Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Isaiah 39:1
At 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.
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 i.e. “ambassadors,” whose presence is assumed in the next verse.
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.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
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:
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 Sennacheribs 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-baladans 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 Sennacheribs 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 enemys 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. Wisemans Lectures on Science and Revealed Religion, pp. 369-371 Ed. And. 1837).
Sent letters – The Septuagint adds, 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.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Isa 39:1-8
Merodach-baladan, the son of Baladan, King of Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah
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.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER XXXIX
The Babylonish monarch sends letters of congratulation and a
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 hizkiyahu, read vayechezek, and was recovered; and for vaiyishma, he heard, read 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 ; that is, 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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
1. Merodach-baladanFor ahundred fifty years before the overthrow of Nineveh by Cyaxares theMede, a succession of rulers, mostly viceroys of Assyria, ruledBabylon, from the time of Nabonassar, 747 B.C.That date is called “the Era of Nabonassar.” Pul orPhallukha was then expelled, and a new dynasty set up at Nineveh,under Tiglath-pileser. Semiramis, Pul’s wife, then retired toBabylon, with Nabonassar, her son, whose advent to the throne ofBabylon, after the overthrow of the old line at Nineveh, marked a newera. Sometimes the viceroys of Babylon made themselves, for a time,independent of Assyria; thus Merodach-baladan at this time did so,encouraged by the Assyrian disaster in the Jewish campaign. He haddone so before, and was defeated in the first year of Sennacherib’sreign, as is recorded in cuneiform characters in that monarchs palaceof Koyunjik. Nabopolassar was the first who established, permanently,his independence; his son, Nebuchadnezzar, raised Babylon to theposition which Nineveh once occupied; but from the want of stone nearthe Lower Euphrates, the buildings of Babylon, formed of sun-driedbrick, have not stood the wear of ages as Nineveh has.
Merodachan idol, thesame as the god of war and planet Mars (Jer50:2). Often kings took their names from their gods, as ifpeculiarly under their tutelage. So Belshazzar from Bel.
Baladanmeans “Belis his lord.” The chronicle of EUSEBIUScontains a fragment of BEROSUS,stating that Acises, an Assyrian viceroy, usurped the supreme commandat Babylon. Merodach- (or Berodach-) baladan murdered him andsucceeded to the throne. Sennacherib conquered Merodach-baladan andleft Esar-haddon, his son, as governor of Babylon. Merodach-baladanwould naturally court the alliance of Hezekiah, who, like himself,had thrown off the yoke of the Assyrian king, and who would beequally glad of the Babylonian alliance against Assyria; hence arosethe excessive attention which he paid to the usurper.
sickAn additionalreason is given (2Ch 32:31).”The princes of Babylon sent to enquire of the wonder that wasdone in the land”; namely, the recession of the shadow on Ahaz’sundial; to the Chaldean astronomers, such a fact would be especiallyinteresting, the dial having been invented at Babylon.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
At that time Merodachbaladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon,…. The same is called Berodach, 2Ki 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, 2Ch 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:
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.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
From this point onwards the text of the book of Kings (2Ki 20:12-19, cf., 2Ch 32:24-31) runs parallel to the text before us. Babylonian ambassadors have an interview with the convalescent king of Judah. “At that time Merodach Bal’adan (K. Berodach Bal’adan), son of Bal’adan king of Babel, sent writings and a present to Hizkiyahu, and heard (K. for he had heard) that he (K. Hizkiyahu) had been sick, and was restored again.” The two texts here share the original text between them. Instead of the unnatural (which would link the cause on to the effect, as in 2Sa 14:5), we should read , whereas in our text appears to be the genuine word out of which in the other text has sprung, although it is not indispensable, as has a pluperfect sense. In a similar manner the name of the king of Babylon is given here correctly as ( Nissel , without , as in Jer 50:2), whilst the book of Kings has (according to the Masora with ), probably occasioned by the other name Bal’adan , which begins with Beth. It cannot be maintained that the words ben Bal’adan are a mistake; at the same time, Bal’adan (Jos. Baladas ) evidently cannot be a name by itself if M e ro’dakh Bal’adan signifies “ Merodach (the Babylonian Bel or Jupiter)
(Note: Rawlinson, Monarchies, i. 169.)
filium dedit. ”
(Note: Oppert, Expdition, ii. 355.)
In the Canon Ptol. Mardokempados is preceded by a Jugaeus; and the inscriptions, according to G. Rawlinson, Mon. ii. 395, indicate Merodach-Baladan as the “son of Yakin.” They relate that the latter acknowledged Tiglath-pileser as his feudal lord; that, after reigning twelve years as a vassal, he rose in rebellion against Sargon in league with the Susanians and the Aramaean tribes above Babylonia, and lost everything except his life; that he afterwards rebelled against Sennacherib in conjunction with a Chaldean prince named Susub, just after Sennacherib had returned from his first
(Note: The inscription is mention two campaigns.)
Judaean campaign to Nineveh; and that having been utterly defeated, he took refuge in an island of the Persian Gulf. He does not make his appearance any more; but Susub escaped from his place of concealment, and being supported by the Susanians and certain Aramaean tribes, fought a long and bloody battle with Sennacherib on the Lower Tigris. this battle he lost, and Nebo-som-iskun, a son of Merodach Baladan, fell into the hands of the conqueror. In the midst of these details, as given by the inscriptions, the statement of the Can. Ptol. may still be maintained, according to which the twelve years of Mardokempados (a contraction, as Ewald supposes, of Mardokempalados) commence with the year 721. From this point onwards the biblical and extra-biblical accounts dovetail together; whereas in Polyhistor (Eus. chron. arm.) the following Babylonian rulers are mentioned: “a brother of Sennacherib, Acises, who reigned hardly a month; Merodach Baladan, six months; Elibus into the third year; Asordan, Sennacherib’s son, who was made king after the defeat of Elibus.” Now, as the Can. Ptolem. also gives a Belibos with a three years’ reign, the identity of Mardokempados and Marodach Baladan is indisputable. The Can. Ptol. seems only to take into account his legitimate reign as a vassal, and Polyhistor (from Berosus) only his last act of rebellion. At the same time, this is very far from removing all the difficulties that lie in the way of a reconciliation, more especially the chronological difficulties. Rawlinson, who places the commencement of the (second) Judaean campaign in the year 698, and therefore transfers it to the end of the twenty-ninth year of Hezekiah’s reign instead of the middle, sets himself in opposition not only to Isa 36:1, but also to Isa 38:5 and 2Ki 18:2. According to the biblical accounts, as compared with the Can. Ptol., the embassy must have been sent by Merodach Baladan during the period of his reign as vassal, which commenced in the year 721. Apparently it had only the harmless object of congratulating the king upon his recovery (and also, according to 2Ch 32:31, of making some inquiry, in the interests of Chaldean astrology, into the mopheth connected with the sun-dial); but it certainly had also the secret political object of making common cause with Hezekiah to throw off the Assyrian yoke. All that can be maintained with certainty beside this is, that the embassy cannot have been sent before the fourteenth year of Hezekiah’s reign; for as he reigned twenty-nine years, his illness must have occurred, according to Isa 38:5, in the fourteenth year itself, i.e., the seventh year of Mardokempados. Such questions as whether the embassy came before or after the Assyrian catastrophe, which was till in the future at the time referred to in Isa 38:4-6, or whether it came before or after the payment of the compensation money to Sennacherib (2Ki 18:14-16), are open to dispute. In all probability it took place immediately before the Assyrian campaign,
(Note: A reviewer in the Theol. L. Bl. 1857, p. 12, inquires: “How could the prophet have known that all that Hezekiah showed to the Babylonian ambassador would one day be brought to Babylon, when in a very short time these treasures would all have been given by Hezekiah to the king of Assyria?” Answer: The prophecy is so expressed in Isa 39:6-7, that this intervening occurrence does not prejudice its truth at all.)
as Hezekiah was still able to show off the abundance of his riches to the Babylonian ambassadors.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Hezekiah’s Vanity. | B. C. 712. |
1 At 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. 2 And Hezekiah was glad of them, and showed them the house of his precious things, the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the precious ointment, and all the house of his armour, and all that was found in his treasures: there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah showed them not. 3 Then 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. 4 Then said he, 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.
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. xxvi. 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 acknowledgments of our own unworthiness and thankful acknowledgments 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.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
ISAIAH – CHAPTER 39
HEZEKIAH RECEIVES EMMISARIES FROM BABYLON
1. Merodach-Baladan (whose name indicates that he was a devotee of Merodoch, the god of warfare, and of the planet Mars, Jer 50:2) was the king of Babylon at the time of Hezekiah’s sickness and confrontation with Sennacherib, (vs. 1a).
a. In the first year of Sennacherib’s reign he had attempted to throw off the yoke of the Assyrian – only to be defeated.
b. Having heard of Sennacherib’s humiliation, on the mountains of Israel (Isaiah 37), the king of Babylon is convinced that profit may come from a closer relationship with the king of Judah.
2. There appear to be three basic reasons for this embassage from Babylon that so suddenly appears in Jerusalem.
a. As protocol would normally have it, they first congratulated the king of Judah:
1) For his recovery from a sickness that almost claimed his life.
2) And for the marvellous routing of the Assyrian from his land.
b. Intent on solidifying his own independence from Assyria, the king of Assyria had sent letters to Hezekiah, which were then presented.
1) These evidently proposed an alliance between Judah and Babylon which, according to the thinking of the Babylonian king, would strengthen the position of both against any further aggression by the Assyrian.
2) There was also a gift for Hezekiah – expressive of friendship.
c. And (according to 2Ch 32:31), this delegation came “to inquire of the wonder that was done in the land of Judah”; strange things had been reported here which the king of Babylon did not quite understand.
1) The turning back of the shadow on the sun-dial (a Babylonian invention) was something that deeply perplexed the Chaldean astrologers.
2) And the unbelievable wonder of Sennacherib’s humiliating defeat was something the Babylonian could not possibly comprehend!
3. To test the true attitude of Hezekiah’s heart, and because the king asked no counsel from Him, God is said to have “left him” to himself, (2Ch 32:31; comp. Deu 8:2; Deu 8:16; Exo 15:25-26; Exo 20:20).
4. To say that “he failed the test” is to make a simplistic under-‘ statement! He did not adequately respond to the benefits so graciously bestowed upon him; but, he was “glad” (comp. Job 31:25; Psa 62:10), and “his heart was lifted up” in pride, (2Ch 32:25; Isa 39:2).
a. By a five-fold repetition of the word “his” (Isa 39:2), the prophet emphasizes Hezekiah’s childish display, in directing the attention of his guests to the wonders of his palace and wealth, rather than to the “wonders” of divine action in reversing the shadow on the sun-dial, and restoring the king’s health.
b. Here is an amazing contrast: the ambassadors of the Assyrian set Hezekiah to praying; those of Babylon set him to proud boasting!
c. Thus, Hezekiah aroused avarice in the heart of Babylon by a proud display of his rare treasures – his silver, his gold, his spices, his armor and his jewels – all that was found in his treasuries!
d. There was NOTHING in his house, or dominion, that Hezekiah did not proudly display for his visitors!
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
1. At that time. Some think that this was the first king of the Chaldee nation; for his father, Baladin, had held the government over the Babylonians without the title of king. This Merodach, therefore, after having reigned twelve years, subdued the Assyrians, and made them tributaries to the Chaldeans; for it is a mistake to suppose that the war was begun by Nebuchadnezzar. It is indeed possible that he completed the subjugation of them; but it is probable that already they were half subdued, so that nothing else remained than to establish the royal power gained by the victory of his predecessor.
Sent letters and a present to Hezekiah Although the Prophet simply relates that messengers were sent, yet it is of importance to observe that this was done craftily by the Babylonian, in order to flatter and cajole Hezekiah. He was at this time threatening the Assyrians, whom he knew to be justly disliked by the Jews on account of their continual wars; and therefore, in order to obtain Hezekiah as an ally and partisan in the war which was now waging against him, endeavors to obtain his friendship by indirect methods. The mind of the good king was corrupted by ambition, so that he too eagerly accepted the false blandishments of the tyrant, and swallowed the bait.
The pretence was, to congratulate Hezekiah on having recovered from his disease. And yet sacred history appears to assign another reason, which was, that Merodach was induced by a miracle. (2Ch 32:31.) There is certainly no doubt that the report of that prodigy, which took place when the sun went back, was yew widely spread; and it might have produced an impression on many nations. Yet it can hardly be believed that a heathen had any other object in view than to draw Hezekiah into his net; but since, by a remarkable sign, God had shewn that he cared for the safety of Hezekiah, and since wicked men commonly apply to a base purpose all the proofs of God’s favor, Merodach thought that, if he could obtain the alliance of Hezekiah, he would carry on war under the protection and favor of heaven. (98)
The consequence was, that he sent messengers to Hezekiah with presents, for the sake of expressing his good-will; for he wished to obtain his favor, believing that his friendship would be useful and advantageous to him; and his intention was, to make use of him afterwards against the Assyrians, to whom he knew well that the Jews entertained a deadly hatred. Such are the designs of kings and princes, to transact their affairs by fraud and craftiness, and bysome means to gain as many allies as possible, that they may employ their exertions against their enemies
(98) “ Que la guerre qu’il entreprendoit de faire auroit heureuse issue, et seroit benite du ciel.” “That war which he carried on would have a successful result, and would be blest of heaven.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
HEZEKIAHS STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS
Isa. 39:1-2. At that time Merodach-baladan, &c.
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. 15701643).Harvey Goodwin, M.A.: Plain Parish Sermons, Third Series, pp. 7892.
[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 Sennacheribs 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.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
D. PRESUMPTION, CHAPTER 39
1. PRIDE
TEXT: Isa. 39:1-4
1
At that time Merodachbaladan the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah; for he heard that he had been sick, and was recovered.
2
And Hezekiah was glad of them, and showed them the house of his precious things, the silver, and the gold, and 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 showed them not.
3
Then 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.
4
Then said he, What have they seen in thy house? And Hezekiah answered, All that is in my house have they seen: there is nothing among my treasures that I have not showed them.
QUERIES
a.
Why was the king of Babylon so interested in Hezekiah?
b.
Why did the prophet Isaiah question Hezekiah?
PARAPHRASE
About nine years before Hezekiahs confrontation with the Assyrian Rabshakeh, soon after his recovery from his illness, the king of Babylon, Merodachbaladan, son of Baladan, sent his envoys with a letter and a gift to Hezekiah. The King of Babylon was interested in the reports of Hezekiahs phenomenal recovery from terminal illness. Hezekiah was proud of the fact that the king of Babylon had sent envoys to inquire of his recovery so he took them on a tour of his palace, showing them the wealth of his treasury and the armaments in his armory. Hezekiah was so taken with the overtures of the Babylonians, he showed them everything in his city they wanted to see. Immediately, Isaiah the prophet confronted King Hezekiah and said to him, What did these men say to youwhere are they from? Hezekiah did not tell Isaiah what the men said but did reply, They are from far away in Babylon. Then Isaiah asked the king, what have you shown them of your kingdom? Hezekiah replied, I have shown them everything about my kingdomeverything in my treasury and in my armory.
COMMENTS
Isa. 39:1-2 VANITY OF THE KING: 2Ch. 32:31 relates that the envoys from Babylon were sent to inquire about the sign that had been done in the land. Evidently word had filtered into the courts of foreign potentates of the phenomenal, miraculous recovery of King Hezekiah from a terminal illness. Some commentators are inclined to think the inquiry of the envoys about Hezekiahs recovery was simply a ploy, a ruse, to approach Judah for a military alliance against Assyria. Whatever the case, the text in II Chronicles indicates Hezekiah did not seek the Lords guidance in dealing with the Babylonians so, God left him to himself, in order to try him and to know all that was in his heart.
If our chronology is correct (see comments on Isa. 38:1-3) the Babylonian envoys came to Hezekiah before the invasion of Sennacherib (Isaiah 36-37). They came soon after Hezekiahs recovery. This would place their visit sometime in 710 B.C. Merodachbaladan (which means, Marduk has given a son) was probably named for the pagan god Marduk. He was the valiant leader of a people known as Chaldeans who gained power and rule over the southern territory of Mesopotamia. In 722 B.C. he rebelled against the Assyrian rule of that territory and formed his own kingdom. Sargon, king of Assyria (Isaiah 20), recognized his domain in 721 B.C. so he reigned over that small southern territory for 11 years. About 710 B.C. he sent envoys to Jerusalem, supposedly to give his best wishes to Hezekiah at his recovery from illness. What the envoys really came for was to invite Hezekiah to join in an alliance against Assyria. Merodachbaladan had already persuaded Susa, Phoenicia, Moab, Edom, Philistia and Egypt to join him in a military attack upon Assyria. Sargon learned of the planned attack and set about to defeat these nations, one by one. He took Babylon and Bit-Yakin (Merodachbaladans home in the swamps of southern Mesopotamia) and Merodachbaladan himself was captured. He managed to be reinstated as ruler of a small princedom at Bit-Yakin. Around 702 or 701 he occupied Babylon and ruled there again but only briefly. Sennacherib, Sargons son and successor drove him back to the swamps and Bit-Yakin. Later he was forced to flee to Elam (Persia) and Chaldean influence was silenced in Mesopotamia. Although Merodachbaladan was unsuccessful in his attempt to overthrow Assyria and revive the power of ancient Babylon, the Chaldeans rose after his death to the dominant power in Mesopotamia.
Merodachbaladans escapades and seditions are documented in the Assyrian inscriptions of Sennacherib found by archaeologists (See Archaeology and Bible History, by Joseph P. Free, pg. 210211).
The Hebrew word samahk expresses more than gladness. It often means to shine cheerfully. Hezekiah was evidently very impressed with his visitors. He was flattered that the king of Babylon would send him a present. He was also momentarily charmed by their invitation to join in the efforts to break the Assyrian yoke. With such charming visitors Hezekiah felt it would be an opportune time to show off the grandeur of his countrys wealth and armament. He probably wanted to prove to them he was no second-rate king. Hezekiah committed a two-fold faux pas; a political blunder and a personal transgression. For the king of Gods covenant people to display all his treasures and weapons to pagan envoys who represented inevitable enemies was political stupidity. The envoys undoubtedly made mental note of fortifications, weapons and financial resources for future use. The personal blunder was in succumbing to vanity, pride, egotism and self-sufficiency. This detracted from his faith and trust in Jehovah. And this almost immediately after his great psalm of praise and trust in Jehovah! How like us mortal men he was!
Isa. 39:3-4 VOICE OF THE PROPHET: It appears Isaiah came almost immediately after the tour of the envoys and confronted Hezekiah with his blunder. Isaiah was sent by Jehovah as Isa. 39:5 confirms. His approach reminds one of the confrontation between the prophet Nathan and King David. Hezekiah is so charmed by the prestige apparently accorded him by this visit he misses the ominous inferences of the prophet. Isaiah asks, what have these men said? and where are they from? Hezekiah places first importance on where they were fromBabylon. Never mind what they sayeven though they may be talking about a Babylonian-Judean alliance. The important thing to notice is how important I am that they would come all the way from the great city of Babylon to see me.
