah is that of a king who prospered in all his works. But the incident clearly teaches the danger prosperity brings to character and principle. It is but a "bad nurse to virtue; a nurse who is like to starve it in its infancy, and to spoil it in its growth." "The corrupt affection which has lain dead and frozen in the midst of distracting business or under adversity, when the sun of prosperity has shined upon it, then, like a snake, it presently recovers its former strength and venom. When the channels of plenty run high, and every appetite is plied with abundance and variety, so that satisfaction is a mean word to express its enjoyment, then the inbred corruption of the heart shows itself pampered and insolent, too unruly for discipline and too big for correction. Prosperity, by fomenting a man"s pride, lays a certain train for his ruin; Scripture and experience teach what a spite Providence constantly owes to the proud person. He is the very eyesore of Heaven; and God even looks upon his own supremacy as concerned to abase him. Prosperity attracts the malice and envy of the world; and it is impossible for a man in a wealthy and flourishing condition not to feel the stroke of men"s tongues, and of their hands too, if occasion serves. Stones are only thrown at the fruit-laden tree. What made the King of Babylon invade Judaea but the royal stores and treasures displayed and boasted of by Hezekiah before the ambassadors, to the supplanting of his crown and the miserable captivity of his prosperity?" (South). In the day of prosperity consider! Let "Consideration like an angel come, And whip th" offending Adam out of us. J.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON Vers. 1-8. Complacency, rebuke, and acquiescence.
We may gather the preliminary truth that we need to look well before we decide on the character of Divine decisions and of human actions. Otherwise we shall certainly fall into serious mistakes.
1. It would be a mistake to assume that the calamities here foretold were consequent on Hezekiah"s fault. So, at first sight, they might appear to be; but we may be quite sure that they were not. For in other places these national disasters are referred, not to one individual delinquency, but to national apostasy and disobedience. It was simply that the pride of the king provided a suitable occasion for intimating the sad humiliations which were in store for his descendants; just as the complacent remark of the disciples called forth the prediction that those great stones of the temple, in which they so much rejoiced, would before long be cast down to the ground. (Mar_13:1, 2) We need not, as indeed. we cannot, suppose that God would visit on a remote generation a terrible calamity in punishment of one comparatively small transgression.
2. It would be a mistake to suppose that Hezekiah was indifferent to the fate of his posterity so long as he and his contemporaries were secure (ver. 8). So selfish a spirit is inconceivable in so good a man. We have, of course, only a small part of his reply to the prophet; but we may assure ourselves that he meant nothing more than to signify his thankfulness that the judgments of God were to be mitigated by mercy toward himself and his people. The incident may speak to us of
I THE PERIL OF COMPLACENCY. It seems that, after his recovery from sickness, gratitude was lost in self-gratulation. Then came the ostentation which met with the Divine reproof. Complacency is a very "slippery place" for our foot to tread. Only the steadiest can walk there without a stumble. Whatever may seem to justify it even if it be successful philanthropy, religious service, or delightful devotion it is a perilous place, in which it is easy to err and almost impossible to keep quite straight with God. Our occupancy of it should be but momentary; gratitude is much safer as well as much more acceptable to God.
II THE DIVINE REBUKE. God reproved Hezekiah for his foolish ostentation. This is a sin which is no less offensive to him than it is distasteful to us. We can all see and do all feel how very unbecoming is pride in man. For:
1. We have nothing at all which we have not ultimately received from God.
2. Whatever we possess, whether of strength, beauty, faculty, honour, riches, etc., it is all so much more than we deserve.
3. At any moment we may be required to lay it down. Of the house of our power and our possession we are but "tenants-at-will." Who can tell that God may not be about to say to us, "This night" thou goest forth?
III HUMAN ACQUIESCENCE. Good is the word of the Lord." God"s rebuke may be met with
(1) a sullen, rebellious resentment; (Gen_4:9)
(2) or with a stony and sinful indifference; when he humbles men in his providence, and they take no note at all of the humiliation he sends them, but continue in ungodliness;
(3) or with an ignorant astonishment; when men know not their own spiritual poverty and blindness; (Rev_3:17)
(4) or with a wise and reverent acquiescence (text); then God is pleased with us, and we rise to higher ground in our Christian pilgrimage. C.
HOMILIES BY R. TUCK Ver. 1. Friendship that serves its own ends.