Isaiahs next question is one of foreboding also, What have they seen in your house? In other words, How much have you shown them of your armament and treasures? Have you been discreet or indiscreet? Still elated over being flattered by such auspicious visitors, the King blurts out that he has shown them everything! Nothing has been kept secret. Isaiahs questions were intended to reveal to the king his blunder. They were specifically to remind him he had not kept his promise to trust in Jehovah but he had been seduced through his egotism to trust in men.
QUIZ
1.
What does 2 Chronicles 32 tell us about this incident?
2.
When did the envoys from Babylon come to Hezekiah?
3.
What was Hezekiahs reaction to their visit?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
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 Hezekiahs recovery; (2) to inquire and report as to the phenomenon of the sun-dial (2Ch. 32:31). Really, we may believe the object of Merdach-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 Hezekiahs hegemony, or even suzerainty, in such a confederacy.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
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.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘At that time Merodach-baladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah, for he had heard that he was sick and had recovered.’
There can be little doubt that Merodach-baladan, who was at that time in rebellion against Assyria (this was probably early in 702 BC), was using Hezekiah’s recovery as a means of intrigue. The visit was to be seen outwardly as for an innocent reason, but it had a far deeper significance. Merodach-baladan was seeking and offering support in a rebellion against Assyria. The choice then lay with Hezekiah. He could politely receive them and send them on their way, because his trust was in Yahweh. Or he could enter into negotiations and show what he could offer.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Prophecies of Isaiah to Hezekiah Inserted between prophecies of judgment (Isaiah 1-35) and restoration (Isaiah 40-66) is the story of two major events in the life and ministry of Hezekiah king of Judah. Isa 36:1 to Isa 39:8 tells the story of Hezekiah’s confrontation with Sennacherib, who tried to conquer Jerusalem, and God’s miraculous deliverance. This passage of Scripture is almost the same in content to 2Ki 18:13 to 2Ki 20:19. Thus, the same author probably penned both two passages and one served as a copy of the other.
Note the proposed outline:
Sennacherib Besieges Jerusalem Isa 36:1 to Isa 37:38
Hezekiah’s Illness Isa 38:1-22
The Visit of the Babylonians Isa 39:1-8
If we compare the narrative material of Elijah and Elisha (1Ki 17:1 – 2Ki 9:37), there is a similarity in structure in that they both bear witness to the testimony of the prophets of the Lord. This becomes evident by the fact that both passages end with a testimony of the fulfillment of the words of the prophets Elijah and Isaiah. For example, the story of Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem ends with the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy of Isa 37:7 (Isa 37:36-38). The story of Hezekiah’s illness ends by reflecting upon the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy (Isa 38:21-22). The story of the visit of the Babylonians closes by noting the fulfillment of prophecy (Isa 39:8).
Isa 36:1 Now it came to pass in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah, that Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the defenced cities of Judah, and took them.
Isa 36:1
Isa 36:2 And the king of Assyria sent Rabshakeh from Lachish to Jerusalem unto king Hezekiah with a great army. And he stood by the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller’s field.
Isa 36:2
[52] Edward Robinson, ed., Calmet’s Dictionary of the Holy Bible, as Published by the Late Charles Taylor, with the Fragments Incorporated (Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1832), 774; Adam Clarke, Isaiah, in Adam Clarke’s Commentary, Electronic Database (Seattle, WA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1996), in P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), notes on Isaiah 36:2.
[53] F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1963), 49.
AmpBible, “And the king of Assyria sent the Rabshakeh [the military official] from Lachish [the Judean fortress commanding the road from Egypt] to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem with a great army. And he stood by the canal of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller’s field.”
BBE, “And the king of Assyria sent the Rab-shakeh from Lachish to Jerusalem to King Hezekiah with a strong force, and he took up his position by the stream of the higher pool, by the highway of the washerman’s.”
NIV, “Then the king of Assyria sent his field commander with a large army from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem. When the commander stopped at the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Washerman’s Field.”
Isa 36:11 Then said Eliakim and Shebna and Joah unto Rabshakeh, Speak, I pray thee, unto thy servants in the Syrian language; for we understand it: and speak not to us in the Jews’ language, in the ears of the people that are on the wall.
Isa 36:11
[54] F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1963), 49-50.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Babylonian Embassy and Its Consequences.
v. 1. At that time Merodach-baladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, v. 2. And Hezekiah, v. 3. Then came Isaiah, the prophet, v. 4. Then said he, v. 5. Then said Isaiah to Hezekiah, Hear the word of the Lord of hosts, v. 6. Behold, the days come that all that Is in thine house, v. 7. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, v. 8. Then said Hezekiah to Isaiah, Good is the word of the Lord which thou hast spoken.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
This chapter is parallel with 2Ki 20:12-19, and scarcely differs from it at all. Verse I has the additional words, “and was recovered;” 2Ki 20:2, the phrase, “was glad of them,” for “hearkened unto them;” 2Ki 20:5, “Lord of hosts,” for “Lord” simply; and 2Ki 20:8 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.
Isa 39:1
At that time. 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 yearsfrom b.c. 721 to b.c. 709. This reign is recognized by Sargon in his inscriptions, 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. 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. 1). He is then driven from the country by Sennacherib, and, after various vicissitudes, obliged to become a refugee in Elam. The name of Merodach-Baladau is composed of the three elements, Merodach (equivalent to “Marduk“), 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, Ninip-iddin, Ilu-iddin, 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”. 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, 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 (ch. 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.
Isa 39:2
Hezekiah was glad of them. A more pregnant phrase than that which replaces it in 2 Kings, “hearkened unto them.” Hezekiah, like Merodach-Baladan, was looking out for allies, and “was glad,” thinking that in Babylon he had found one which might render him important service. Sargon’s promptness, however, frustrated his hopes. In b.c. 709 that prince, regarding Merodach-Baladan’s proceedings as constituting a real danger to his kingdom, made a great expedition into Babylonia, defeated Merodach-Baladan, and took him prisoner, after which he had himself crowned King of Babylon, and during the remainder of his life ruled both countries. Showed them the house of his precious things; i.e. his treasury, or store-house. The treasuries of ancient monarchs were actual store-chambers, in which large quantities of the precious metals and valuable objects of various kinds were deposited (see Herod; 2:121; Arrian, ‘Exp. Alex.,’ 2Ki 3:16, 2Ki 3:18, etc.). The flourishing state of the treasury is an indication that the events here narrated are anterior to the great surrender of treasure to Sennacherib. All the house of his armour (comp. Isa 22:8). If a warlike alliance was contemplated, it was as important to show the possession of arms as of treasures. There was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah showed them not. We must allow for Oriental hyperbole. The meaning is, that, without any reserve, Hezekiah showed all that he could show.
Isa 39:3
Then came Isaiah the prophet. Isaiah comes, unsent for, to rebuke the king. This bold attitude was one which prophets were entitled to take by virtue of their office, which called upon them to bear testimony, even before kings, and to have no respect of persons. A similar fearlessness is apparent in Isa 7:1-17, where the king with whom Isaiah has to deal was the wicked Ahaz. What said these men? “These men” is contemptuous. The demand to know what they said is almost without parallel. Diplomacy, if it is to be successful, must be secret; and Isaiah can scarcely have been surprised that his searching question received no answer. But he was zealous of God’s honour, and anxious that Hezekiah should rely on no “arm of flesh,” whether it were Egypt or Babylon. Such dependence would straiten God’s arm, and prevent him from giving the aid that he was otherwise prepared to give. The desire of the prophet is to warn the king of the danger which he runs by coquetting with human helpers. From whence came they? Isaiah does not ask this question for the sake of information, Doubtless all Jerusalem was agog to see the strange envoys “from a far country,” who had now for the first time penetrated to the city of David. All knew whence they had come, and suspected why. Isaiah asks, to force the king to a confession, on which he may base a prophecy and a warning. And Hezekiah said, They are come from a far country. Embassies from distant lands to their courts are made a con-slant subject of boasting by the Assyrian monarchs. Hezekiah, perhaps, is “lifted up” (2Ch 32:25) by the honour paid him, and intends to impress Isaiah with a sense of his greatness“The men are come all the way from Babylon to see me!”
Isa 39:4
What have they seen? Isaiah had, no doubt, heard of what Hezekiah had done (verse 2); but he wished to have the confession of it from his own mouth before delivering his sentence. Hezekiah tells him the truth, since he is not ashamed of his act, but rather glories in it. He has shown the ambassadors everything, and has thereby made them eager to secure his alliance.
Isa 39:5
Hear the word of the Lord of hosts. Either the prophet had been specially charged with a Divine message to the king before he sought his presence, or the prophetic afflatus now came on him suddenly. The former is, on the whole, more probable.
Isa 39:6
Behold, the days come; literally, the days [are] coming, or [are] approaching. Of the exact “times and seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power” (Act 1:7), the prophets generally knew nothing. They were mouth-pieces, to declare the Divine will, not keen-witted politicians, forecasting results by the exercise of sharp-sightedness and sagacity. To suppose that Isaiah foresaw by mere human wisdom the Babylonian conquest of Judaea, as Charles the Great did the ravages of the Northmen, is to give him credit for a sagacity quite unexampled and psychologically impossible. The kingdom of Babylon was one among many that were struggling hard to maintain independence against the grasping and encroaching Assyria. From the time of Tiglath-Pileser IX. she had been continually losing ground. Both Sargon and Sennacherib trampled her underfoot, overran her territory, captured her towns, and reduced her under direct Assyrian government. Till Assyria should be swept away, a Babylonian conquest of Palestine was impossible. To suppose it was like supposing a Russian conquest of Holland, while Germany bars the way. Nothing short of the true prophetic afflatus, which is God the Holy Ghost speaking by the mouth of his servants, could have made such an anticipation. And with Isaiah, as Mr. Cheyne says, it is “not a mere presentiment; it is a calm and settled conviction, based on a direct revelation, and confirmed by a deep insight into the laws of the Divine government.” All that is in thine house. Not, of course, exactly all that was there when Isaiah spoke, but all the wealth that should be in the royal palace when the time of the Babylonian captivity arrived. (For the fulfilment, see 2Ch 36:18.) That which thy fathers have laid up in store. A portion of this was carried off by Sennacherib in his first expedition (2Ki 18:14-16); but the bulk of the temple treasuresthe gifts of many kingsremained untouched until they were removed to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 1:2; Dan 5:2; 2Ki 24:13; 2Ki 25:13-17).
Isa 39:7
Of thy sons that shall issue from thee. Hezekiah had at the time, probably, no son, since Manasseh, who succeeded him upon the throne, was not born till two years later. Besides Manasseh, he appears to have had a son, Amariah, who was an ancestor of the Prophet Zephaniah (Zep 1:1). He may, of course, have also had others. His descendants, rather than his actual sons, seem to be here intended; and the fulfilment of the prophecy is to be found in Dan 1:3, where certain “of the king’s seed” are mentioned among the Israelites who served as eunuchs in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar.
Isa 39:8
Good is the word. While there is resignation, there is no doubt something also of selfishness, in Hezekiah’s acceptance of the situation. “Apres mot le deluge” is a saying attributed to a modern Frenchman. Hezekiah’s egotism is less pronounced and less cynical. He thinks with gratitude of the “peace and steadfastness” which are to be “in his day;” he does not dwell in thought on the coming “deluge.” The “word of the Lord” is “good” to him in more ways than one. It has assured him of coming male offspringof sons to sit upon his throne, and save him from the curse of childlessness. And it has assured him of a rest for his nationa respite, so that the Babylonian struggle shall not follow immediately upon the Assyrian; but there shall be a “breathing-space” (Ezr 9:8), a tranquil time, during which Israel may “dwell in a peaceable habitation, and in sure dwellings, and in quiet resting-places” (Isa 32:18).
HOMILETICS
Isa 39:2-8
Carnal joy the prelude to spiritual sorrow.
The Babylonian embassy, a grand affair doubtless, comprising envoys in their rich clothing and with their jewelled arms, camels bearing valuable gifts, prancing steeds, and a vast train of slaves and attendants, was to Hezekiah an inspiriting fact, a circumstance that gladdened and excited him. With his imperfect knowledge of geography, the embassy seemed to him to come from the furthest limits of the earth’s circuitfrom a remote, almost from an unknown, region (Isa 39:3). He had hitherto not thought of attempting negotiations with any power further distant than Egypt. If the far-off Babylon courted his alliance, where might he not expect to find friends? from what remote quarter might he not look for overtures? What wonder that “his heart was lifted up” (2Ch 32:25)? that he rejoiced, though with a carnal joy, that had no substantial spiritual basis? Isaiah had warned him against all “arms of flesh.” Isaiah had bidden him “trust in the Lord Jehovah,” and in Jehovah only. No doubt he had been especially warned against Egypt; but all the reasons that were valid against Egypt were valid against Babylon also. Babylon was as idolatrous as Egypt; Babylon was as licentious as Egypt; Babylon was as selfish in her aims as Egypt. Hezekiah’s joy was thus a purely carnal joy, a rejoicing in his own honour, and in the prospect of material aid from a tainted source. In the midst of his joy the prophet announces himself. “What said those men?” he sternly asks. “Whence came they? What have they seen? Ah! they have seen thy treasures, have they? All of them? Thou thinkest those treasures will make them thy friends. Nay; they will make them thy bitterest enemies. It will not be forgotten at Babylon that thy temple and thy treasure-house are worth plundering. The days will come when all the wealth of thy house, and of the temple, and of the holy city will be carried off to enrich that city. The days will come when thou wilt have disgrace from Babylon instead of honour. Thy descendantsthey that have issued from thy loinswill serve the King of Babylon, will be eunuchs, doing the menial offices in his palace.” In a moment the king’s joy is gone, and replaced by sorrow. It is with a saddened spirit that he submits, and acquiesces in his punishment. “Good is the word of the Lord”he spares, even when he punishes; he chastens me with a milder chastening than I deserved at his hands”in his wrath he remembereth mercy” (Hab 3:2).
HOMILIES BY E. JOHNSON
Isa 39:1-8
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 resourcesa 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 grantedfor 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.M. STATHAM
Isa 39:6
Perishing things.
“Nothing shall be left.” How true is this of all things of earth, as contrasted with essential beingwith the life of our own souls! We can look at nothing material without being able to say, as we look to the inner world of personal consciousness, “They shall perish, but thou remainest.”
I. COMPREHENSIVE LOSS. “Nothing shall be left.” “All that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day, shall be carded to Babylon.” Exactly. There is always a Babylon which itself becomes a ruin. Grecian art is taken to Rome, there to be demolished in the sacking of the city. Treasures are taken in after years to Paris, there to be lost in flames. How few relics of any time or nation remain! and in due course these are lost to the possessors. If this is true on the great scale of nations, how manifestly true it is of ourselves! Let us look around on all the present possessions of earth, and remember that, so far as we are concerned, “nothing shall be left.” “Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be?”
II. IMMORTAL GAIN. The prophet is true in this revelation of loss. So is the apostle true when he says, “All things are yours.” All that a man is remains, and all that a man does in loyal service remains. So there is permanence amid impermanence. The tabernacle totters, but the tenant lives. “The outward man perisheth, but the inward man is renewed day by day.” All that is in thine house is lost, but all that is in thine heart is immortal. It behoves us, therefore, to remember that the true jewels are soul-jewels; the true ornament is in the hidden man of the heart; the imperishable wealth is in the sanctities of Heaven and the smile of God. “Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.”W.M.S.
Isa 39:8
The best blessings.
“There shall be peace and truth in my days.” These are God’s twin blessings. There can be no peace without truth. There is veracity in ,God’s universe everywhere. It is only a seeming blessedness which exists apart from these things, for the flowers have no root. The dancing smile is only like phosphorescence on the face of the dead, if we are not at peace with God.
I. CHRIST‘S LEGACY WAS PEACE. “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you.” This is not peace of condition, but peace of conscience. The ocean, like Christ’s life, may be troubled outwardly, but there is rest at the heart of it. We cannot judge by the surface-features of life. We must enter within to know if there be really peace. We must see the man in trouble, trial, solitude, and death. Then we shall see how true the acclamation is, “There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.” Bunyan had peace in Bedford Gaol; so had the confessors and martyrs of olden time.
II. CHRIST‘S ATONEMENT GIVES PEACE. “Having made peace through the blood of his cross.” We may be unable to give a theory of the atonement that can cover all its meaningfrom the days of Anselm until now men have debated about that; but in depths of agony about sin we feel the need of a Saviour, and rejoice to sing
“Nothing in my hands I bring.
Simply to thy cross I cling.”
III. CHRIST GIVES PEACE THROUGH TRUTH. He tells the truth about our moral state and condition. He reveals the truth concerning the nature and purposes of God. He unveils the immortal life, not only as a doctrine, but in himself, in heavenly beauty of the earthly life. “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” How comfortable it is to rest on this gracious promise, and to know that the True One cannot lie!W.M.S.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Isa 39:1-8
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. 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 (Isa 39:8). 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 iteven if it be successful philanthropy, religious service, or delightful devotionit 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.
Isa 39:4
The home, seen though not shown.
No doubt the ambassadors of the King of Babylon saw many things in the palace of Hezekiah which he did not exhibit to them; more things are seen than those which are displayed. It is so in every house; and it may be that the visitor goes away more impressed with some things which no one pointed out to him than with anything to which his attention was called. If any one were to ask him what he has seen in the house, he would mention that which its master had not thought to show him. What would any visitor to our house see, though we did not show it to him?
I. ORDER OR DISORDER? The manifest presence of a strong hand keeping every one in order and everything in its place; or the painful absence of it?
II. OBEDIENCE OR DISOBEDIENCE? Filial readiness and even eagerness to comply at once with the parents’ wish; or the lingering step or even the entire disregard of that desire?
III. COURTESY OR DISCOURTESY? Habitually becoming behaviour at the table and the hearth; or the unwise neglect of those smaller observances which minister to the beauty and the sweetness of daily life?
IV. LOVE OR INDIFFERENCE, OR POSITIVE DISLIKE? The presence of that warm affection which should bind husband and wife, parent and child, brother and sister, in the bonds of happy and enduring fellowship; or a cold and sad indifference to one another’s well-being; or a still sadder animosity and persecution?
V. SELFISHNESS OR SYMPATHY? The confinement of thought and care to the four walls of the home establishment; or a considerate and generous regard for the wants and wishes of neighbours and fellow-citizens?
VI. PIETY OR WORLDLINESS? Family worship, andwhat is better stilla prevailing religious tone, as if parents and children all felt that temporal success was a very small thing in comparison with spiritual worth; or the language and habits of an ignoble and degrading worldliness?C.
HOMILIES BY R. TUCK
Isa 39:1
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.
Isa 39:2
The sin of presuming.