A kind of friendship only too common. Illustrated in the motto of a successful Birmingham tradesman, "Friendly with all, thick with none? Which in full means, "Friendly with all, that I may get all! can out of everybody; thick with none, lest anybody should get anything out of me." This is surely the meanest of mottoes ever set for the toning of a life. But Merodach-Baladan"s offered friendship with Hezekiah was much of the same kind. The only question with him was, what advantage he could gain for himself by it. And there is no possibility of noble friendship until we can forget self, and say, "What can this friendship be to my friend?" The historical facts of special importance to us are these: The family of Merodach-Baladan ruled in Southern Babylonia, on the shores of the Persian Gulf. The district of the marsh-land of the delta formed, for a period of many centuries, the place of refuge for fugitive rebels from Assyria. While the Assyrian armies were engaged in the siege of Samaria, Merodach-Baladan seized the Babylonian throne, and naturally tried to support his position by securing alliances with distant nations, especially such as were tributary to Assyria. A good excuse was found in the case of Hezekiah, in the report of his serious sickness. In our day the illness of a sovereign is the occasion for sending all sorts of telegrams and embassies.
I OFFERED FRIENDSHIP MAY FIND GOOD EXCUSES, True in common life of the individual; specially true in the relation of nations. Diplomacy is the art of working out a policy under the shelter of the deception of skilful excuses. It seems to mean a very simple thing; it really works a very subtle work. Baladan had two excuses.
1. His messengers honoured Hezekiah with congratulations on his recovery. A polite thing, quite likely to disarm all suspicions, and win confidence.
2. From 2Ch_32:31 we learn that Baladan also framed a scientific excuse, and desired his ambassadors to inquire concerning the singular astronomical phenomenon which had been reported. All this kept out of sight Baladan"s political schemings.
II OFFERED FRIENDSHIP MUST BE JUDGED BY THE CHARACTER OF THOSE WHO MAKE THE OFFER. It was at least suspicious that Baladan was acting as a rebel against his sovereign lord. Hezekiah might have looked for some schemes of his own in this embassy. Friendship is always the expression of character and the test of character. The friendship of one who is unprincipled is full of peril. "Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.
III OFFERED FRIENDSHIP MAY PROPOSE MORE THAN IT CAN ACCOMPLISH. So we should distinguish between friendship that is self-seeking and friendship that is weakly gushing, yet sincere. Our friends, in their love, often promise more than they can perform; and we must learn to take the will for the deed, giving credit for good intentions. God never disappoints.
IV OFFERED FRIENDSHIP MAY HIDE POSITIVELY MALICIOUS DESIGNS. This will lead to references to the offered friendship of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the utter baseness and iniquity of Judas in coming to Jesus as a friend on the night of betrayal. R.T.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 Merodach-baladan, the son of Baladan, King of Babylon, sent…
Isa_39:1-8
Merodach-baladan, the son of Baladan, King of Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah
Read full note →
Merodach-baladan
Marduk-apal-iddina, son of Yakin, is the Chaldean ruler who more than any other vassal embittered the life of the Assyrian suzerain, because as a rival suzerain he was always renouncing obedience to one whom he felt to be a disgrace to the ancient renown of his country.
Lenormant, in his Anfangen der Cultur, has devoted a beautiful essay to him under the title, A Babylonian Patriot of the Eighth Century B.C. The chief matter told about him by the monuments is this: In the year 731 he did homage at Sapiya to the Assyrian ruler Tiglath-pileser IV. In Sargons first year (721) he, who was properly king of South Babylonia only, brought also North Chaldea into the range of his rule; war ensued, but although beaten, he still maintained himself on the throne, and from that time count the twelve years given to him by the Ptolemaic canon as king of Babylon. In Sargons twelfth year (710) he shook off the Assyrian yoke; only a year afterwards (709) Sargon succeeded in capturing and burning to ashes the fort Dur-Yakin, into which he had thrown himself; he himself, being required to surrender unconditionally, vanished. (F. Delitzsch, D. D.)
Marduk-apal-iddina
The name means: Marduk (written also Maruduk) has given a son. (F. Delitzsch, D. D.)
The embassy to Hezekiah
The embassy to Hezekiah was in all probability one of those undertaken by Merodach-Baladan for the purpose of providing himself with allies. Inasmuch now as there was at this time in Judah a party straining its utmost to combine all elements antagonistic to Assyria, there is nothing unreasonable in supposing that some understanding was arrived at between the ambassadors from Babylon and Judah. Upon this view of the circumstances of the occasion, Hezekiahs motive in displaying his treasures will have been to satisfy the embassy that he had resources at his disposal; and Isaiahs rebuke gains in significance and force. (Prof. S. R. Driver, D. D.)
Hezekiah and the embassy from Babylon
I. AFFLICTION OF BODY AND SORROW OF MIND ARE PRONE TO BE FORGOTTEN AND UNIMPROVED BY THOSE WHO HAVE EXPERIENCED THEM 2Ch_32:25). The historian says of Hezekiah, that his heart was lifted up. The very deliverances which God wrought for him worked upon his vanity--the special mercies he had received elated his mind. What are we without grace?
II. HEZEKIAH AT THIS TIME WAS ASSAILED BY PECULIAR TEMPTATIONS TO VANITY AND AMBITION (2Ch_32:31)
III. HEZEKIAH PRESENTS AN INSTANCE OF STRANGE FORGETFULNESS OF DUTY TO OTHERS BY NOT IMPARTING TO THEM RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE.
IV. HEZEKIAH WAS CONVINCED OF HIS SIN BY THE SPECIAL MESSAGE SENT TO HIM BY GOD THROUGH THE PROPHET.
V. ALMIGHTY GOD, IN THE MIDST OF ALL HUMAN AFFAIRS AND DESPITE THE CONDUCT OF INDIVIDUALS, IS CARRYING OUT HIS OWN INFINITE COUNSELS OF WISDOM AND OF LOVE. (D. K. Shoebotham.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On vv1, 4, 8 Isa_39:1-2. At that time Merodach-baladan, &c.
HEZEKIAH’S STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS
Isa_39:1-2. At that time Merodach-baladan, &c.
Read full note →
A study of the character of Hezekiah is profoundly instructive. The sacred writers impartially present him to us in his strength and in his weakness.
I. HEZEKIAH IN HIS STRENGTH.
He was in the full sense of the word a good king (2Ki_18:3; 2Ki_18:5). He was conspicuous—
1. For his religious zeal. Though, politically, it was a hazardous thing to do, he utterly abolished idolatry in his kingdom.
2. For his religious wisdom (2Ki_18:4) [1267]
3. For his strong faith. This was shown especially in his conduct in the matter of the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib. When we consider these things, we may well understand the high praise given to Hezekiah; certainly there were few kings like him; perhaps none who exhibited a ripeness of religious knowledge and a strength of character so remarkably superior to the times in which he lived.
[1267] Amongst other idolatrous forms of worship which he destroyed, he broke in pieces the brazen serpent which Moses had made in the wilderness (2Ki_18:4). Many men would have been ready to destroy all the heathen forms of idolatry; they would have made no peace with Baal, or Dagon, or any other gods of the nations, but they would have hesitated to destroy a relic of the life of Israel in the wilderness; they would have thought it sacrilegious to break up an image which Moses himself had made, and they would have reasoned that the religious feelings of the people were so entwined about this memorial of their early days, that it would do more harm than good to violate their feelings, and take away that which excited in their minds religious thoughts. If a king of Judah had so argued, it would not have been right to confound him with the mere rabble of idolaters. If Hezekiah had destroyed all other forms of idolatry and left this remaining, we could easily have found an excuse for his conduct; but forasmuch as he took a higher view of his duty, we are bound to give him credit for that higher view, and to remark his spiritual discernment. Hezekiah was not deceived by any flimsy arguments about the sacred nature of the relic which the people adored; it was a cause of idolatry, that was enough. It had been sacred once. In the wilderness, when it was held up as an object upon which the people might gaze, it would have been a sacrilege to mutilate it; but now it was but “a piece of brass,” and if that piece of brass be the centre of a system of idolatry, there is but one safe course, and that is to destroy it.—Goodwin.
II. HEZEKIAH IN HIS WEAKNESS.
The weakness of his character was displayed—
1. When the king of Babylon sent messengers and a present to him to congratulate him on his recovery from his illness. Then he must needs take them over his house and his armoury, and parade before them all the strength of his dominions (2Ki_20:12-13). It was natural and right that he should be pleased with the conduct of the king of Babylon; it was gratifying to him personally; it augured well for the future, as concerning his kingdom, that he should be on good terms with the king of Babylon, now rising into power; but it was unworthy of him to lose his self-possession in the manner described.
(1.) He was evidently overcome for the nonce by silly feelings of vanity. He seems to have thought that inasmuch as the king of Babylon had considered him worthy of the compliment of sending to him, he on his part must show that he was indeed a very magnificent king, as the king of Babylon had no doubt heard that he was.
(2.) His vanity caused him to forget how little service his armoury and his treasures had been to him in the hour of peril (H. E. I. 3998, 4000, 4001, 4011).
(3.) His vanity caused him to forego an opportunity of honouring God and of instructing his neighbours in Divine truth [1270] Doubtless it was his failure in duty in this respect that brought upon him so severe a rebuke (Isa_39:3-7).