“And Hezekiah was glad of them, and showed them the house of his precious things.” Presumption is taking the ordering of our lives into our own hands, without consulting God or remembering our dependence on him. It is the sin to which kings and rulers and men of masterful dispositions are specially exposed. Therefore David prayed so earnestly, “Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me.” The singular thing, and the suggestive thing, in the case of Hezekiah is that he took the insulting Assyrian letter and at once spread it before the Lord. Trouble drove him at once to God, but flattery disarmed him, and he acted without consulting God. Not without good reason is it urged that prosperity is a severer test of character than adversity; that “woe is unto us when all men speak well of us;” and that added years after a serious illness are oftentimes a very doubtful blessing. The writer of the Chronicles (2Ch 32:25) helps us to read the heart of Hezekiah. He says that Isaiah was displeased with him because “his heart was lifted up.” Vanity is indicated in this exhibition of all his treasures. Cheyne finds all the excuse that can be found for Hezekiah. He says, ‘Was it merely vanity which prompted the king thus to throw open his treasuries? Surely not. It was to satisfy the emissaries of Baladan that Hezekiah had considerable resources, and was worthy of becoming his ally on equal terms. To Isaiah, as a prophet of Jehovah, the king’s fault was principally in allowing himself to be courted by a foreign potentate, as if it were not true that ‘Jehovah had founded Zion,’ and that ‘the afflicted of his people could find refuge therein.'” Matthew Henry says of Hezekiah, “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.” The sin of presumption is a more common, and a more serious, sill than we are wont to consider it. It is one that finds frequent illustration in Holy Scripture. The sin that lost Eden was presumption. Jacob’s grasping at the birthright was presumption. Moses’ smiting the rock twice was presumption. Saul’s forcing himself to sacrifice when Samuel tarried was presumption. David’s numbering the people was presumption. Peter striking off the ear of Malchus was presumption. These are but specimen cases, readily recalled. A careful estimate of many sins will reveal presumption at the root of them. Still, if we read our lives aright, we shall find that we are constantly presuming on what God would have us to do, and acting without making due inquiries of him.
I. TEMPTATIONS TO PRESUMPTION.
1. These come partly out of natural disposition. There is an evil of over-meekness; sometimes we find a lack of energy and self-assertion which prevents men from impressing themselves on any sphere of life which they may be called to occupy. But there is much more frequently the evil of over-assertion, that belongs to energetic, enterprising natures, that take life with a strong grip. Many men cannot wait. They form their judgments quickly, and want them immediately acted on. And such persons are constantly tempted to presume. If good men, they act first, and ask of God the approval of their actions. Oftentimes this strong self-willedness is a hereditary disposition, which the Christian spirit has to battle with and overcome. Oftentimes it is sadly fostered by the pettings of childhood, and the false education of youth; and then it is the serious confirmed evil that is hardly overcome even in a lifelong struggle.
2. The temptations come partly out of circumstances. In the desperateness of business pressure, the almost bankrupt man presumes on his friends, acts wilfully, and even brings others down in his ruin. But circumstances of success prove even greater temptations. Nebuchadnezzar is the type of the presumers, as he stands in the midst of his city, saying, “Is not this great Babylon, that I have built?”
II. SIN OF PRESUMPTION.
1. It is sin against man’s creaturehood. Man is not an independent being. He cannot stand alone. “No man can keep alive his own soul.” He has nothing of his own. Then he has no right to presume.
2. It is a sin against a man’s childhood. Parents have to repress this spirit in their children, because it is subversive of true home-life. And so must the great Father.
3. It is especially sin in man as redeemed. Because, as redeemed, man is the humbled sinner, who is made a monument of grace, and ought to walk humbly with God, always coming after him, and never pressing on before. The evil of this sin is seen in the deterioration of Christian character which follows whenever it is indulged.
III. PUNISHMENT OF PRESUMPTION. Usually this comes by the failure of the self-willed plans; or the sad results that follow the self willed course that is taken. In the case of Hezekiah God sends a vision of what will follow out of that embassy of which the king was so proud. It was the thin end of a wedge. Driven home, by-and-by, it meant the destruction of Jerusalem, and the captivity of Judah, by those very Babylonians. Hezekiah boasted in order to get a worldly alliance. His boastings excited cupidity, which presently led to the carrying away of the exhibited treasures. “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” into the sin of presumption.R.T.
Isa 39:6, Isa 39:7
Shadows projected from coming trouble.
Almost our worst troubles are the things we fear. They loom so large and seem so terrible, like distant figures in a fog. The mind is so long occupied with them before it can do anything in relation to them. Our Saviour’s life was darkened with the shadows of his coming woe. As he talked with heavenly visitants, he “spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.” He cried, “Now is my soul troubled Father, save me from this hour.” The shadow seemed easier to bear when it darkened down into an actual present conflict and woe. Most men are “all their life in bondage through fear of death,” and thousands of men are almost hypochondriacal in their anxieties about troubles that always seem to ‘be coming, but seldom really come.
I. FUTURE THINGS THAT FLING SHADOWS OVER THE PRESENT.
1. The fear of the young Christian that he will not hold out to the end, Often a morbid fear; always an unworthy fear, because it really means our doubting whether God can keep us safely to the end.
2. Fears born of the difficulties of times of business depression. Parents often talk, in their homes, about the workhouse, in a joking way, which nevertheless means that the shadow of it lies upon their lives. A dread of failure and bankruptcy broods over many a business man. Unworthy dread, in view of the promise, “Verily thou shalt be fed.”
3. Fears growing out of conditions of health. The exaggeration of this is observed in cases of religious mania or nervous depression. Then all the future is black and hopeless, and the soul immovably accepts the idea that it is for ever lost. These fears, alas! often inspire the suicide to his self-murderous deed.
4. Fears that gather about the certainty of judgment when the conscience bears testimony to guilt. A whole life may be shadowed by a crime. It is not the memory of the crime that flings the shadows; it is the conviction that the crime must come up again to view some day, and make its appeal for vengeance. In one way or another shadows lie on all our lives.
II. PRESENT THINGS THAT RELIEVE THE SHADOWS FLUNG BY THE FUTURE.
1. Human hope. The most indestructible thing in human breasts.
2. Right estimate of life; as the sphere in which a great moral purpose is being wrought out: character is being moulded by the mingled influence of things evil and things good.
3. The comforting promises of God; which assure us of Divine overcomings and overrulings.
4. And the assurance of the abiding Divine presence, which is a constant sweet light that, falling on the very shadows, touches them with golden glowing, even as dark evening clouds are kindled into glory at the after-sunset.R.T.
Isa 39:8
Our submissions may be selfish.
“He said moreover, For there shall be peace and truth in my days.” “Hezekiah not only acquiesces in the will of Jehovah. like Eli (1Sa 3:18), but congratulates himself on his own personal safety. It would, no doubt, have been the nobler course to beg that he alone might bear the punishment, as he alone had sinned. But the principle of the solidarity of the forefather and his posterity, and of the king and his people, prevails almost throughout the Old Testament.” Self-delusion is very common in the matter of submission.
I. SOME THINK THEY SUBMIT WHEN THEY HAVE ONLY CEASED TO CARE. The two things are quite distinct. A man only truly submits while he keeps his care, and has his personal desire and wish still vigorous. True submission is the voluntary giving up of one’s own wish because we accept the wish of another. The glory of it is that it is hard. It is easy enough when we have ceased to care.
II. SOME THINK THEY SUBMIT WREN THEY ONLY LIE DOWN UNDER GOD. As dying people, if asked whether they submit, will often say, “Oh yes; there is nothing else I can do.” God is too big for themthat is all. If he were not, they would still struggle against him. This is the Mohammedan form of submission. “Allah Akbar!””God is great!” “Islam””We must submit to him.” The exaggeration of this kind of submission is found in the Eastern doseh. Men lie down on the ground side by side, and let the king ride on horseback over their shoulders. Our God asks for no such submission as that.
III. SOME THINK THEY SUBMIT WHEN THE BURDEN IS LIFTED FROM THEM TO REST ON OTHERS. A very comfortable, but very mean, sort of submission. A selfish submission that acquiesces in a will of God that shields ourselves, whatever others may have to suffer. This was Hezekiah’s submission. “Good is the will of the Lord in judgment, for he has shifted it over to make things comfortable for me.” It is impossible to give Hezekiah much credit for so poor a submission as that.
IV. TRUE HEARTS THINK THEY SUBMIT ONLY WHEN THEY LOVINGLY ACCEPT THE HOLY WILL, WHATEVER THAT WILL MAY INVOLVE. Submission is the expression of confidence, the breath of trust, the sign of perfect love. It is the uttered child-heart. It cannot make any qualifications. Its unceasing refrain is, “My Father knows.” The one sublime example of submission is the Lord Jesus Christ, who, though the holy will involved bitterest personal suffering, could sincerely say, “Not as I will, but as thou wilt.” After Christ the world’s great figure of submission is the venerable Moses, ascending Nebo to receive the kiss of God and die, “with Canaan’s goodly land in view.”R.T.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Isa 39:1. Merodach-baladan Merodach was the name of an idol worshipped by the Babylonians, and Bel another; add these two idols, with the addition of Adan or Adon, which signifies Lord, gave name to this king. Baladan is generally supposed to be the same person who is called Belesis or Belesus, and Nabonassarus; from whom the famous computation of time, called AEra Nabonassari, took its name. He is called, 2Ki 20:12, Berodach-Baladan. One reason for his sending this embassy, as appears from 2Ch 32:31, was, to satisfy himself with regard to the miracle of the shadow’s going backward on the king’s recovery; for the Babylonians were, from all antiquity, famous for their astronomical knowledge.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
2. THE BABYLONISH EMBASSY
Isa 39:1-8
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 instead of . 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 seems to have sprung from the attraction of sound of the three following words, which begin with . 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 comp. on Isa 37:14,Our text differs from 2Ki 20:12, in reading and . Both seem to me traceable to correction. The editor of the text in Isaiah might take offence at the double , and thus have replaced the first by . 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 Babylonians sending an embassy.
On Isa 39:2. Here, too, the two texts differ. The of 2Ki 20:13, is the more difficult reading, compared with which appears an emendation: being the easier and more natural reading.
On Isa 39:3. At the end of the verse our text has after , which is wanting in 2Ki 20:14.
On Isa 39:5. Our text has at the end, which is wanting 2Ki 20:16. It may be here the same as in the case of chap Isa 37:32, compared with 2Ki 19:31.
On Isa 39:6. Our text has , 2Ki 20:17, .
On Isa 39:7. Our text has ; 2Ki 20:18 only Kri has this reading, whereas Kthibh reads . Certainly the latter is the more difficult, and 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 where our text has simply 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) = nonne. I, therefore, take not as a particle expressive of desire, as many do, but it has its conditional meaning,if, in so far as. The 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 the general, indefinite 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 (, 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 , 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 opponents 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-Baladans.
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 . Thus it appears by the account of Polyhistor in Eusebius (chron. armen. ed.Mai, p. 19), that after Sargons 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 Phnician 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-Marduks 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 721709. 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 Sargons (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-Baladans 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 Hezekiahs 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 timeshewed 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 Hezekiahs sin. is an obscure word both as to derivation and meaning. In Gen 37:25; Gen 43:11 either means spices in general, or, which is more likely, a particular sort of spice (storaxor tragacanth gum. Comp. Leyrer in HerzogsReal-Eycyclop. XIV p. 664). Many expositors are disposed to recognize in our (Kri, 2Ki 20:13, ) the same word, and to understand by 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 , not from (to beat, pound, hence , that which is pounded in a mortar), but from a root , not used in Hebrew, but which is kindred to , to gather, preserve, and in Arabic means (Pi. kajjata) to cram, stuff full. Of this would be a Niphal form (Isa 30:12), and mean provision, treasure. Thus Hitzig, Knobel, Fuerst (Lex. under and ), Delitzsch (comp. Ewald, Gesch. d. V. Isr. III. p. 690, Anm. 1). The items that follow, in which, beside gold, silver and spiceries (, 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 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 (Phn. II. 3, p. 227 Anm.). is likely the arsenal, as often signifies all sorts of war implements, and the arsenal doubtless was of prime importance to those ambassadors. In this case is identical with the 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. (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 Isaiahmy days.
Isa 39:3-8. Apart from the internal probability of it, one may conclude from 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 . 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 (2732), 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 Hezekiahs 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 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 must not be understood of direct generation, and that is agreeable to usage. Hezekiahs 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 ( , 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. 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 Hezekiahs 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 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. , 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 Isaiahs interpretation of it. To that the Lord left Hezekiah. Comp. 2Ch 12:5 and therefore I have left () 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. 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 (Gods) 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 Hezekiahs heart. It was nothing but resignation and acquiescence in the will of God, the only form of obedience and keeping Gods commandment that the case admitted. It is, therefore, not only gratuitous to infer that the trial revealed the sinful vanity of Hezekiahs 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 Hezekiahs 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 Gods 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 Isaiahs 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 3639), that our chapters show how from afar () 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 Shebas 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 Authors conjectures on Isa 7:10-16, and the additions by TR. That followTR.]
Footnotes:
[1]Or, spicery.
[2]Or, jewels.
[3]Heb. vessels or, instruments.
[4]chamberlain.
[5] [In his conjectural interpretation of Hezekiahs conduct and its relation to Isaiahs 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 Gods 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 Satans attack by Gods word, and to resort to constant watching and prayer.Cramer.
The Assyrian urges four particulars by which he would destroy Hezekiahs 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 Hezekiahs 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 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 travelers 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 Hezekiahs prayer in Gods 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 Gods 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. Jeroboams 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 itperhaps 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 religiona 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 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 shepherds 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 weavers thread means how uncertain is our life on earth. For how easily the thread breaks. Cramer. When the weavers 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 weavers 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 weavers-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 Hezekiahs 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 FEUERLEINS 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 Lords 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 Christs 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 Hezekiahs 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.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
Isa 39
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
The Blasphemy of Rabshakeh
Isaiah 36-39
The prophecies of Isaiah constitute a threefold division: first, Isaiah 1-35; second, Isaiah 36-39; third, Isaiah 40-46. We have just considered the noble words which formed the peroration of Isaiah’s political eloquence. The four chapters (Isaiah chapters 36-39), were possibly not written by Isaiah himself; they may, it is thought, have been appended by some disciple or editor in the time of Ezra. In proper chronology Isa 38 , Isa 39 should come first. For our purpose it will be enough to pause here and there at some point of direct spiritual utility. For example, here is a man, a chief officer or cupbearer, Rabshakeh by name, who represents the king of Assyria, and embodies the brutality and blasphemy which have ever distinguished the enemies of truth and righteousness. Rabshakeh began his communications with Hezekiah by a taunt. He reminded the king that he had trusted in the staff of a broken reed, that is, upon Egypt; “whereon if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it: so is Pharaoh king of Egypt to all that trust in him” ( Isa 36:6 ). Rabshakeh had the advantage of truth on this occasion, and he wished to push it to undue uses or extract from it fallacious inferences, on the supposition that Hezekiah being able to confirm his testimony upon one point would be predisposed to accept it on another. Rabshakeh offered to lay a wager when he said, “Now therefore give pledges” ( Isa 36:8 ). The proposition is marked by extreme ludicrousness, being nothing less than to find two thousand horses for the use of Hezekiah if the king on his part should be able to set riders upon them. This was the taunt of defiance; this has about it all the brutality of men who know that their proud offers cannot be accepted. Where there is great weakness on the one side, it is easy to boast of great pomp and power on the other.
Rabshakeh continued his empty boast either personally or representatively, when he said, “I now come up without the Lord against this land to destroy it” ( Isa 36:10 ). Here we have an instance of a perverted truth. Isaiah had distinctly taught that it was Jehovah himself who had brought the king of Assyria into Judah, and they who were opposed to the people of God were prepared to say that such being the case it was evident that the king of Assyria was really the representative of the God of heaven, and now Rabshakeh or the king of Assyria may be said to assume the character of a defender of the faith.
Rabshakeh made a bold appeal to the people when he said, “Hearken not to Hezekiah: for thus saith the king of Assyria, Make an agreement with me by a present, and come out to me: and eat ye every one of his vine, and every one of his fig tree, and drink ye every one the waters of his own cistern; until I come and take you away to a land like your own land, a land of corn and wine, a land of bread and vineyards” ( Isa 36:16-17 ). How eloquent was Rabshakeh in the telling of lies! Hezekiah’s people had only to leave the besieged city, and to go into the Assyrian camp, and they would be allowed the greatest privileges; thus Rabshakeh adds the torment of sarcasm to the sufferings of war, and actually proposes to the people to accept the doom of exile as if it were a change for the better! It is supposed that the taunt and the promise may perhaps be connected with Senra-cherib’s boast that he had made the water supply of the cities of his empire.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
Hezekiah’s Mistake
Isa 39
This short chapter is full of dramatic incident and colour and suggestion. It is human life condensed into almost the briefest possible compass. Hezekiah had indeed been sick sick nigh unto death, and he did not want to die at nine-and-thirty years of age, as we have seen; so he turned his face unto the wall, and cried, and prayed, and wrestled with God, if haply he might continue in existence and see the unfolding of the residue of his days. The Lord heard the moan, and added fifteen years to the life of the king. And now he is no sooner better than he makes a fool of himself! He receives a letter from the king of Babylon, takes the messengers into all the secret places, empties all the boxes of the palace, and says, You see what I have of silver and gold, and things precious and valuable. This comes of getting well again! Well for some of us had we died long ago! Well if the child had not recovered. But you would have it so. The father might have been inclined to give way and say, If so be he must go, Lord take him with an almost visible hand: but it will be hard at the best. But the mother would not have it so; she said, No: he must live: spare him, Lord! I cannot live without the child. Sometimes the Lord grants us our requests, and then sends leanness into the soul. Sometimes he may have allowed us to have our own way in prayer; sometimes we have been permitted in a great wrestling to throw the Almighty: but what has come of it? Many a mother has lived to say with heartache to her child: Would God you had died an infant! for then you would have gone straight up to heaven as the dew goes up to help to make the rainbows: but I could not give you up, I was wrong God pity me for my selfish ignorant prayer! Why will we take things into our own hands? Here is selfishness. Who can escape that bane? Were it something outside of us we might smite it, but it is within, it is mixed up with our life, it is our life. Herein is the mystery of the Cross of Christ, that it comes to slay self “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” This was the testimony of Paul. To this ideal we may come, not frivolously, irreverently, or by flux of time, but by the ever-working grace of God, the continual miracle of the Holy Ghost. It takes God a long time to make Christians of some men.
Did Hezekiah act the part of a frank spirit upon this occasion? Nothing of the kind. We now begin to see more of the man’s quality than we have ever seen. If a doctor had cured him he could not have been less religious in his communication with the delegates from Babylon; if some adventurous quack had brought him from the brink of the grave he could not have said less about it Not a word was said, according to the record, of the tears, the prayers, the prophetic interventions and communications; nothing was said of the religious element and action in all the movement. It is even so with ourselves. When we are congratulated upon our recovery it is hard for some of us to be religious, and to say, This is God’s hand, this is God’s miracle: truly I was brought to the very jaws of death, but I prayed mightily to God to spare me if he would, and I owe it to him wholly that I am alive this day: the living, the living shall praise him, and I will not be ashamed of my song. O ye dumb beneficiaries of God, taking his light and not owning the Giver, receiving his morning, and his noontide, and his evening, receiving the “spring blooms that burgeon o’er the world,” and his autumnal largesses, and never singing loud, sweet, public song to him. Is this just? Is this honest? Is it in any wise, or sense, or aspect, good? If men would but follow the inspiration of gratitude a new face would be put upon all Christian life. Why are we dumb about God’s gifts? It would shock us to hear some men use the name of God piously; we should receive from such an acknowledgment the shock of surprise, it would be so unlike the speaker. He is fluent enough in commercial talk, in worldly conversation; he can bargain like a Jew; but to speak God’s name reverently, to say lovingly and simply, “God raised me up from the grave, blessed be his name; I want to serve him now with both hands diligently; no work too lowly for me to do, if so be he will allow me to do it and accept the doing as a sacrifice,” if men would say this, the old days of enthusiasm would return, and the Church, instead of dying of a dumb respectability, would be alive with an inspired sensationalism. Beware of any man that speaks against sensationalism in the Church, unless he define his terms; he may be but excusing himself for a frost-bound piety. What a missionary Hezekiah might have been! How he would have astounded the Babylonian delegates had he said to them: I receive you with respect, courtesy, and thankfulness, but I must tell you of this miracle; come within, and you shall hear how it was, how it began, continued, culminated; this will be something for you to tell when you go home again. In this way every man might create a home missionary field for himself. “Come and hear, all ye that fear God, and I will declare what he hath done for my soul,” and I will speak publicly of his name, and proclaim his mercies even to reluctant ears: I will not play a thief’s part, and take heaven’s blessings as a felon might take them; I will receive them, and return thanksgiving unto God in loud public praise, and men shall know that what I have I have not by right or claim, but because of the condescension and love and pity of God. Let yourself be your text in all your best experiences. Let the facts of your family life be your texts if you are afraid to quote the Scriptures. The man who wants to preach can find texts enough in the infinite drama, the infinite tragedy of human life.
Hezekiah received the messengers and was glad of them, and showed them all that he had in his house. Bad men can never do good deeds. Could we get this lesson engraven on the memory, and made the light of life in many of our social relations, our preaching in that direction might fitly terminate. Merodach-baladan was a bad man; he could therefore not be courteous in any deep, true, and lasting sense of the term. A corrupt tree cannot grow good fruit. He was a rebel himself; he had thrown off the old king’s yoke, and set up an independence of his own in a spirit of defiance and pagan self-sufficiency. His record was not a good record. When the bad man wants to do you a service do not accept it. If he bring you flowers from the garden, he has chilled their juices, and he has looked a curse upon them; if he bring you fruit from the orchard, take care: the hands that plucked that fruit have stolen God’s righteousness and defied God’s commandment. Bad men cannot be civil, courteous, noble, in any element or quality of life. Only the good man can be courteous, chivalrous, a gentleman. Herein the Church must reclaim much of its stolen property in the way of nomenclature and definition. We say of some men, Though not Christians, they are very honourable. No! I protest against that award: temporarily honourable, superficially honourable, relatively honourable; but honourable is a word that goes right down to the roots, and in that sense no man can be honourable who has not made his peace with God. And as for the courtesy and the civility of those who do not know Christ, verily it is veneer, plating that can be rubbed off, a little decoration that can be bought at school, a simple acquirement that can be paid for if you hire the right posture-master. Courtesy is a branch of philanthropy, and philanthropy is a branch of theology, and true theology begins at and returns to the Cross of Christ. So whatever this Merodach-baladan did, he was a rebel. Would you praise the dog that worried your child because the beast had a well-chased brass collar round his cruel throat? Would you say, Forgive the assassin, for he struck me with a hand that had a diamond gleaming upon its white finger? No: under such circumstances you would be real, you would go down to things fundamental. This is what we want in all the relations of life: go to roots, study the core of things, and unless the fountain is pure the stream cannot be pure; if the well-head is right then the water oozing, bubbling, sparkling, flashing from it will be of its own quality. Make the tree good, and the fruit will be good; make the fountain pure, and the stream will be pure: not until our hearts are right with God can they be right with one another. There can be no philanthropy without Christianity. There can be a show of it, there can be a happy mimicry of it, there can be a cunning theft of many of its features; but only that is philanthropy which does not shrink from the Cross, only that is philanthropy which saves others, itself it cannot save.
Hezekiah was pleased with the Babylonian compliment. He said, Gentlemen, come in, and I will show you all I have got here. So he “shewed them the house of his precious things, the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the precious ointment, and all the house of his armour, and all that was found in his treasures: there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah shewed them not” ( Isa 39:2 ). He was a trustful man! You can get everything out of some men if you have the key of their vanity. Look at Hezekiah; as he takes the men round he says in effect, What an ally I would make if Babylon should ever be in trouble! Or, What an opponent I would make if ever Babylon should be insolent! Or, You see I am one of the great powers of the world. We want large quotation marks for “great powers”! This is the danger of all uncontrolled and unsanctified power, or position, or possibility of dominion: much would be more, more would be most, and most would explode because of its own dissatisfaction.
Was this all Hezekiah had to show? There is nothing in it then. All these things can be stolen. A half-educated thief could take away the silver and the gold; a very young felon could take away the spices and the precious ointment; a man with very poor resources could carry off the armour. Hezekiah laid up his riches where thieves could break through and steal. Ah me, how like us all this is! What should he have shown to the men from Babylon? What we ought to show to every enquirer into our method of life individual, domestic, municipal, and national: he should have shown them character, high citizenship, large education, self-control, developed to its highest point of discipline, these are things which no king of Babylon can take away. Nobody can steal the schooling you have given to your boy, but many people could easily take away his silver watch. Feed his brain; nourish his soul; under the blessing of God, seek to excite his appetite for knowledge, truth, wisdom, understanding: say to him, My son, seek them in the dawn, and in the midday, and at eventide; they are more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto wisdom: with all thy gettings, get understanding; she shall preserve thee, love thee, turn the night into day, and make the day sevenfold in brightness, and spread summer beauty all round the year; her ways are ways of pleasantness, her paths are paths of peace. Herein we take our stand as Christian teachers, preachers, expositors, evangelists, instructors of the young, occupants of the sanctuary. When we would show the riches of a country, show the altar of the land, show the church of the land, the schools of the empire, and say to Baby Ionian inquisitors, These are the foundations, and these, too, are the topstones; this is a fabric that cannot be shaken down by military thunder, this is the temple of God. We can all have: a hand in this masonry. He who builds a church builds a fortress. He who teaches a little child that God is love makes a soldier who never gives in. How difficult it is to get men to realise that the spiritual is mightier than the material! There is not a merchantman in the city who would allow a stranger to come in and take one yard of silk from his counter without paying for it: yet any literary thief can come into the best church in the metropolis and steal the preacher’s thoughts, and not a constable would interfere. Who cares about the spiritual? whereas, there could be no material without the spiritual. A thought, who shall value it in plain figures, and set out its equivalent in gold and silver? A prayer, that tender violence that storms the throne of God and brings down all grace and love and light, who heeds it? Pay for the burned clay, pay for the tinted glass, pay for the artificial light: but who can pay for thought, sympathy, prayer, spiritual ministry, that secret power over the life which releases it from bondage, which takes away the garments of heaviness and in place of them gives the garments of praise.
Hezekiah seemed to have something which he could catalogue: “Silver gold spices ointment armour.” “A man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.” A man has what a man is. Who alone stood against excited vanity; nay, who did not permit any such action of the mind as an excitement of vanity? Only one Man. There came to him on a certain day cunning interviewers, who began their plot with these insidious words Master, we know that thou carest for no man, neither regardest the person of men he laughed at them in his heart; he allowed the fools to proceed with their lie; then he said Shew me a penny: whose image and superscription is this? Caesar’s. Let him have it! Where was the wit? It was with Christ. Amend that answer if you can, even from an intellectual point of view. It is even from a literary point of view perfect. His vanity, if we may with reverence use such a term in connection with such a name, was not excited; he was not the victim of flattery, or praise, or cruel eulogium. What wonder that men fell back from him and said, Better fight a Caesar than speak to that man, unless you speak words of truth and soberness and love? Let the spirit of display once get into you even as a Church, and you may write Ichabod upon the temple door. The things to be shown in the Church are the Bible, the Altar, the Cross “God forbid that I should glory, save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” If men come to our churches and see the precious things, the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the ointment, and see no Cross, they will curse us in the day of account.
Now Isaiah enters upon the scene. Mark the difference in the tone of the two men:
“Then 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. Then said he, 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 shewed them. Then said Isaiah to Hezekiah, Hear the word of the Lord of hosts: Behold, 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” ( Isa 39:3-6 ).
It is well to have Isaiahs in society, for Hezekiahs could never keep it together. This is the tone we want. The prophet should be higher than the king. The Christian teacher should stand upon the topmost place. Herein we have given away too much, and receded in mock humility from our right position as prophets of the Lord. Who dare rebuke a king? Who would not rather be pleased, and cut his prayer in two, if the king should say to him, Come and see me in my palace? Who could preach after that? The preacher is the greatest man living. The preacher of the Lord burns up other men like stubble, when they do that which is untrue, unwise, ungodly. Preachers do not take their proper position in this matter. They are quite willing to go in anyhow. Oh, they are so humble! I am afraid they will end in jail, where such humility has ended before today. Why, son of man, if thou hadst God’s fire in thee thou wouldst denounce governments if they were unpatriotic, turn out prime ministers if they offend the spirit of civilisation and justice and progress; yea, thou wouldst not be afraid of the chief seat-holder, if he played Diotrephes, thou wouldst put thy hand upon his neck and give him to feel that thou canst do without bread and water, but not without justice and righteousness and truth. You are called, O ordained minister of Christ, to a proud position, a noble, illustrious, immortal function. The Church of Christ is not a place in which men can hear little sentiments which they may receive with the nod of an empty head; it is not a place which is put up for the purpose of saying inoffensive nothings in. O Christ, we have not used thy house aright; we have not uttered thy maledictions in thy tone; we have not spoken thy beatitudes with thy tears: we have made thy house too small a place; it might have been the greatest house in all the land, the house of beauty and music and sympathy, the house of righteousness and truth and spiritual illumination, the house of prayer, of oath, of sacrifice; it might have been a precinct of heaven!
Note
“To the great national drama of Jerusalem’s deliverance, there have been added two scenes of a personal kind, relating to her king. Isa 38 and Isa 39 are the narrative of the sore sickness and recovery of King Hezekiah, and of the embassy which Merodach baladan sent him, and how he received the embassy. The date of these events is difficult to determine. If, with Canon Cheyne, we believe in an invasion of Judah by Sargon in 711, we shall be tempted to refer them, as he does, to that date the more so that the promise of fifteen additional years made to Hezekiah in 711, the fifteenth year of his reign, would bring it up to the twenty-nine, at which it is set in 2Ki 18:2 . That, however, would flatly contradict the statement both of Isa 38:1 , and 2Ki 20:1 , that Hezekiah’s sickness fell in the days of the invasion of Judah by Sennacherib; that is, after 705. But to place the promise of fifteen additional years to Hezekiah after 705, when we know he had been reigning for at least twenty years, would be to contradict the verse just cited, which sums up the years of his reign as twenty-nine. This is, in fact, one of the instances in which we must admit our present inability to elucidate the chronology of this portion of the Book of Isaiah. Mr. Cheyne thinks the editor mistook the siege by Sennacherib for the siege by Sargon. But as the fact of a siege by Sargon has never been satisfactorily established, it seems safer to trust the statement that Hezekiah’s sickness occurred in the reign of Sennacherib, and to allow that there has been an error somewhere in the numbering of the years. It is remarkable that the name of Merodach-baladan does not help us to decide between the two dates. There was a Merodach-baladan in rebellion against Sargon in 710, and there was one in rebellion against Sennacherib in 705. It has not yet been put past doubt as to whether these two are the same. The essential is that there was a Merodach-baladan alive, real or only claimant king of Babylon, about 705, and that he was likely at that date to treat with Hezekiah, being himself in revolt against Assyria. Unable to come to any decision about the conflicting numbers, we leave uncertain the date of the events recounted in Isa 38 , Isa 39 . The original form of the narrative, but wanting Hezekiah’s hymn, is given in 2Ki 20 [Isa 38 , Isa 39 , has evidently been abridged from 2Ki 20 , and in some points has to be corrected by the latter. Isa 38:21-22 , of course, must be brought forward before Isa 38:7 ].”
Rev. G. A. Smith, M.A.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XXVII
THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST IN ISAIAH
The relation between the New Testament Christ and prophecy is that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. To him give all the prophets witness. All the scriptures, the law, the prophets, and the psalms, testify of him. And we are fools, and slow of heart to credit adequate testimony when we distrust any part of the inspired evidence.
Of the ancient prophets Isaiah was perhaps the most notable witness of the coming Messiah. An orderly combination of his many messianic utterances amounts to more than a mere sketch, indeed, rather to a series of almost life-sized portraits. As a striking background for these successive portraits the prophet discloses the world’s need of a Saviour, and across this horrible background of gloom the prophet sketches in startling strokes of light the image of a coming Redeemer.
In Isa 2:2-4 we have the first picture of him in Isaiah, that of the effect of his work, rather than of the Messiah himself. This is the establishment of the mountain of the Lord’s house on the top of the mountains, the coming of the nations to it and the resultant millennial glory.
In Isa 4:2-6 is another gleam from the messianic age in which the person of the Messiah comes more into view in the figure of a branch of Jehovah, beautiful and glorious. In sketching the effects of his work here the prophet adds a few strokes of millennial glory as a consummation of his ministry.
In Isa 7:14 he delineates him as a little child born of a virgin, whose coming is the light of the world. He is outlined on the canvas in lowest humanity and highest divinity, “God with us.” In this incarnation he is the seed of the woman and not of the man.
The prophet sees him as a child upon whom the government shall rest and whose name is “Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isa 9:6 ). This passage shows the divinity of Christ and the universal peace he is to bring to the world. In these names we have the divine wisdom, the divine power, the divine fatherhood, and the divine peace.
In Isa 11:1-9 the prophet sees the Messiah as a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, i.e., of lowly origin, but possessing the Holy Spirit without measure who equips him for his work, and his administration wrought with skill and justice, the result of which is the introduction of universal and perfect peace. Here the child is presented as a teacher. And such a teacher! On him rests the seven spirits of God. The spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge, and the fear of the Lord. He judges not according to appearances and reproves not according to rumors. With righteousness he judges the poor and reproves with equality in behalf of the meek. His words smite a guilty world like thunderbolts and his very breath slays iniquity. Righteousness and faithfulness are his girdle. He uplifts an infallible standard of morals.
In Isa 40:3-8 appears John the Baptist, whom Isaiah saw as a voice crying in the wilderness, preparing the way for the coming King.
In Isa 11:2 ; Isa 42:1 ; Isa 61:1-3 the prophet saw the Messiah as a worker in the power of the Spirit, in whom he was anointed at his baptism. This was the beginning of his ministry which was wrought through the power of the Holy Spirit. At no time in his ministry did our Lord claim that he wrought except in the power of the Holy Spirit who was given to him without measure.
In Isa 35:1-10 the Messiah is described as a miracle worker. In his presence the desert blossoms as a rose and springs burst out of dry ground. The banks of the Jordan rejoice. The lame man leaps like a hart, the dumb sing and the blind behold visions. The New Testament abounds in illustrations of fulfilment. These signs Christ presented to John the Baptist as his messianic credentials (Mat 11:1-4 ).
The passage (Isa 42:1-4 ) gives us a flashlight on the character of the Messiah. In the New Testament it is expressly applied to Christ whom the prophet sees as the meek and lowly Saviour, dealing gently with the blacksliding child of his grace. In Isa 22:22 we have him presented as bearing the key of the house of David, with full power to open and shut. This refers to his authority over all things in heaven and upon earth. By this authority he gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter one for the Jews and the other for the Gentiles who used one on the day of Pentecost and the other at the house of Cornelius, declaring in each case the terms of entrance into the kingdom of God. This authority of the Messiah is referred to again in Revelation:
And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as one dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying. Fear not: I am the first and the last, and the Living one; and I was dead, and behold I am alive for evermore and I have the keys of death and of Hades. Rev 7:17
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphis write: These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and none shall shut, and shutteth and none openeth. Rev 3:7
In Isa 32:1-8 we have a great messianic passage portraying the work of Christ as a king ruling in righteousness, in whom men find a hiding place from the wind and the tempest. He is a stream in a dry place and the shadow of a great rock in a weary land.
In Isa 28:14-18 the Messiah is presented to w as a foundation stone in a threefold idea:
1. A tried foundation stone. This is the work of the master mason and indicates the preparation of the atone for its particular function.
2. An elect or precious foundation stone. This indicates that the stone was selected and appointed. It was not self-appointed but divinely appointed and is therefore safe.
3. A cornerstone, or sure foundation stone. Here it is a foundation of salvation, as presented in Mat 16:18 . It is Christ the Rock, and not Peter. See Paul’s foundation in 1 Corinthians:
According to the grace of God which was given unto me; as a wise masterbuilder I laid a foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let each man take heed how he buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 1Co 3:10-11 .
In Isa 49:1-6 he is presented as a polished shaft, kept close in the quiver. The idea is that he is a mighty sword. In Revelation, Christ is presented to John as having a sharp, twoedged sword proceeding out of his mouth.
In Isa 50:2 ; Isa 52:9 f.; Isa 59:16-21 ; Isa 62:11 we have the idea of the salvation of Jehovah. The idea is that salvation originated with God and that man in his impotency could neither devise the plan of salvation nor aid in securing it. These passages are expressions of the pity with which God looks down on a lost world. The redemption, or salvation, here means both temporal and spiritual salvation salvation from enemies and salvation from sin.
In Isa 9:1 f. we have him presented as a great light to the people of Zebulun and Naphtali. In Isa 49:6 we have him presented as a light to the Gentiles and salvation to the end of the earth: “Yea, he saith, It is too light a thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.”
In Isa 8:14-15 Isaiah presents him as a stone of stumbling: “And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many shall stumble thereon, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.”
The prophet’s vision of his maltreatment and rejection are found in Isa 50:4-9 ; Isa 52:13-53:12 . In this we have the vision of him giving his “back to the smiters, and his cheeks to them that plucked off the hair.” We see a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. His visage is so marred it startled all nations. He is a vicarious sacrifice. The chastisement of the peace of others is on him. The iniquity of others is put on him. It pleases the Father to bruise him until he has poured out his soul unto death as an offering for sin.
The teaching of Isaiah on the election of the Jews is his teaching concerning the “holy remnant,” a favorite expression of the prophet. See Isa 1:9 ; Isa 10:20-22 ; Isa 11:11 ; Isa 11:16 ; Isa 37:4 ; Isa 37:31-32 ; Isa 46:3 . This coincides with Paul’s teaching in Romans 9-11.
In Isa 32:15 we find Isaiah’s teaching on the pouring out of the Holy Spirit: “Until the Spirit be poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness become a fruitful field, and the fruitful field be esteemed as a forest,” and in Isa 44:3 : “For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and streams upon the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring.”
In Isa 11:10 he is said to be the ensign of the nations: “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the root of Jesse, that standeth for an ensign of the peoples unto him shall the nations seek; and his resting place shall be glorious.”
Isa 19:18-25 ; Isa 54:1-3 ; Isa 60:1-22 teach the enlargement of the church. The great invitation and promise are found in Isa 55 .
The Messiah in judgments is found in Isa 63:1-6 . Here we behold an avenger. He comes up out of Edom with dyed garments from Bozra. All his raiment is stained with the blood of his enemies whom he has trampled in his vengeance as grapes are crushed in the winevat and the restoration of the Jews is set forth in Isa 11:11-12 ; Isa 60:9-15 ; Isa 66:20 . Under the prophet’s graphic pencil or glowing brush we behold the establishment and growth of his kingdom unlike all other kingdoms, a kingdom within men, a kingdom whose principles are justice, righteousness, and equity and whose graces are faith, hope, love, and joy, an undying and ever-growing kingdom. Its prevalence is like the rising waters of Noah’s flood; “And the waters prevailed and increased mightily upon the earth. And the water prevailed mightily, mightily upon the earth; and all the high mountains, that are under the whole heavens, were covered.”