2. The weakness of his character had already manifested itself in his couduct during his illness. In the prospect of death his strength of mind quite broke down (ch. 38.) But there was a difference: in the other case he acted unworthily of his knowledge; in this case he was weak because he was, compared with ourselves, weak in religious privileges. He looked to his grave with such melancholy feelings because he could not clearly see a life beyond it. The answer of the great riddle of humanity had been guessed by many before Christ, but His resurrection made the truth clear (2Ti_1:10; H. E. I. 3415). If it were not for the light which our Lord has thrown into the grave, we should mourn like Hezekiah, and our eyes would fail as did his. Having more light than he had, it is our duty to live a nobler life than he did, and not to be cowards in prospect of death (H. E. I. 1570–1643).—Harvey Goodwin, M.A.: Plain Parish Sermons, Third Series, pp. 78–92.
[1270] If his purpose was to impress upon the Babylonians the greatness of his strength, the story of the destruction of Sennacherib would have answered his purpose much better. If Hezekiah had taken the ambassadors to the Temple, and told them how he had spread Sennacherib’s letter before the invisible presence of his God in that holy house, and how he had prayed that the designs of his enemy might be brought to nought, and how that eventually the Assyrians had all either perished or fled, the men of Babylon would have been far more impressed with the power of Hezekiah, believing as they would that he was under the protection of an unseen Hand, than they possibly could be by the mere vulgar display of treasures and armour, which their own country could show in abundance, and which was the very thing calculated to excite their desire of plunder.—Goodwin.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 Alliance with Babylon Denounced
Alliance with Babylon Denounced
Conclusion of the historical appendix. The chapter belongs to the period when Merodach-Baladan of Babylon was making efforts to bring the various peoples of W. Asia into alliance against the common enemy, the king of Assyria (at this time Sargon, Isa_20:1). The arrangement of such alliance with Hezekiah was, doubtless, the object of the embassy, and this explains Hezekiah's gladness and exhibition of his resources (Isa_39:2). Congratulation to the king of Judah on his recovery, and enquiry into the astronomical marvel at Jerusalem (Isa_38:8) formed pretexts for the embassy (Isa_39:1; 2Ki_20:12; 2Ch_32:31).
Read full note →
1,2. The embassy from Babylon.
3-8. Isaiah rebukes the king and foretells captivity in Babylon.
5f. Isaiah consistently opposes reliance upon a human ally in place of trust in Jehovah.
6, 7. A remarkable prophecy of captivity in Babylon, though the Assyrians were the foe which at this time threatened Judah.
7. Thy sons] fulfilled in the captivity of Manasseh (2Ch_33:11), and later in the fate of Jehoiachin (2Ki_25:27).
8. Truth] i.e. stability (Jer_14:13).
With words of pious resignation Hezekiah acquiesces in thé will of Jehovah (cp. 1Sa_3:18), then in the words that follow—For there shall be peace, etc.—he expresses his thankfulness that the punishment has been postponed. The prediction of the captivity of the royal house must have been a great blow to Hezekiah, especially so since the Hebrews firmly held the principle of the solidarity of the forefather and his posterity. The postponement of the blow was a divine mercy and token of God's favour, for which Hezekiah did well to be thankful. It is quite unnecessary to read a tone of selfishness into his utterance; on the contrary, his spirit at this time seemed rather to have been one of humble contrition (2Ch_32:26).
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 Hezekiah’s Self-Exaltation
CHAPTER 39
Hezekiah’s Self-Exaltation
Read full note →
1. The ambassadors of Merodach-baladan (Isa 39:1) 2. Hezekiah’s boasting (Isa 39:2) 3. Isaiah’s inquiry (Isa 39:3-4) 4. The Babylonian captivity announced (Isa 39:5-7) 5. Hezekiah’s submission and comfort (Isa 39:8)The prediction of Isaiah of the Babylonian captivity, fulfilled through King Nebuchadnezzar about 100 years after these words were spoken, is startling. The reader will bear in mind that the Assyrian was not yet overcome, for the sickness and self-exaltation of Hezekiah preceded the judgment of Sennacherib’s army. The Assyrian and not Babylon was the threatening enemy. God’s Spirit alone could enable him to make such a prediction.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v1 The Babylonian Embassy and Its Consequences.
The Babylonian Embassy and Its Consequences.
Encouraged by the reverses which the Assyrian forces suffered in Syria, one of the viceroys of Babylon, the Chaldean Merodach-baladan, made himself, for a number of years, independent of the Assyrian power and attained to a position of some influence in the Eastern Empire. He was naturally most desirous of establishing himself more firmly and therefore sought also the friendship of Judah with its mighty king.