So this kingdom grows under the brush of the prophetic limner until its shores are illimitable. War ceases. Gannenta rolled in the blood of battle become fuel for fire. Conflagration is quenched. Famine outlawed. Pestilence banished. None are left to molest or make afraid. Peace flows like a river. The wolf dwells with the lamb. The leopard lies down with the kid. The calf and the young lion walk forth together and a little child is leading them. The cow and the bear feed in one pasture and their young ones are bedfellows. The sucking child safely plays over the hole of the asp, and weaned children put their hands in the adder’s den. In all the holy realms none hurt nor destroy, because the earth is as full of the knowledge of the Lord as the fathomless ocean is full of water. Rapturous vision! Sublime and ineffable consummation! Was it only a dream?
In many passages the prophet turns in the gleams from the millennial age, but one of the clearest and best on the millennium, which is in line with the preceding paragraph, Isa 11:6-9 : “And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together: and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea.”
The prophet’s vision of the destruction of death is given in Isa 25:8 : “He hath swallowed up death for ever; and the Lord Jehovah will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the reproach of his people will he take away from all the earth: for Jehovah hath spoken it,” and in Isa 26:19 : “Thy dead shall live; my dead bodies shall arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast forth the dead.”
The clearest outlines of the prophet’s vision of “Paradise Regained” are to be found in Isa 25:8 , and in two passages in chapter Isa 66 : Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad for her, all ye that love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn over her; that ye may suck and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory. For thus saith Jehovah, Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river, and the glory of the nations like an overflowing stream: and ye shall suck thereof; ye shall be borne upon the side, and shall be dandled upon the knees, as one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem. And ye shall see it, and your heart shall rejoice, and your bones shall flourish like the tender grass: and the hands of Jehovah shall be known toward his servants ; and he will have indignation against his enemies. Isa 66:10-14
For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make shall remain before me, saith Jehovah, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith Jehovah. Isa 66:22-23
QUESTIONS
1. What is the relation between the New Testament Christ and prophecy?
2. What can you say of Isaiah as a witness of the Messiah?
3. What can you say of Isaiah’s pictures of the Messiah and their background?
4. Following in the order of Christ’s manifestation, what is the first picture of him in Isaiah?
5. What is the second messianic glimpse in Isaiah?
6. What is Isaiah’s picture of the incarnation?
7. What is Isaiah’s picture of the divine child?
8. What is Isaiah’s vision of his descent, his relation to the Holy Spirit, his administration of justice, and the results of his reign?
9. What is Isaiah’s vision of the Messiah’s herald?
10. What is the prophet’s vision of his anointing?
11. What is the prophet’s vision of him as a miracle worker?
12. What is the prophet’s vision of the character of the Messiah?
13. What is the prophet’s vision of him as the key bearer?
14. What is the prophet’s vision of him as a king and a hiding place?
15. What is the prophet’s vision of the Messiah as a foundation stone?
16. What is the prophet’s vision of him as a polished shaft?
17. In what passages do we find the idea of the salvation of Jehovah, and what the significance of the idea?
18. What is Isaiah’s vision of the Messiah as a light?
19. Where does Isaiah present him as a stone of stumbling?
20. What is the prophet’s vision of his maltreatment and rejection?
21. What is the teaching of Isaiah on the election of the Jews?
22. Where do we find Isaiah’s teaching on the pouring out of the Holy Spirit?
23. Where is he said to be the ensign of the nations?
24. What passages teach the enlargement of the church?
25. Where is the great invitation and promise?
26. Where is the Messiah in judgment?
27. What passages show the restoration of the Jews?
28. What is the prophet’s vision of the Messiah’s kingdom?
29. What is the prophet’s vision of the millennium?
30. What is the prophet’s vision of the destruction of death?
31. What is the prophet’s vision of “Paradise Regained?”
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
XVII
THE BOOK OF ISAIAH PAST 9
Isaiah 34-39
Isaiah 34-35 form an appendix to the preceding parts of the book, setting forth the storm of God’s wrath upon the whole world, and the face of nature in its sweetest forms and brightest colors, after the storm is over.
They constitute the counterparts to one great picture. The first part contains a denunciation of divine vengeance against the enemies of God’s people and the second, a description of the glorious state of things after the execution of these judgments is finished. The awful picture, with its dark lurid hues, prepares the way for the soft and lovely portraiture of the blessed condition which follows.
This section opens with a call to all nations and people, the earth and the fulness thereof, the world and all things therein, to hear the prophet’s message concerning Jehovah’s indignation, which shows that the judgments to follow embrace the whole world.
There are three distinct paragraphs in Isa 34 . In Isa 34:1-7 we have announcement of the final judgment upon the whole world, including Edom as the leader. In Isa 34:8-15 we have the details of the judgment upon Edom as the ideal representative of the world. In Isa 34:16-17 the prophet appeals to the written word.
The allegorical view of the use of the word, “Edom,” in this chapter is in no way inconsistent with the existence of a basis of historical fact, therefore we adopt this view for the following reasons:
1. The invitation shows that the message to be delivered was on universal interest arid application, yet the language is parabolical in kind.
2. The allegorical character of Isa 35 is undeniable, but the two chapters are linked together by the very phraseology’. As the Zion of Isa 35 is the ideal “city of God,” so the Edom of Isa 34 must include all who hate and persecute the mystical Zion.
3. The names, “Edom and Bozrah,” occur in another allegorical passage (Isa 63:1-6 ).
4. Edom, the surname of him who “despised the birthright,” was a fitting designation for those who profanely slighted their privilege as God’s special people.
5. The context is admittedly figurative, but if the lambs, bullocks, and goats be symbolical, then the unclean animals that are to occupy their places should be so, too.
6. In Heb 12:16-17 Esau stands as the type of profane and sensual-minded men, who are identified with those against whom Moses warned Israel in Deu 29:18-23 . The idea is further carried out in the next paragraph. In Isa 34:8-15 we have the more detailed account of God’s vengeance against the enemies of Zion, which is likened unto that upon Sodom and Gomorrah. This, of course, is not literal, but typically represents the punishment of God’s dreadful vengeance upon all his enemies while Edom is here again made the type. Isa 34:10 shows that this curse is to be everlasting in its typical aspect while the following verses show that Edom, as an example of such destruction, was to be literally and perpetually laid waste, and history verifies this prophecy respecting Edom.
The book referred to in Isa 34:16 is the book of Moses and perhaps includes the earlier prophets which had written in them the threatenings against the ungodly. At this time the Pentateuch and history of Joshua and Judges, and the history of the reigns of the kings up to this time had been written and preserved, but the reference is very likely to the Pentateuch, primarily, which was complete in one book and kept in the ark of the covenant. This appeal to the book by Isaiah is to prove that he was in line with the threatenings and judgments which preceded his time and that his prophecies were to be regarded as equal in inspiration and authority with the other scriptures of his day.
Isa 35 is a glorious counterpart of the judgment on Edom in Isa 34 and is distinctly messianic. The outline of these contents consists of three items. In Isa 35:1-2 we have the blessings on the land pronounced which reverses the corresponding desolation of Lebanon, Carmel, and Sharon, because of “the glory and excellency of our God.” This is a general statement of the reversal of the judgments before predicted. In Isa 35:3-4 is a general announcement of the hope and good cheer on account of the recompense of God. Then in Isa 35:5-10 the prophet particularizes these blessings which were literally fulfilled in the ministry of Christ. Then the prophet shows us the highway that shall be there, the way of holiness, with no unclean person, no fools and no ravenous beasts walking therein, over which the redeemed shall walk and the ransomed of Jehovah shall return with songs of joy to Zion, where they shall have everlasting joy upon their heads and where sorrow and sighing shall flee away. Thus commencing with the restoration to their land, then passing on to the coming and healing work of the Messiah the prophet closes with the blessing of their conversion. This hope is kept constantly before the holy remnant of Israel by Isaiah, stimulating them in these dark and gloomy hours, just As when the weary traveler gains The height of some o’er-looking hill, The sight his fainting spirit cheers, He eyes his home, though distant still.
This section, Isaiah 36-39, in our outline of Isaiah is called “The Historical Interlude,” sometimes called “The Book of Hezekiah.” There is a reference to this section in 2Ch 32:32 , thus: “Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and his good deeds, behold, they are written in the vision of Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz, in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel.” as a matter of history almost all this section is embodied in 2 Kings 18-20, which should be carefully studied in connection with this passage in Isaiah.
This section may be regarded as the history of how Hezekiah stood the test applied to him. A like test was put to Ahaz (Isa 7:3-17 ), and he, an unbeliever as he was, simply put the offered grace from him, as swine would deal with pearls cast before them. But Hezekiah’s test reveals a different character, one vastly more interesting and instructive for God’s people in all ages. He proves to be a man of faith in God and, in a large measure, wins out in the conflict, but fails in the matter of the Babylonian messengers and the pride of his heart. Yet again he shows that he was a child of God in that he humbled himself so that the threatened wrath of Jehovah came not upon them in the days of Hezekiah. The case of David and Solomon, in which the consequences of Solomon’s sins were deferred till after his death for the sake of David, is similar to this.
This section divides itself into two parts, viz: (1) Sennacherib’s invasion (Isaiah 36-37) ; (2) Hezekiah’s sickness, and the embassy from Babylon (Isaiah 38-39).
Isaiah 36-37 contain a history of an event which had been predicted long before and frequently alluded to afterward (see Isa 8:5-10 ; Isa 10:12-19 ; Isa 10:33-34 ; Isa 30:28-31 ; Isa 31:8 ). It was stated definitely that the stream of Assyrian conquest, after it had overflowed Samaria, would “reach even to the neck” of Judah, and then be suddenly turned back. The fact of the prediction is unquestionable. The actual overthrow of the Assyrian power is as certain as any event in the world’s annals. These two chapters are thus the historical goal of tile book from Isaiah 7-35. So this part of the book is as inseparable from the preceding part of the book as fulfilment is inseparable from prediction itself.
Isaiah 38-39 are, on the other hand, the historical starting point for the rest of the book. These two chapters tell of the failure of the man who had checked the stream of national corruption; who suppressed idolatry, restored the Temple worship, and followed the guidance of the prophetic word; who had been rescued, both from a fatal malady and from the assault of the Assyrian king. When such & one fell away, no higher proof could be given that Judah must be subjected to the severe discipline of the captivity. With this dark foreshadowing there was a necessity for the following chapters of comfort.
The date of Sennacherib’s attack on Jerusalem is significant. The record tells us that this event was in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah, king of Judah, which was forty-six years after the vision of Isa 6 . This taken in connection with Isa 37:30 indicates that they were on the threshold of the Jubilee Year which, with its blessings, should be the sign unto Hezekiah that God would make the Jubilee laws effective at this time and deliver the land from the hand of Sennacherib.
From 2Ki 18:13-16 we learn that the immediate cause of Sennacherib’s invasion at this time was Hezekiah’s refusing to pay tribute. But the record also tells us that Hezekiah righted this wrong to the king of Assyria by sending the tribute and begging his pardon. This did not satisfy Sennacherib because he had a motive beyond that of getting the tribute, for we see him demanding the unconditional surrender of Jerusalem avowedly to be followed by deportation. This was an act of perfidy, as well as of cruelty and arrogance. Undoubtedly Sennacherib’s motive was not merely political, but he was bent on proving that Jehovah was on a level with the gods of other nations. Assyria had become a great power and, as she thought, had overcome the gods of all the other nations, including Samaria whose God was Jehovah. Just one more step now was needed to make Assyria the lord of the world, and that was the capture of Jerusalem. This evidently was his ulterior motive in this invasion.
In Isaiah 36-37 we have the details of this history which is a thrilling account of a conflict between the true and the false religion, similar to that of Moses and Pharaoh, or Elijah and the prophets of Baal. Here it is the Assyrian gods versus Jehovah. The items of this history are as follows: Rabshakeh was sent by Sennacherib from Lachish against Jerusalem with a great army which stopped at the upper pool near the Joppa gate, where Isaiah met Ahaz some forty years before.
Messengers from Hezekiah at once went out to meet Rabshakeh through whom he sent a message to Hezekiah belittling his confidence in Egypt and in Jehovah, saying that Egypt was a bruised reed and could not be depended upon, and that Jehovah had commissioned him to destroy the land of Judah. Then the messengers asked Rabshakeh to speak in the Assyrian language so the people on the wall could not understand, but he deliberately refused to comply, saying that he was sent to speak to the people on the wall. Then he grew bold and made a strong plea to those who heard him to renounce allegiance to Hezekiah and come over to Sennacherib, but they held their peace as they had been instructed to do. Upon this came the messengers to Hezekiah with their clothes rent and told him the words of Rabshakeh. Hezekiah when he heard it rent his clothes, covered himself with sackcloth and went into the house of Jehovah.
Then he sent messengers to Isaiah to ask him to pray for the remnant. Isaiah returned word that there was no need of fear, for Jehovah would send Sennacherib back to his own land and there he would die. Rabshakeh returned to find his master pushing the conquest on toward Egypt and hearing at the same time that Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia, was coming out to help Hezekiah. This seemed to provoke Sennacherib and he sent a letter to Hezekiah to warn him again putting his trust in Jehovah, reminding him also of the Assyrian victories over the gods of the other nations. Then Hezekiah took the letter and spread it before Jehovah and prayed.
For pointedness, faith, and earnestness, this prayer has few equals on record. Just at this time came another message from the Lord through Isaiah, assuring Hezekiah of the Lord’s intervention, as in very many instances before, to deliver his people from this Assyrian, whom he would lead by the nose back to his own land. Then follows the sign of Jehovah to Hezekiah assuring him that the remnant should prosper under Jehovah’s hand, reannouncing also the defeat of the plan of Sennacherib to take Jerusalem. The rest of Isa 37 is an account of the destruction of the Assyrian army by the angel of Jehovah and the death of Sennacherib in his own land.
Isa 38 opens with the statement, “In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death,” which is far from being a precise date, but the promise of fifteen years added to his life and the twenty-nine years of his reign in all, fixes the date in the fourteenth year of his reign, which is the date given in Isa 36:1 . In Isa 38:5-6 the two deliverances are coupled together in a way which suggests that they stood in some close relation to each other. Thus we are led to look on these two pairs of chapters, not as successive in point of time, but as contemporaneous.
In the record here Hezekiah’s malady is called a boil, but we learn that it was a special disease marked by the signs of leprosy. The same word occurs in Exo 9:9-11 to describe the Egyptian plague of “boils,” in Lev 13:18-20 to describe the boil out of which leprosy sprang, in Deu 28:27 ; Deu 28:35 to describe the “boil of Egypt” and the “sore boil that cannot be healed,” and in Job 2:7 to describe the “sore boils” with which Job was smitten. So, humanly speaking, his disease was incurable.
When the prophet announced that Hezekiah must die he prayed and wept. The prayer, as recorded here, is very brief but pointed, pleading his own faithfulness to Jehovah, an unusual petition though allowable in Hezekiah’s case because it was true and was in line with the promise made to Solomon (1Ki 9:4 ).
It was no weak love of life that moved Hezekiah to pray for recovery. It was because that he, who had followed God with all sincerity, appeared to be stricken with the penalty fore-ordained for disobedience. Leprosy means “a stroke,” and was believed to be a stroke from God. That was what made the stroke so exceedingly bitter. He was not to witness that great exhibition of God’s truth and mercy toward which the faithful had been looking for almost thirty years. Such was a sore trial to Hezekiah.
Upon the direction of the prophet, a cake of figs was applied. This remedy is said to be employed now in the east for the cure of ordinary boils. But it was quite an insufficient cure for this incurable “boil” from which Hezekiah was suffering. In miraculous cures, both the Old Testament prophets and our Lord himself sometimes employed means, insufficient in itself, but supernaturally rendered sufficient, to effect the intended cure. (See 1Ki 17:21 ; 2Ki 4:34 ; 2Ki 4:41 ; 2Ki 5:14 ; Joh 9:6 ; Mar 7:33-8:23 , etc.) These are examples of the natural and the supernatural working together for the desired end.
The sign given Hezekiah was the turning back of the shadow on the dial ten degrees. The dial was, perhaps, a large structure consisting of steps upon which the shadow of a great shaft was allowed to fall, which indicated the position of the sun in the heavens. In this case the shadow was made to run back, instantly, ten degrees. How this miracle was performed the record does not say, but it may have been seen by the law of refraction which does not make it any less a miracle. Hezekiah wrote a song of thanksgiving for his recovery, which in the first part looks at the case of his sickness from the standpoint of the despair and gloom of it, while the latter part treats the case from the stand point of the deliverance and wells the note of praise. In the middle of this poem we find his prayer which he prayed in this dark hour.
Hezekiah made a great mistake in the latter part of his life in allowing himself to become exalted in his prosperity and not humbling himself before the Lord as in former years (2Ch 32:24-33 ). So when God tested him again in the matter of the messengers from Babylon, he failed because he had not the spirit of discernment so as to know their purpose to spy out the land. He showed them everything and thus prepared the way for the capture of Judah by the Chaldeans.
The closing part of this section shows the necessity for the second division of the book. This part closes with the announcement of the captivity and gives us a very dark picture which calls for the opening sentence of comfort in the next division. Hezekiah is reconciled to it as we see from his language, but evidently it is to be understood in this connection that the prophet had already revealed to him that there should be peace and truth in his days. Now, if Hezekiah had his message of comfort and was thereby able to joyfully acquiesce in the future calamity already announced, should we not expect a message of comfort also for Judah? The last twenty-seven chapters furnish just such comfort for Judah, that she too might not despair in view of the approaching captivity.
From the many lessons that might be selected from the life of Hezekiah I take but one. Though he was upright and so highly commended in the Scripture (2Ki 18:5-7 ) he had a burden of guilt, from which only God’s grace could absolve him. He could not stand as the “Righteous Servant,” who should “justify many” by “bearing their iniquities.” If good Hezekiah could not, what child of man can? Nay, we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God.
QUESTIONS
1. What is the relation of Isaiah 34-35 to the preceding parts, especially the preceding section, of the book?
2. What is the relation of these two chapters to each other?
3. How does this section open and what the nature of the prophecy as indicated by it?
4. What is the analysis of Isa 34 ?
5. Why adopt the allegorical view of the use of the word, “Edom,” in this chapter?
6. How is the idea further carried out in the next paragraph?
7. What is the book referred to in Isa 34:16 and what the import of this appeal to the Word?
8. What is the nature of Isa 35 and what the brief outline of its contents?
9. What is the section, Isaiah 36-39, called, where may we find a reference to them and where do we find nearly the whole of them embodied?
10. What, briefly, is the theme of this section, what similar test was applied to a king of Israel prior to this and what the difference in the deportment of the two kings under the test of each, respectively?
11. What case in the history of Israel similar to this?
12. How is this section divided and, briefly, what does each part contain?
13. What is the date of Sennacherib’s attack on Jerusalem and what the significance of the date in the light of Isa 37:30 ?
14. What is the cause of Sennacherib’s invasion at this time?
15. What are the essential points in the narrative of Sennacherib’s attack upon Jerusalem?
16. What is the date of Hezekiah’s sickness?
17. What was Hezekiah’s malady and what ita nature?
18. What did Hezekiah do when the prophet announced that Hezekiah must die and what plea did he make?
19. Why did Hezekiah pray to be healed?
20. What is remedy did he apply and why?
21. What is the sign given Hezekiah?
22. How was this miracle performed?
23. What expression have we of Hezekiah’s gratitude for this divine deliverance and what the viewpoints from which it deals with the case?
24. What was Hezekiah’s great mistake in the latter part of his life?
25. How does the closing part of this section show the necessity for the second division of the book?
26. What is great lesson from the life of Hezekiah?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
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.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Isaiah Chapter 39
This chapter, it would seem, owes its place here chiefly as a basis for the very weighty place which Babylon (whither Judah was going into captivity) holds in the controversy which Jehovah had with His people. Hezekiah had not walked softly, when the ambassadors of Merodach-baladan came to congratulate him, but had sunk to their level. Wherefore Jehovah sent the threat of sure judgement. All that David’s son in his vanity had spread before the eyes of the strangers should be swept into the city of confusion, the chastiser of Jerusalem’s idolatry; only it should not fall in the days of the pious king, notwithstanding his failure.
“At that time Merodach-baladan the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent a letter and a present to Hezekiah; for he heard that he had been sick, and was recovered. And Hezekiah was glad of them, and showed them the house of his precious things, the silver and the gold and the spices and the precious oil, and all the house of his armour, and all that was found in his treasures: there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah showed them not. Then came Isaiah the prophet unto king Hezekiah, and said unto him, What said these men? And from whence came they to thee? And Hezekiah said, They are come from a far country to me, from Babylon. Then said he, What have they seen in thine house? And Hezekiah answered, All that [is] in my house have they seen: there is nothing among my treasures that I have not shown them. Then said Isaiah to Hezekiah, Hear the word of Jehovah of hosts. Behold, days come, when all that [is] in thy house, and [that] which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day, shall be carried to Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith Jehovah. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, whom thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon. Then said Hezekiah unto Isaiah, Good [is] the word of Jehovah which thou hast spoken. And he said, For there shall be peace and truth in my days” (vv. 1-8).
The chapter is of special interest as the first plain indication in later times of a power destined to overthrow the mighty kingdom of Assyria, to be then set up by the God of heaven, after the conquest of Jerusalem, in the imperial seat of the world as thenceforward an unrivalled king of kings. It was as yet the struggle of a province to be independent. This very man, whose name has been recognised in the Assyrian inscriptions, as well as in a fragment of Polyhistor (Euseb. Chron. Can. i. v. 1), and in Ptolemy’s Canon, “sustained two contests with the power of Assyria, was twice defeated, and twice compelled to fly his country. His sons, supported by the king of Elam or Susiana, continued the struggle, and are found among the adversaries of Esar-Haddon, Sennacherib’s son and successor. His grandsons contend against Asshurbani-pal, the son of Esar-Haddon. It is not till the fourth generation that the family seems to become extinct; and the Babylonians, having no champion to maintain their cause, contentedly acquiesce in the yoke of the stranger” (Canon Rawlinson in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, ii. 332).
This outline by a competent hand may serve to show what an enormous gap of circumstances yet more than of time severed the Babylon of Nebuchadnezzar from him who sent his envoys to Hezekiah, still more from that Babylon whose downfall from the haughtiest seat on earth was announced long before by Isaiah in two of his most remarkable “burdens” (Isa. 13 – 14 and Isa 21 ). But all was proved the more to be before God, Who deigned to disclose the end from the beginning. On every ground Hezekiah should have known better; whereas he forgot even the lessons of his sickness, as well as of God’s dealing with Sennacherib’s hosts, indulged in the things of men, and sunk to the level of a worldly politician. But at least the solemn rebuke of Jehovah through Isaiah recalled him humbly to accept the divine word with his wonted piety and thanksgiving, of which rationalism has no experience, and so with evil eye sees nothing but despicable egotism in a soul that judged self and bowed to God.
Reviewing the parenthetic history of Isa. 36-39 the believer can but acknowledge the divine wisdom of their place between the first great division of the prophecy and the last. None could be so suited to the work of introducing them at this point than the inspired waiter of the entire book. Although strictly historical, they are very much more, for they are instinct with prophecy, and, on the judicial check given to Assyria, prepare for the prominence given ere long to Babylon, little as this was then expected, as the agent for sweeping Judah and the house of David into captivity. But they adumbrate also the Son of David and David’s Lord, Who, instead of being sick and healed would go down, for God’s glory and in His grace beyond all thought of man, Into death most real as an offering for sin, yet rise again and make good an everlasting covenant for the blessing of Israel and all the earth, when kings shall stop their mouths at Him, once marred more than any, then exalted and high exceedingly Striking it is to read in Isa 35:4 , “Behold, your God! vengeance cometh” (which in no way characterises the gospel but the future kingdom fully), “the recompense of God. He will come himself and save you”; and in Isa 40:9 , Isa 40:10 , “Behold your God! Behold, the Lord Jehovah will come with might, and his arm shall rule for him; behold, his reward is with him, and his recompense before him.” The same Spirit, the same hand wrote both passages.
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Isa 39:1-4
1At that time Merodach-baladan son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah, for he heard that he had been sick and had recovered. 2Hezekiah was pleased, and showed them all his treasure house, the silver and the gold and the spices and the precious oil and his whole armory and all that was found in his treasuries. There was nothing in his house nor in all his dominion that Hezekiah did not show them. 3Then Isaiah the prophet came to King Hezekiah and said to him, What did these men say, and from where have they come to you? And Hezekiah said, They have come to me from a far country, from Babylon. 4He said, What have they seen in your house? So Hezekiah answered, They have seen all that is in my house; there is nothing among my treasuries that I have not shown them.
Isa 39:1 Merodach-baladan This was prince of Bit-Yakin, who controlled southern Babylon (721-710, 703-702 B.C.) and who rebelled against Assyria, twice. See Contextual Insights to Isaiah 38.
king of Babylon, sent letters Apparently this Babylonian king was looking for allies against Assyria and, unfortunately, Hezekiah’s pride caused him to do a foolish thing (cf. Isa 39:2) in revealing his wealth and resources to these Babylonian emissaries. He was possibly looking for a new political alliance.
Isa 39:2
NASB, NKJVwas pleased
NRSV, TEV,
REBwelcomed
NJBwas delighted
LXXrejoiced
The MT has rejoiced (BDB 970, KB 1333, Qal IMPERFECT), which is often used in an arrogant sense (cf. Job 31:29; Psa 35:15; Psa 35:19; Psa 35:24; Psa 38:16; Pro 24:17; Eze 25:6; Mic 7:8).
There was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah did not show them The VERB show (BDB 906, KB 1157) is a Hiphil PERFECT. The king was really trying to show off. He must have personally accompanied them to all the civic and sacred sites (cf. Isa 39:4).
Isa 39:3-4 Was Isaiah seeking information? I think it was a rhetorical question to jolt the king!
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
At that time: i.e. shortly after the two miracles of the shadow and Hezekiah’s recovery from his sickness. Compare 2Ch 32:31.
letters and a present. These were more potent than Sennacherib’s hosts; just as Ahab’s daughter and feast were than his men of war with Jehoshaphat. See 2Ch 18:1-3. Compare with 2Ch 17:1-3.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 39
At that time Merodachbaladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah: for he heard that he had been sick, and that he had recovered ( Isa 39:1 ).
Now here’s another bad thing that came out of his recovery. The king of Babylon sent his son with a message of, “Glad you’re well and all.”
Hezekiah was glad of them, and showed them the house of his precious things, the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the precious ointment, and all the house of his armor, and all of his treasures: there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah did not show them. Then came Isaiah the prophet to king Hezekiah, and said unto him, What did these men say to you? and where did they come from? And Hezekiah said, They are come from a far country unto me, even from Babylon. And Isaiah said, What did they see in your house? And Hezekiah answered, All that I have in my house they have seen: there is nothing among my treasures that I did not show them. Then said Isaiah to Hezekiah, Hear the word of the LORD of hosts: Behold, the days come, that all that is in your house, and that which your fathers have laid up in store until this day, shall be carried to Babylon: and nothing shall be left, saith the LORD. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon. Then said Hezekiah to Isaiah, Good is the word of the LORD which you have spoken. He said moreover, For there shall be peace and truth in my days ( Isa 39:2-8 ).
So it would appear that God’s time for Hezekiah had come and that nothing but evil came out of the prolonging of his years fifteen years. When God’s time comes to go, man, let’s go.
Now this is the end of what they call Part One of the book of Isaiah. Thirty-nine chapters comprise the first part, which are, more or less, equivalent to the thirty-nine chapters of, or thirty-nine books of the Old Testament. Now the next twenty-seven chapters come into a whole new theme. It’s a whole…in fact, it is so different that it has caused some critics to say that they are actually two Isaiah’s and that another Isaiah wrote this second part because it is so different in style and all than the first part of Isaiah. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Isa 39:1-4
Isa 39:1-2
Here we have the conclusion of the historical section, relating Hezekiah’s vanity in the display of his wealth to Merodach-Baladan’s ambassadors, the Lord’s rebuke through Isaiah, and the predictive prophecy that Babylon would be the power that would capture Jerusalem, loot the city, and deport the royal family to Babylon. The short chapter ends with the submissive resignation of Hezekiah to the fate of his beloved city and the personal rejoicing that he would not live to see the disastrous prophecy fulfilled. Also, he found great comfort in the assured time-lapse before the promised fulfillment of it.
The great thing in the chapter, of course, is the clear, graphic prediction of the Babylonian captivity, which in consideration of Isaiah’s oft-repeated mention of “the remnant” that would return, conclusively shows that this prophecy of the Babylonian captivity had long been anticipated; but only here is it boldly and emphatically declared. To be sure, many critical writers refuse to admit that Isaiah wrote this; but as Rawlinson pointed out, this denial is caused, “Solely by their reluctance to admit that a prophet could predict the subjugation of Judah by Babylon more than a century before the event.” The judicial darkening of the human intelligence is clearly visible in such illogical unwillingness to see predictive prophecy here. The prophecy is wedged into the historical situation so skillfully, carries so many dramatic particulars, and so certainly belongs to the century preceding the events prophesied, that there cannot possibly be any reasons whatever for alleging that the prophecy is a “post eventum” prediction.
As Hailey suggested, the only difficult thing about this chapter is the problem of dating it. Rawlinson set it in the year 714 B.C. Cheyne located it in the era of Sargon’s invasion; D. J. Wiseman placed it in the year 705 B.C. We fully agree with Hailey who wrote that, “Determining dates for events in this chapter is beyond our ability. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to ask, “What difference does it make”? We are certain of the approximate time, and the exact date makes no difference at all.
Despite the uncertainty regarding the exact dates involved here, there are a few facts which we believe shed light on exactly why this uncertainty persists. There is hardly any event in these historical chapters that can be nailed down chronologically with absolute certainty.
“Merodach-baladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon …” (Isa 39:1). Cheyne believed that there were two monarchs of this name, one ruling in the period of Sargon’s invasions of Judah, and the other during the period of Sennacherib’s invasions. “Merodach-baladan was not an uncommon name of Babylonian kings. Thus, there is the problem of just “which” Merodach-baladan sent this embassy to Hezekiah. Furthermore, Merodach-baladan’s kingship of Babylon was ended in 710 B.C., when Sargon removed him. It should be noted in this connection that our text flatly declares that Merodach-baladan was “king of Babylon.”
Now, take the reign of Hezekiah. Neither the beginning of it, nor the end of it, is actually dated in scripture. “It seems best to assume that Hezekiah was co-regent with Ahaz from circa 729 B.C., becoming sole king circa 716 B.C.
The end of Hezekiah’s reign is just as uncertain. “His son Manasseh was probably, “Co-regent with him from 696 to 686 B.C.
Even the invasions of Judah are not at all certainly documented as to their dates. In fact, Sargon, in inscriptions claims to have conquered Judah, but the Bible makes no mention of such a conquest.
In view of all these facts, there is little wonder that scholars do not know exactly what date to assign to some given event in these chapters. For example, in the “sixth year of the reign” of some monarch means nothing at all unless the knowledge of just “when” that reign started is also available.
After all, the big thing here is not exactly when the events of this chapter occurred, but that they did occur; and that they precipitated the great prophecy of the Babylonian captivity of Israel. Here we turn our attention to the text itself.
Isa 39:1-2
“At that time Merodach-baladan, son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah; for he heard that he had been sick, and was recovered. And Hezekiah was glad of them, and showed them the house of his precious things, the silver, and the gold, and 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 showed them not.”
The proper understanding of what happened here must be derived from what is recorded in 2Ch 32:25-26. After his illness, “Hezekiah rendered not again according to the benefits done unto him; for his heart was lifted up: therefore there was wrath upon him, and upon Judah and Jerusalem. Notwithstanding Hezekiah 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.”
Hailey’s comment here is appropriate:
“Hezekiah’s ancestor, David, had yielded to the lust of the flesh; and Solomon had yielded to vanity and pomp; and now Hezekiah, one of Judah’s most admired kings, had yielded to flattery and pride. The flesh is terribly weak.
Human beings are simply not structured to be rulers. The old proverb that “Power corrupts; and total power corrupts totally” has grown out of the distilled experience of mankind throughout the ages.
The flourishing state of Hezekiah’s treasury cannot help us with the problem of the date, because, his treasury was full, not only before Sennacherib exacted that huge tribute, but again after the recovery of all that loot and more upon the death of the Assyrian army.
Before leaving these two verses, it should be noted that the occasion of this visit from Babylon was the recovery of Hezekiah, also an inquiry into that astronomical miracle which had accompanied it (2Ch 32:31). This strongly indicates that the miracle was not a worldwide event, but one localized in Jerusalem. Behind this, however, the scheme of the Babylonian monarch to form an alliance with Hezekiah looms as the principal reason for the visit.
Isa 39:3-4
“Then 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. Then said he, What have they seen in thy house? And Hezekiah answered, All that is in my house have they seen: there is nothing among my treasures that I have not showed them.”
It seems nearly incredible that Hezekiah should have been so naive as to have turned his palace wrong-side out to display it to any foreign power, much less to one such as Babylon. There seems to be a very pleased vanity exhibited by Hezekiah here as he tells Isaiah that “This embassy has come all the way from Babylon to see me!” “Thus the faith of Hezekiah, proof against the heaviest blows, melts at the touch of flattery; and the world claims another victim by its friendship.
Isa 39:1-2 VANITY OF THE KING: 2Ch 32:31 relates that the envoys from Babylon were sent to inquire about the sign that had been done in the land. Evidently word had filtered into the courts of foreign potentates of the phenomenal, miraculous recovery of King Hezekiah from a terminal illness. Some commentators are inclined to think the inquiry of the envoys about Hezekiahs recovery was simply a ploy, a ruse, to approach Judah for a military alliance against Assyria. Whatever the case, the text in II Chronicles indicates Hezekiah did not seek the Lords guidance in dealing with the Babylonians so, God left him to himself, in order to try him and to know all that was in his heart.
If our chronology is correct (see comments on Isa 38:1-3) the Babylonian envoys came to Hezekiah before the invasion of Sennacherib (Isaiah 36-37). They came soon after Hezekiahs recovery. This would place their visit sometime in 710 B.C. Merodachbaladan (which means, Marduk has given a son) was probably named for the pagan god Marduk. He was the valiant leader of a people known as Chaldeans who gained power and rule over the southern territory of Mesopotamia. In 722 B.C. he rebelled against the Assyrian rule of that territory and formed his own kingdom. Sargon, king of Assyria (Isaiah 20), recognized his domain in 721 B.C. so he reigned over that small southern territory for 11 years. About 710 B.C. he sent envoys to Jerusalem, supposedly to give his best wishes to Hezekiah at his recovery from illness. What the envoys really came for was to invite Hezekiah to join in an alliance against Assyria. Merodachbaladan had already persuaded Susa, Phoenicia, Moab, Edom, Philistia and Egypt to join him in a military attack upon Assyria. Sargon learned of the planned attack and set about to defeat these nations, one by one. He took Babylon and Bit-Yakin (Merodachbaladans home in the swamps of southern Mesopotamia) and Merodachbaladan himself was captured. He managed to be reinstated as ruler of a small princedom at Bit-Yakin. Around 702 or 701 he occupied Babylon and ruled there again but only briefly. Sennacherib, Sargons son and successor drove him back to the swamps and Bit-Yakin. Later he was forced to flee to Elam (Persia) and Chaldean influence was silenced in Mesopotamia. Although Merodachbaladan was unsuccessful in his attempt to overthrow Assyria and revive the power of ancient Babylon, the Chaldeans rose after his death to the dominant power in Mesopotamia.
Merodachbaladans escapades and seditions are documented in the Assyrian inscriptions of Sennacherib found by archaeologists (See Archaeology and Bible History, by Joseph P. Free, pg. 210-211).
The Hebrew word samahk expresses more than gladness. It often means to shine cheerfully. Hezekiah was evidently very impressed with his visitors. He was flattered that the king of Babylon would send him a present. He was also momentarily charmed by their invitation to join in the efforts to break the Assyrian yoke. With such charming visitors Hezekiah felt it would be an opportune time to show off the grandeur of his countrys wealth and armament. He probably wanted to prove to them he was no second-rate king. Hezekiah committed a two-fold faux pas; a political blunder and a personal transgression. For the king of Gods covenant people to display all his treasures and weapons to pagan envoys who represented inevitable enemies was political stupidity. The envoys undoubtedly made mental note of fortifications, weapons and financial resources for future use. The personal blunder was in succumbing to vanity, pride, egotism and self-sufficiency. This detracted from his faith and trust in Jehovah. And this almost immediately after his great psalm of praise and trust in Jehovah! How like us mortal men he was!
Isa 39:3-4 VOICE OF THE PROPHET: It appears Isaiah came almost immediately after the tour of the envoys and confronted Hezekiah with his blunder. Isaiah was sent by Jehovah as Isa 39:5 confirms. His approach reminds one of the confrontation between the prophet Nathan and King David. Hezekiah is so charmed by the prestige apparently accorded him by this visit he misses the ominous inferences of the prophet. Isaiah asks, what have these men said? and where are they from? Hezekiah places first importance on where they were from-Babylon. Never mind what they say-even though they may be talking about a Babylonian-Judean alliance. The important thing to notice is how important I am that they would come all the way from the great city of Babylon to see me.
Isaiahs next question is one of foreboding also, What have they seen in your house? In other words, How much have you shown them of your armament and treasures? Have you been discreet or indiscreet? Still elated over being flattered by such auspicious visitors, the King blurts out that he has shown them everything! Nothing has been kept secret. Isaiahs questions were intended to reveal to the king his blunder. They were specifically to remind him he had not kept his promise to trust in Jehovah but he had been seduced through his egotism to trust in men.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
This brief chapter tells the story of Hezekiah’s folly. After his recovery an embassy came from Babylon ostensibly to congratulate him. That their real motive was sinister is evident from the attitude of Isaiah when he came to the king and rebuked him. Hezekiah, flattered by their coming, showed them all his treasures, and thus gave away secrets which should have been hidden from their eyes. The prophet rebuked him, and foretold that the very things which he had shown the visitors would one day be carried into Babylon, and that his issue would be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon. All this was literally fulfilled. Hezekiah’s answer to the prophet was submission and thankfulness as he recognized that for the remainder of his life at least there would be peace and truth.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
EXPOSITORY NOTES ON
THE PROPHET ISAIAH
By
Harry A. Ironside, Litt.D.