Read full note →
v. 1. At that time Merodach-baladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, and formerly one of the Assyrian viceroys, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah, for he had heard that he had been sick and was recovered. He was by no means prompted by friendliness in sending this embassy, but was guided by political motives, by the desire to form as strong an alliance as possible against the Assyrian power.
v. 2. And Hezekiah, flattered by the attention shown him by this mighty power, was glad of them, pleased by their visit, and showed them the house of his precious things, where he stored all the highest valuables which he had acquired in the course of his reign, the silver, and the gold, and the spices, various aromatic fruits, and the precious ointment, probably the fine variety used for the anointing of priests and kings, and all the house of his armor, his arsenal, and all that was found in his treasuries; there was nothing in his house nor in all his dominion, for all this had been brought to Jerusalem at the approach of the enemies, that Hezekiah showed them not. But this friendliness toward representatives of a heathen nation was not in conformity with the will of the Lord.
v. 3. Then came Isaiah, the prophet, acting in his usual capacity as God’s messenger, unto King Hezekiah and said unto him, What said these men, and from whence came they unto thee? The very presence of these ambassadors and the reception they received at the hands of Hezekiah proved that the king of Judah was once more preparing to become affiliated with a heathen nation. And Hezekiah said, with a certain amount of evasion, They are come from a far country unto me, even from Babylon, the argument implied in his answer being that it certainly devolved upon him to show hospitality to men who came from such a great distance.
v. 4. Then said he, Isaiah, again speaking by the command of the Lord, What have they seen in thine house? And Hezekiah answered, All that is in mine house have they seen; there is nothing among my treasures that I have not showed them. The king here made an open confession of his folly, submitting to the scrutiny of the prophet without flinching. It is the attitude which should always be found in men when the Lord searches the hearts and minds.
v. 5. Then said Isaiah to Hezekiah, Hear the word of the Lord of hosts, the almighty Commander and Ruler of all men and all things:
v. 6. Behold, the days come that all that Is in thine house, all the material riches which he had amassed, of which he had shown himself so proud and vain, at least in a measure, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day, everything that had escaped being paid as tribute, especially the precious metals inside the Temple, shall be carried to Babylon; nothing shall be left, saith the Lord. This was the first direct prophecy foretelling the Babylonian captivity.
v. 7. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, his direct descendants, shall they take away, this being true even of his son Manasseh, but particularly of the last kings of his line; and they shall be eunuchs, court officers, chamberlains, in the palace of the king of Babylon. Cf Dan 1:2 to Dan 3:7.
v. 8. Then said Hezekiah to Isaiah, Good is the word of the Lord which thou hast spoken. He readily bowed to the decree of the Lord, as pronounced upon him. He said moreover, For there shall be peace and truth in my days, that is, for the rest of his reign, at least, Judah would not be harassed by the enemies, and all the allies would keep their word and not precipitate a crisis, for all of which the king was duly thankful to the Giver of all good gifts. That is a sign of true repentance, if a sinner bows to the will of the Lord, finding cause for thanksgiving in every show of mercy which may be revealed to him.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 3, 5, 7 Marduk-Baladan ... Baladan
Marduk-Baladan ... Baladan
These are names of men. (See: How to Translate Names)
Read full note →
Hezekiah was pleased by these things
This can be made more explicit. AT: "When the king's messengers arrived, Hezekiah was pleased with what they brought to him" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
showed the messengers his storehouse of valuable things
"he showed the messengers everything of value he had"
storehouse
a building where goods are kept
all that was found in his storehouses
This can be stated in active form. AT: "everything that was in his storehouses" (See: Active or Passive)
There was nothing in his house, nor in all his kingdom, that Hezekiah did not show them
This is a slight exaggeration as Hezekiah showed them many things, but not everything. Also, this can be expressed positively. AT: "Hezekiah showed them almost everything in his house and in his kingdom" (See: Double Negatives and Hyperbole and Generalization)
translationWords
king
Babylon
epistle
gift
Hezekiah
silver
gold
oil
house
kingdom
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 2, 6 39:1-8 Hezekiah was exemplary in godliness, prayer, and care…
39:1-8 Hezekiah was exemplary in godliness, prayer, and care for the people of Jerusalem. But he failed the Lord by parading his financial and military strength before the envoys from Babylon.
39:1 Merodach-baladan, the king of Babylon (722–710 and 704–703 BC), planned to rebel against Assyria and sought help from Hezekiah. His envoys visited after Hezekiah had been very sick and had recovered but before Sennacherib’s final attack in 701 BC.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.