Copyright @ 1952
edited for 3BSB by Baptist Bible Believer in the spirit of the Colportage ministry of a century ago
ISAIAH CHAPTERS THIRTY-SIX TO THIRTY-NINE
THE HISTORIC INTERLUDE
WE NOW GLANCE at the next four chapters which relate certain important incidents in the life of Hezekiah, King of Judah. I say “glance at,” because I do not intend to take these chapters up verse by verse, quoting and endeavoring to explain them, as in the case of the first prophetic division of the book.
These chapters are almost duplicates of II Kings 18:13-21:26 and the major events are also covered by II Chronicles 32, 33. In all probability it was Isaiah who wrote these records and who was guided by the Holy Spirit in transferring the lengthier one into its place in his great prophetic book.
There was a very special reason for giving us these four historical chapters. They all have to do with a son of David upon whom all Judah’s hopes were centered, who came down to the very verge of death but was raised up again in order that the purpose of GOD might be fulfilled. That, of course, points forward to our Lord JESUS CHRIST, who went down into death actually and was raised up again to carry out GOD’s counsels. They have to do with certain events in the life of King Hezekiah, who in some degree foreshadowed this in the experiences through which he was called to pass.
In the fourteenth year of his reign the invasion of the Assyrians under the cruel and ruthless Sennacherib took place. After destroying or capturing various fenced cities, he sent a great army to besiege Jerusalem. This host was under the direct leadership of a general named Rabshakeh, a bold but vulgar and blustering officer who had a supreme contempt for the Jews and for their religion.
He took his stand at a prominent place outside the wall of Jerusalem, where his voice could be heard. easily by the defenders of the city, and called upon the leaders to surrender before he undertook to destroy them completely.
Eliakim, Shebna and Joah, who were what we would call members of Hezekiah’s cabinet or privy council, undertook to parley with the arrogant Assyrian. Speaking on behalf of his master,
Rabshakeh inquired as to what confidence they trusted in, daring to refuse to yield to his commands. Insolently he declared that if they hoped for deliverance to come through the power of their GOD, their expectations were doomed to disappointment. Had not Sennacherib proved himself more than a match for all the gods of the surrounding nations?
And had not Hezekiah himself destroyed the altars of the Lord and thus forfeited all claims upon Him even if He did have the power to protect him? Not realizing that the destroyed altars were connected with idolatrous shrines, Rabshakeh supposed that they had been dedicated to the God of Judah (chap. 36:1-7).
Demanding unconditional surrender to be ratified by a large tribute, as pledge that the Jews would abide by the proposed terms, Rabshakeh even went so far as to insist that it was by direction of the Lord that Sennacherib had come against Judah.
He may in some way have become familiar with some of the prophecies which we have been considering; he knew of Samaria’s fall, and so may have learned that their own GOD had declared that He would use Assyria as a rod to punish Judah for their disobedience and waywardness (vss. 8-10).
Fearful that these words might have an ill effect upon the morale of the defenders of the city, the Jewish leaders asked that the Assyrian general speak to them in his own language with which they were familiar, and not in the Hebrew tongue. This request only roused Rabshakeh to greater insolence. He used language that was disgusting and revolting as he declared that he had been sent not to parley with the representatives of Hezekiah as such, but with all the people of Jerusalem, of whom he continued to demand instant obedience to the call for surrender and the promise of allegiance to the king of Assyria.
In that case their lives would be spared and they themselves transported as prisoners of war to other lands where they would be permitted to live in peace and security.
Derisively he referred again to the folly of trusting in their GOD and reminded them that the gods of Hamath, Arphad, Sepharvaim and Samaria had been unable to cope with the might of Sennacherib. What reason had they then to hope that the Lord should intervene on their behalf and deliver Jerusalem from threatened ruin?
To all these demands and taunts the people answered “not a word,” for the king had so commanded them. Eliakim and his companions returned to Hezekiah with their clothes rent in token of their grief at being unable to come to terms with the Assyrian general whose arrogant and defiant words they reported to their king (vss. 12-22).
When Hezekiah heard it, he too rent his clothes and covered himself with sackcloth and “went into the house of the Lord” (chap. 37:1). There he could pour out his heart to the GOD of his fathers who had so often given deliverance to His people in times of great distress and adversity. Feeling the need of counsel and prayer he sent Eliakim, Shebna, and the elders to call upon Isaiah, to whom he said,
“Thus saith Hezekiah, This day is a day of trouble and of rebuke and of blasphemy: for the children are come to the birth, and there is not strength to bring forth. It may be the Lord thy God will hear the words of Rabshakeh, whom the king of Assyria his master hath sent to reproach the living God, and will reprove the words which the Lord thy God hath heard: wherefore lift up thy prayer for the remnant that is left” (vss. 3, 4).
Such faith could not go unrewarded. GOD never fails those who commit everything to Him. He has said, “Call upon Me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me” (Psa 50:15). Hezekiah was soon to prove the truth of this promise, even though his faith must first be tested severely.
Isaiah’s answer was most cheering and reassuring. He said, “Thus shall ye say unto your master, Thus saith the Lord, Be not afraid of the words that thou hast heard, wherewith the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed Me” (vs. 6). It was not a question between the two opposing forces, or between Rabshakeh and Hezekiah. The Assyrian had dared to challenge the power of the Lord. He, Himself, would take up the challenge, and would manifest His power and might, thus showing that He was not a mere idol, nor an imaginary deity like the gods of the heathen whose inability to save their devotees from destruction had been so readily manifested.
Sennacherib and his servants had dared to rush upon the thick bosses of the bucklers of the Almighty (Job 15:25, 26), and were soon to prove the folly of daring to fight against the omnipotent GOD who had created the heavens and the earth, and who declared through His prophet, “Behold, I will send a blast upon him, and he shall hear a rumour, and return to his own land; and I will cause him to fall by the sword in his own land” (vs. 7).
The “rumour” was a report that Tirhakah, King of Ethiopia, was on his way to fight against Assyria, whose armies were divided; part besieging Jerusalem, and part warring against Libnah. Reluctantly, Rabshakeh was obliged to lift the siege and to withdraw to Assyria, but he sent a last defiant message to the king of Judah as his armies were withdrawing. “Let not thy God, in whom thou trustest, deceive thee, saying, Jerusalem shall not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria. Behold, thou hast heard what the kings of Assyria have done to all lands by destroying them utterly: and shalt thou be delivered?” (vss. 10, 11).
Again he taunted Hezekiah concerning the folly of presuming that his GOD would prove any more powerful than the gods of other nations. This message was put in the form of a letter which Hezekiah received at the hands of certain messengers who brought it from the camp of the Assyrians. It was a letter of blasphemy, and Hezekiah did right in not attempting to answer it himself. Instead, he took it into the house of the Lord and spread it out before GOD.
Bowing in His presence, he pleaded that the Lord would intervene to save His people. He
frankly acknowledged that the fake gods of the nations had no ability to save, but he confessed his confidence that the living GOD would undertake for those who put their trust in Him. The conclusion of his prayer is very beautiful and heart-moving: “Now therefore, O Lord our God, save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that Thou art the Lord, even Thou only” (vs. 20). Such confidence could not go unrewarded, nor such a prayer unheard.
The answer came through another message from Isaiah, assuring him that God had heard and was about to answer his petition; and that in such a way, that “The virgin, the daughter of Zion,” should despise the haughty foe whose army had at first seemed invincible.
Rabshakeh had reproached the Lord. He had blasphemed the GOD of Judah. In his pride and folly he had lifted up himself against the Holy One of Israel. Trusting in the vastness of his army, the number of his chariots and horsemen, he had thought it would be but a small matter to conquer Jerusalem and to carry its inhabitants away as captives, but he was soon to learn the difference between the senseless idols of the heathen and the One in whom Hezekiah had put his trust (vss. 21-28). Therefore the word of the Lord came to him saying: “Because thy rage against Me, and thy tumult, is come up into Mine ears, therefore will I put My hook in thy nose, and My bridle in thy lips, and I will turn thee back by the way by which thou camest.”
To Hezekiah the promise was given that the land which had been overrun by the enemy should bring forth of itself for two seasons and in the third year should be planted and would produce an abundant harvest, while the remnant of Judah, escaped out of the hand of the Assyrian, should once more begin to prosper and “again take root downward, and bear fruit upward: for out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and they that escape out of Mount Zion: the zeal of the Lord of hosts shall do this.”
As for the king of Assyria, he should not be permitted to enter Jerusalem, nor even shoot an arrow into it, nor threaten it again in any way. He was to return by the way that he came, for the Lord had undertaken to defend Jerusalem for His own sake and for His servant David’s sake.
The judgment was not long deferred, for GOD sent a terrible plague upon the camp of the Assyrians, so severe in character that in one night one hundred and eighty-five thousand died, and the scattered remnants of the once-great army of Sennacherib departed for their own land, led by their defeated and crestfallen ruler.
Upon reaching his home city and worshiping in the house of his god he was set upon by two of his own sons, Adrammelech and Sharezer, who slew their dishonored father with the sword and escaped into Armenia. One of their brothers, Esarhaddon, became king in his father’s stead.
Thus had GOD vindicated His holy name and freed His people from the impending doom that seemed about to fall upon them.
In chapter thirty-eight we read of Hezekiah’s illness and recovery. It might have been supposed that after such a remarkable experience of GOD’s intervention on behalf of His people, in answer to prayer, Hezekiah would have been drawn so close to the Lord that he would never have doubted His love and care again, but have lived constantly in the sunshine of the divine approval. But alas, with him, as so often with us all, it was far otherwise. When new tests came doubts and fears again prevailed and only the grace of GOD could bear with His poor failing servant.
The first test came through illness. Hezekiah was “sick unto death,” we are told. The prophet
Isaiah was sent to say to him, “Thus saith the Lord, Set thy house in order; for thou shalt die and not live.”
To the stricken king these words were evil tidings indeed. He was still a comparatively young man, for he had come to the throne at the age of twenty-five, and his entire reign was but twenty-nine years, so that at this time he was but thirty-nine. Long life was one of the promises to the obedient Israelite. Therefore the announcement that he was to die ere he was forty seemed to Hezekiah like an evidence of the divine displeasure.
He received the message of the prophet with real distress and pleaded for a reprieve from the sentence imposed upon him.
In reading his prayer we need to remember that Old Testament saints, however godly they might be, did not have the light on the after-life that has now been vouchsafed to the children of GOD. Our Lord JESUS CHRIST has brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel (2Ti 1:10).
He has revealed the truth as to that which GOD has prepared for those who love Him. Having gone down unto death and come up in triumph, He has annulled him that had the power of death, even the devil, and so delivers those who, through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage (Heb 2:14, 15). We know now that for the believer death simply means to be absent from the body and present with the Lord (2Co 5:8), and that this is far better than any possible earthly experience (Php 1:23).
But all this was unknown in the days before the advent of our Lord JESUS CHRIST, who declared, “If a man keep My saying he shall never see death” (Joh 8:51).
Therefore when the word came to Hezekiah that he must die, his soul was filled with fear, and he cried to GOD in his wretchedness, pleading the integrity of his life as a reason why his days should be prolonged.
GOD who sometimes grants our requests but sends leanness into our souls (Psa 106:15), heard his cry and sent the prophet to him once more; this time to tell him that his prayer was heard, and that GOD would add to his life another fifteen years and would also continue to defend Jerusalem from the evil machinations of the Assyrian king.
To confirm the promise, a sign was given which involved a stupendous miracle, for GOD said, “I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun-dial of Ahaz ten degrees backward.” When this actually took place, Hezekiah knew, beyond all question, that the prophet had spoken by divine authority.
This is not the place to discuss the miracle itself. Whether it was caused by some amazing event in the planetary system, or whether it was a miracle of refraction, we need not try to decide; but the fact that the astronomers of Babylon had knowledge of it would indicate that it was something far-reaching and of grave import.
Upon his recovery, Hezekiah wrote of his exercises and described vividly the experiences he passed through when he felt that he was under sentence of death. Bitterly he complained that he was about to be deprived of the residue of his years. To leave the world seemed to him like being banished from the presence of the Lord. His days and nights were filled with grievous pain, not only of body, but of mind, as he awaited in fear the carrying out of the decree, when GOD, as he put it, would “make an end” of him. He mourned “as a dove”; his eyes failed from “looking upward.” Yet he knew that he was in the hands of the Lord, and his heart cried out to Him for help.
It is evident that as his exercises continued, his soul entered more restfully into the truth that all must be well when one is in the care of a covenant-keeping GOD. “O Lord, by these things men live, and in all these things is the life of my spirit: so wilt Thou recover me, and make me to live. Behold, for peace I had great bitterness: but thou hast in love to my soul delivered it from the pit of corruption: for Thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back.”
These precious words express his realization of the goodness and the wisdom of GOD, after health returned, for he took this as an evidence that GOD had pardoned all his sins and cast them away forever. As an unenlightened Old Testament believer, he could only think of early death as, in some sense, an expression of divine disapproval.
He could see nothing in the grave but darkness and forgetfulness. In life the Lord could be praised, not in Sheol. He wrote, of course, of conditions as he understood them; but he closed his writing with a note of praise and thanksgiving for renewed strength and added years of life.
The deliverance came in a very simple way. He had been suffering from a malignant boil, but a poultice of figs, prescribed by Isaiah, drew out the poison, and started the king on the way to recovery.
It is hardly necessary to point out that had Hezekiah died at the age of thirty-nine, Manasseh, who proved to be the most wicked king who ever sat on the throne of Judah, would never have been born, for he was but twelve years old when he began to reign (2Ch 33:1). He tried to undo everything that his father had done. Hezekiah had destroyed the altars of idolatry, had swept the land clear of idols. Manasseh brought in more forms of idolatry than were ever known before and he went to spiritists, mediums, and filled the land with those who professed to be able to talk with the dead, practices which GOD had forbidden. And he brought down the indignation of GOD upon Judah, because of the corruption and sin committed.
Yet how wonderful is the mercy of GOD; at last an old man fifty years of age and almost facing eternity, GOD brought that godless king to repentance. Manasseh broke down, confessed the sins of a long, ungodly life, undertook again to cleanse the land of its idols and tried to bring about a reformation, but it was too late to recover the people. His son Amon went right on in the sins of his father.
But in the next generation, GOD came in in wondrous grace again and raised up another son of David, King Josiah, who honored the Lord in his very youth and was the means of bringing about the great revival in Judah.
The thirty-ninth chapter tells of another failure on the part of this king who was, in the main, so devoted to the will of GOD. We read in 2Ch 32:31 concerning him, “Howbeit in the business of the ambassadors of the princes of Babylon, who sent unto him to enquire of the wonder that was done in the land, God left him, to try him, that He might know all that was in his heart.”
There are few of us indeed, who could stand such a test as this. To be left alone by GOD, in order that our own hearts might be manifested, our inmost thoughts revealed, could only mean a moral or spiritual breakdown. Such was the trial to which Hezekiah was now exposed, and in which he failed through self-confidence. He acted upon his own judgment instead of turning to the Lord for guidance, and the result could only bring harm instead of blessing.
After the Lord had so graciously granted his request and raised him up from the very brink of the grave, we are told that “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.”
How would the King of Judah react to this apparently friendly overture from the prince of the great city which was the very fountain-head of idolatry?
When Rabshakeh sent a letter of blasphemy, Hezekiah went into the sanctuary and spread it out before the Lord; but when there came a letter and a present, he felt no need of bringing this before GOD, or seeking instruction from Him. Do we not all know something of this self-confidence when we have to do with the world, not seen as in open opposition to that which we cherish most, as of GOD, but rather when it approaches us in an apparently friendly, patronizing manner, extending the hand of friendship instead of the mailed fist of enmity? Yet we are never in greater danger of missing the mind of GOD than at such a time as this. The letter that is accompanied with a present may cover up a far greater danger than the letter of blasphemy.
Evidently elated by the visit of the Babylonian envoys and their retinue, and pleased with the present, Hezekiah felt no need to ask counsel of the Lord, but without hesitation he received the embassage, “and shewed them the house of his precious things, the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the precious ointment, and all the house of his armour, and all that was found in his treasures: there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah shewed them not.”
This was exactly what the Chaldeans desired. No doubt, as they looked with covetous eyes on all these things, they were pondering in their hearts how best they should proceed in order that, some day, they might conquer Judah and have all this vast treasure for themselves.
Scarcely had they gone from the presence of Hezekiah before Isaiah appeared upon the scene to confront the king with two questions: “What said these men? And from whence came they unto thee?” Ingenuously Hezekiah replied, “They are come from a far country unto me, even from Babylon.” Surely he could not have been ignorant of the prophecies Isaiah had spoken as to this reserve power in the northeast that was yet to come against Judah, and be used by the GOD whom His people had neglected, as a rod to punish them for their willful disobedience.
Isaiah put another question: “What have they seen in thy house?” The king answered: “All that is in mine house have they seen: there is nothing among my treasures that I have not shewed them.” He had no idea of the serious import of this, for he had not realized that the princes were actually spies, who had come to search out the land, and to report to the King of Babylon all that which they found.
It must have been a real shock therefore to the unsuspecting monarch, when Isaiah said, “Hear the word of the Lord of hosts: Behold, 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. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away: and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.”
All this was fulfilled years later, when Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah, and carried away their chief men as captives to Babylon, including a large number who were of the blood royal, as well as those very treasures (2Ch 36:18).
One can imagine Hezekiah’s disappointment and his deep chagrin, as he heard these words of the prophet; but he could only bow his head and accept them as the revelation of the judgment of GOD. So he replied, “Good is the word of the Lord which thou hast spoken . . . For there shall be peace and truth in my days.”
The after-history of Judah shows how, in spite of occasional revivals, things went from bad to worse, until at last “there was no remedy” (2Ch 36:16) for their evil condition, and the prophesied judgment was fulfilled in the days of Zedekiah.
One to whom so many owe so much in rightly dividing the Word of truth, J. N. Darby, aptly points out that in this first part of the book, “We have had rather the outward history of Israel, but now we have their moral or inward history in their place of testimony against idolatry, in their relationship with CHRIST and the separation of a remnant.”
That inward history was a complete failure as the next part of Isaiah’s great prophecy clearly shows.
~ end of chapter 36-39 ~
http://www.baptistbiblebelievers.com/
***
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
CHAPTER 39
Hezekiahs Self-Exaltation
1. The ambassadors of Merodach-baladan (Isa 39:1) 2. Hezekiahs boasting (Isa 39:2) 3. Isaiahs inquiry (Isa 39:3-4) 4. The Babylonian captivity announced (Isa 39:5-7) 5. Hezekiahs 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 Sennacheribs army. The Assyrian and not Babylon was the threatening enemy. Gods Spirit alone could enable him to make such a prediction.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
am cir, 3292, bc cir, 712
Merodachbaladan: 2Ki 20:12-19, Berodach-baladan
king: Isa 13:1, Isa 13:19, Isa 14:4, Isa 23:13
sent letters: 2Sa 8:10, 2Sa 10:2, 2Ch 32:23
Reciprocal: Gen 10:10 – Babel 2Ki 15:29 – Tiglathpileser 1Ch 18:10 – all manner 2Ch 32:31 – in the business Isa 14:32 – shall one Jer 50:2 – Merodach
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Isa 39:1. Merodach-Baladan. He is called Berodach in 2Ki 20:12; and being the son of Baladan, he joined his fathers name to his own. Merodach is the name of an idol, and Baladan the name of a country. Bel or Baal was also an idol. Isa 46:1. Dan 5:1. Adan is found in 2Ki 25:8, being the latter part of a generals name. This prince is supposed to have been tributary to the Assyrians, and to have taken advantage of the destruction of their army, and of the death of Sennacherib, to shake off the yoke. Baladan his father was Belesis, governor of Babylon, who on successfully revolting against Nineveh, ascended the throne under the title of Nabonassar.
Isa 39:2. The house of his precious things. The treasury where the regalia was kept; the crown, the trophies, gifts, and works of art.
And the spices, botanic gardens.
The precious ointment, imported, as is likely, from India.
The house of his armour. This was a very splendid arsenal, for after the destruction of the Assyrians, their armour was added to all that king Uzziah had prepared. Nations rising from the simplicity of pastoral habits, to the splendour of empire, must have assortable establishments. But the king is severely censured, because he rendered not again to the Lord for this salvation and national glory, by public acts of mercy and of gratitude. 2Ch 32:25. He greatly fell away from the spirit of religion, which might be a cause of Manassehs early depravity and apostasy. Be careful, ye rich, not to ruin your children.
Isa 39:7. Thy sonsshall be eunuchs. The word is compounded of , chamber, and , to have the charge of the chambers, containing the dresses and riches of the matrons and the virgins. For the most part, those men were cruelly castrated. Isaiah foresaw these humiliations seven generations before the event; he foresaw also that Babylon, now throwing off the yoke of Nineveh, would succeed, and be the ruin of the Jews. These complicated objects of distant vision all came true; and by consequence, this most illustrious man must have been divinely inspired.
REFLECTIONS.
All these riches, all this glory, said the prophet, shall go to Babylon! What a stroke at human pride, and what an obscuration of Judahs sun. Surely man walketh in a vain shadow: he heapeth up riches, and cannot tell who shall gather them. And this stroke happened when the court were elated with an embassy from the king of Babylon.
Similar sentiments animated the breasts of both the kings, with regard to the rejection of Sennacheribs yoke. Hezekiah therefore, swelled with hope, and too forgetful that all his prosperity was the special gift of God, shows the embassy all the armour of the Assyrians, all the valuable curiosities which his fathers had laid up, and all his vessels of silver and gold. Ah, so it is that one vain mortal will show strangers his mansion, his pleasure-grounds, and all his noble pride; a merchant with equal vanity will show his ships, his warehouse, his factory, and all his wealth; and the pendant will show his library, and talk of his knowledge, and works, till he has wearied the ears of his friends.
A vain forgetful temper which ascribes praise to ourselves, is highly displeasing to God. When Nebuchadnezzar said, Is not this great Babylon which I have built for the honour and glory of my majesty; he was deprived of the reason which he had abused; and Hezekiah was sentenced to lose the riches which he had ostentatiously displayed. When man misapplies the trusts of providence, it is just in the Giver of all good to put his treasures into other hands.
God very often conveys his admonitions so as to wound and mortify the pride in which mortals place their glory. Scarcely had the king entertained the strangers with a sight of all his wealth, than Isaiah apprized his master that those very men were come in fact to make an inventory of all those stores, arsenals and riches, for the king of Babylon. Oh what a check to vain glory, and forgetfulness of God! Let us ever recollect that we must leave this house and land to posterity, and perhaps to strangers: and let us know that the poorest beggar will enter with us the invisible world, on equal terms, and perhaps be applauded at the bar of God, when we shall be reproved. What can we do under the dark gloom of every earthly loss, but spring into the arms of Christ, with the prophet who in the next words cries out, Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Isaiah 36-39. This section has been extracted from 2Ki 18:13 to 2Ki 20:19, and the Song of Hezekiah has been added. For an exposition see the notes on 2 K.; here we have simply to deal with the Song of Hezekiah.
Isa 38:10-20. Thanksgiving for Deliverance from Imminent Death.This is now generally regarded as a post-exilic psalm. Its absence in the parallel narratine in Kings is significant. Apparently it was inserted here by an editor who thought it suitable to Hezekiahs circumstances. If, as seems likely, it has been influenced by the Book of Job, it must be post-exilic. The title cannot, any more than the Psalm titles, weigh against internal evidence.
Hezekiahs writing after his recovery from sickness. I thought that when I had reached the zenith of my life I should be banished to Sheol, where I should have fellowship with Yahweh no longer, nor yet with my fellow-men. My habitation (mg.) is torn from the soil. I have rolled up my life as a weaver rolls up his web when it is finished; He will cut me off from the thrum (mg.), day and night Thou deliverest me to my pain. I cried out until morning, my bones broken with torment. I twittered like a swallow, moaned like a dove; my failing eyes looked up with appeal to Yahweh, that He would be my surety. What shall I say to Him? It is He who has done it. I toss all the time I am sleeping, because of the bitterness of my soul. Lord, for this my heart waits on Thee. Quicken me and restore me to health. Affliction was bitter, but it has been for my peace. Thou hast kept back my soul from the pit, and utterly forgotten all my sins. For in Sheol there can be no praise of Yahweh. Those who descend to the pit cannot hope for His faithfulness. Only the living can praise God. the father can declare to his children Yahwehs faithfulness. Here the song closes. Isa 38:20 seems to be an addition fitting it for use in the Temple.
Isa 38:10. noontide: lit. stillness. The metaphor is of the sun having risen to its height and pausing before it descends.
Isa 38:12. loom: better thrum (mg.), i.e. the threads that fasten the web to the loom.From day . . . of me: better day and night thou didst deliver me up.
Isa 38:13. quieted myself: better cried.
Isa 38:14 c. He is like a debtor who is being taken to prison; he appeals to Yahweh, to the creditor Himself, to become his surety (Job 17:3).
Isa 38:15. Very difficult. Duhms restoration, adopted above, gives the probable sense.
Isa 38:16. Duhms emendations of the obscure text are adopted above
Isa 38:18 f.Observe the characteristic Hebrew conception of Sheol.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
39:1 At that time {a} Merodachbaladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent {b} letters and a present to Hezekiah: for he had heard that he had been sick, and had recovered.
(a) This was the first king of Babylon, who overcame the Assyrians in the tenth year of his reign.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The phrase "At that time" (cf. Isa 38:1) anticipates a specially significant event and ties it to what preceded in chapter 38. As this verse explains, the events that follow happened after Hezekiah had recovered from his illness (Isa 38:5). This was most likely during the year 701 B.C. before Sennacherib’s invasion of Jerusalem (chs. 36-37; cf. Isa 38:6; 2Ki 18:16).
Merodach-baladan (Cuneiform "Marduk-apal-iddina," lit. the god Marduk has given a son) raised Babylon to a position from which it threatened and eventually overthrew Assyrian dominance in the ancient Near East (cf. Isa 21:1-10). He was the first king of Babylon, and he led that nation during two periods: 721-710 B.C. and 703-702 B.C. The historians vary in their dating of the ancient Near Eastern kings’ reigns by a few years, but I believe the dates above are fairly accurate. In 710 B.C. Sargon, another Babylonian leader, ousted him, but in 702 B.C. the Assyrians defeated Merodach-baladan. After this defeat, he continued to foment revolt against Assyria in the Fertile Crescent. This seems to have been his motivation for cultivating Hezekiah’s friendship by sending letters and a present when he heard of Hezekiah’s recovery.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
CHAPTER XI
DRIFTING TO EGYPT
720-705 13. B.C.
Isa 20:1-6; Isa 21:1-10; Isa 38:1-22; Isa 39:1-8
FROM 720, when chapter 11 may have been published, to 705-or, by rough reckoning, from the fortieth to the fifty-fifth year of Isaiahs life-we cannot be sure that we have more than one prophecy from him; but two narratives have found a place in his book which relate events that must have taken place between 712 and 705. These narratives are chapter 20: How Isaiah Walked Stripped and Barefoot for a Sign against Egypt, and chapters 38 and 39: The Sickness of Hezekiah, with the Hymn he wrote, and his behaviour before the envoys from Babylon. The single prophecy belonging to this period is Isa 21:1-10, “Oracle of the Wilderness of the Sea,” which announces the fall of Babylon. There has been considerable debate about the authorship of this oracle, but Cheyne, mainly following Dr. Kleinert, gives substantial reasons for leaving it with Isaiah. We postpone the full exposition of chapters 38 and 39 to a later stage, as here it would only interrupt the history. But we will make use of chapters 20 and Isa 21:1-10 in the course of the following historical sketch, which is intended to connect the first great period of Isaiahs prophesying, 740-720, with the second, 705-701.
All these fifteen years, 720-705, Jerusalem was drifting to the refuge into which she plunged at the end of them-drifting to Egypt. Ahaz had firmly bound his people to Assyria, and in his reign there was no talk of an Egyptian alliance. But in 725, when the “overflowing scourge” of Assyrian invasion threatened to sweep into Judah as well as Samaria, Isaiahs words give us some hint of a recoil in the politics of Jerusalem towards the southern power. The “covenants with death and hell,” which the men of scorn flaunted in his face as he harped on the danger from Assyria, may only have been the old treaties with Assyria herself, but the “falsehood and lies” that went with them were most probably intrigues with Egypt. Any Egyptian policy, however, that may have formed in Jerusalem before 719, was entirely discredited by the crushing defeat, which in that year Sargon inflicted upon the empire of the Nile, almost on her own borders, at Rafia.
Years of quietness for Palestine followed this decisive battle. Sargon, whose annals engraved on the great halls of Khorsabad enable us to read the history of the period year by year, tells us that his next campaigns were to the north of his empire, and till 711 he alludes to Palestine only to say that tribute was coming in regularly, or to mention the deportation to Hamath or Samaria of some tribe he had conquered far away. Egypt, however, was everywhere busy among his feudatories. Intrigue was Egypts forte. She is always represented in Isaiahs pages as the talkative power of many promises. Her fair speech was very sweet to men groaning beneath the military pressure of Assyria. Her splendid past, in conjunction with the largeness of her promise, excited the popular imagination. Centres of her influence gathered in every state. An Egyptian party formed in Jerusalem. Their intrigue pushed mines in all directions, and before the century was out the Assyrian peace in Western Asia was broken by two great explosions. The first of these, in 711, was local and abortive: the second, in 705, was universal, and for a time entirely destroyed the Assyrian supremacy.
The centre of the Explosion of 711 was Ashdod, a city of the Philistines. The king had suddenly refused to continue the Assyrian tribute, and Sargon had put another king in his place.
But the people-in Ashdod, as everywhere else, it was the people who were fascinated by Egypt-pulled down the Assyrian puppet and elevated Iaman, a friend to Pharaoh. The other cities of the Philistines, with Moab, Edom, and Judah, were prepared by Egyptian promise to throw in their lot with the rebels. Sargon gave them no time. “In the wrath of my heart, I did not divide my army, and I did not diminish the ranks, but I marched against Asdod with my warriors, who did not separate themselves from the traces of my sandals. I besieged, I took, Asdod and Gunt-Asdodim . . . I then made again these towns. I placed the people whom my arm had conquered. I put over them my lieutenant as governor. I considered them like Assyrians, and they practised obedience.” It is upon this campaign of Sargon that Mr. Cheyne argues for the invasion of Judah, to which he assigns so many of Isaiahs prophecies, as, e.g., chapters 1 and Isa 10:5-34. Some day Assyriology may give us proof of this supposition. We are without it just now. Sargon speaks no word of invading Judah, and the only part of the book of Isaiah that unmistakably refers to this time is the picturesque narrative of chapter 20.
In this we are told that “in the year” the Tartan, the Assyrian commander-in-chief, “came to Ashdod when Sargon king of Assyria sent him” [that is to be supposed the year of the first revolt in Ashdod, to which Sargon himself did not come], “and he fought against Ashdod and took it:-in that time Jehovah had spoken by the hand of Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth,” the prophets robe, “from off thy loins, and thy sandal strip from off thy foot; and he did so, walking naked,” that is unfrocked, “and barefoot.” For Egyptian intrigue was already busy; the temporary success of the Tartan at Ashdod did not discourage it, and it needed a protest. “And Jehovah said, As My servant Isaiah hath walked unfrocked and barefoot three years for a sign and a portent against Egypt and against Ethiopia” [note the double name, for the country was now divided between two rulers, the secret of her impotence to interfere forcibly in Palestine] “so shall the king of Assyria lead away the captives of Egypt and exiles of Ethiopia, young and old, stripped and barefoot, and with buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt. And they shall be dismayed and ashamed, because of Ethiopia their expectation and because of Egypt their boast. And the inhabitant of this coastland” [that is, all Palestine, and a name for it remarkably similar to the phrase used by Sargon, “the people of Philistia, Judah, Edom, and Moab, dwelling by the sea”] “shall say in that day, Behold, such is our expectation, whither we had fled for help to deliver ourselves from the king of Assyria, and how shall we escape-we?”
This parade of Isaiah for three years, unfrocked and barefoot, is another instance of that habit on which we remarked in connection with Isa 8:1 : the habit of finally carrying everything committed to him before the bar of the whole nation. It was to the mass of the people God said, “Come and let us reason together.” Let us not despise Isaiah in his shirt any more than we do Diogenes in his tub, or with a lantern in his hand, seeking for a man by its rays at noonday. He was bent on startling the popular conscience, because he held it true that a peoples own morals have greater influence on their destinies than the policies of their statesmen. But especially anxious was Isaiah, as we shall again see from chapter 31, to bring, this Egyptian policy home to the popular conscience. Egypt was a big-mouthed, blustering power, believed in by the mob; to expose her required public, picturesque, and persistent advertisement. So Isaiah continued his walk for three years. The fall of Ashdod, left by Egypt to itself, did not disillusion the Jews, and the rapid disappearance of Sargon to another part of his empire where there was trouble, gave the Egyptians audacity to continue their intrigues against him.
Sargons new trouble had broken out in Babylon, and was much more serious than any revolt in Syria. Merodach Baladan, king of Chaldea, was no ordinary vassal, but as dangerous a rival as Egypt. When he rose, it meant a contest between Babylon and Nineveh for the sovereignty of the world. He had long been preparing for war. He had an alliance with Elam, and the tribes of Mesopotamia were prepared for his signal of revolt. Among the charges brought him by Sargon is that, “against the will of the gods of Babylon, he had sent during twelve years ambassadors.” One of these embassies may have been that which came to Hezekiah after his great sickness (chapter 39). “And Hezekiah was glad of them, and showed them the house of his spicery, the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the precious oil, and all the house of his armour and all that was found in his treasures: there was nothing in his house nor in all his dominion that Hezekiah showed them not.” Isaiah was indignant. He had hitherto kept the king from formally closing with Egypt; now he found him eager for an alliance with another of the powers of man. But instead of predicting the captivity of Babylon, as he predicted the captivity of Egypt, by the hand of Assyria, Isaiah declared, according to chapter 39, that Babylon would some day take Israel captive; and Hezekiah had to content himself with the prospect that this calamity was not to happen in his time.
Isaiahs prediction of the exile of Israel to Babylon is a matter of difficulty. The difficulty, however, is not that of conceiving how he could have foreseen an event which took place more than a century later. Even in 711 Babylon was not an unlikely competitor for the supremacy of the nations. Sargon himself felt that it was a crisis to meet her. Very little might have transferred the seat of power from the Tigris to the Euphrates. What, therefore, more probable than that when Hezekiah disclosed to these envoys the whole state of his resources, and excused himself by saying “that they were come from a far country, even Babylon,” Isaiah, seized by a strong sense of how near Babylon stood to the throne of the nations, should laugh to scorn the excuse of distance, and tell the king that his anxiety to secure an alliance had only led him to place the temptation to rob him more in the face of a power that was certainly on the way to be able to do it? No, the difficulty is not that the prophet foretold a captivity of the Jews in Babylon, but that we cannot reconcile what he says of that captivity with his intimation of the immediate destruction of Babylon, which has come down to us in Isa 21:1-10.
In this prophecy Isaiah regards Babylon as he has been regarding Egypt-certain to go down before Assyria, and therefore wholly unprofitable to Judah. If the Jews still thought of returning to Egypt when Sargon hurried back from completing her discomfiture in order to beset Babylon, Isaiah would tell them it was no use. Assyria has brought her full power to bear on the Babylonians; Elam and Media are with her. He travails with pain for the result. Babylon is not expecting a siege; but “preparing the table, eating and drinking,” when suddenly the cry rings through her, “Arise, ye princes; anoint the shield. The enemy is upon us.” So terrible and so sudden a warrior is this Sargon! At his words nations move; when he saith, “Go up, O Elam! Besiege, O Media!” it is done. And he falls upon his foes before their weapons are ready. Then the prophet shrinks back from the result of his imagination of how it happened-for that is too painful-upon the simple certainty, which God revealed to him, that it must happen. As surely as Sargons columns went against Babylon, so surely must the message return that Babylon has fallen. Isaiah puts it this way. The Lord bade him get on his watchtower-that is his phrase for observing the signs of the times-and speak whatever he saw. And he saw a military column on the march: “a troop of horsemen by pairs, a troop of asses, a troop of camels.” It passed him out of sight, “and he hearkened very diligently” for news. But none came. It was a long campaign. “And he cried like a lion” for impatience, “O my Lord, I stand continually upon the watchtower by day, and am set in my ward every night.” Till at last, “behold, there came a troop of men, horsemen in pairs, and” now “one answered and said, Fallen, fallen is Babylon, and all the images of her gods he hath broken to the ground.” The meaning of this very elliptical passage is just this: as surely as the prophet saw Sargons columns go out against Babylon, so sure was he of her fall. Turning to his Jerusalem, he Says, “My own threshed one, son of my floor, that which I have heard from Jehovah of hosts, the God of Israel, have I declared unto you.” How gladly would I have told you otherwise! But this is His message and His will. Everything must go down before this Assyrian.
Sargon entered Babylon before the year was out, and with her conquest established his fear once more down to the borders of Egypt. In his lifetime neither Judah nor her neighbours attempted again to revolt. But Egypts intrigue did not cease. Her mines were once more laid, and the feudatories of Assyria only waited for their favourite opportunity, a change of tyrants on the throne of Nineveh. This came very soon. In the fifteenth year of his reign, having finally established his empire, Sargon inscribed on the palace at Khorsabad the following prayer to Assur: “May it be that I, Sargon, who inhabit this palace, may be preserved by destiny during long years for a long life, for the happiness of my body, for the satisfaction of my heart, and may I arrive to my end! May I accumulate in this palace immense treasures, the booties of all countries, the products of mountains and valleys!” The god did not hear. A few months later, in 705, Sargon was murdered; and before Sennacherib, his successor, sat down on the throne, the whole of Assyrian supremacy in the southwest of Asia went up in the air. It was the second of the great Explosions we spoke of, and the rest of Isaiahs prophecies are concerned with its results.