Ch. 39 The Embassy of Merodach-Baladan

Merodach-Baladan (in Babylonian Marduk-habal-iddina) was king of Babylon for twelve years (721–709) in the reign of Sargon, and again for six months (circa 704) in the reign of Sennacherib. He was originally the Chaldæan ruler of Bit-Yakin, a small state in southern Babylonia; and his long and finally unsuccessful struggle for the throne of Babylon is interesting as foreshadowing the future ascendancy of the Chaldæans in the dynasty of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar. That he was able so long to hold his own against a powerful monarch like Sargon was largely due to his practice of forming alliances with the enemies or disaffected subjects of the Assyrian Empire, a policy of which this chapter furnishes an illustration. Since his final overthrow by Sennacherib took place before the latter’s invasion of Palestine, it is quite certain that ch. 39 (and consequently 38) is to be dated before ch. 36 f. There is, however, a difference of opinion as to whether this embassy belongs to the earlier and longer period of his reign or to the brief interval of power at the beginning of Sennacherib’s reign. The vague date “in those days” at the beginning of ch. 38 seems of course to favour the latter view. On the other hand it might be urged that six months was barely long enough for the tidings of Hezekiah’s recovery to reach Babylon and for the messengers to reach Palestine. But the question is really not to be settled from internal evidence; and the chief reason for deciding for the earlier period is that it appears to afford the best solution possible of the chronological difficulties connected with the reign of Hezekiah. We shall assume therefore that this incident actually occurred in or soon after the fourteenth year of Hezekiah (i.e. about 714). This was the period preceding Sargon’s chastisement of Philistia (see on ch. 20), when, as he himself informs us, Judah along with the neighbouring states, while “bringing presents to Asshur my lord” was “speaking treason.” That Judah was spared on this occasion must have been due to a timely submission on the part of Hezekiah. And indeed the narrative before us produces the impression that while the king was greatly flattered by the attention shewn to him, he yet did not commit himself to a formal treaty, but left himself free to be guided by the development of events. It follows of course from this view that the events of ch. 38 f. have no connexion with those of ch. 36 f. and that the date of ch. 36 is wrongly placed.

1. Merodach-baladan, the son of Baladan] The form “Berodach” in 2 Kings 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. Isaiah 37:14. LXX. adds καὶ πρέσβεις i.e. “ambassadors,” whose presence is assumed in the next verse.

for he had heard] So in 2 Kings 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 2 Chronicles 32:31 the embassy was prompted by scientific curiosity with regard to the miracle of the sun-dial.

2. And Hezekiah was glad of them] Not only was his vanity flattered, but the arrival of the envoys fell in with political projects to which he was even then too ready to lend his ear. The reading is decidedly preferable to the flat and meaningless “heard of them” in 2 Kings 20:13 (not LXX.).

the house of his precious things] R.V. marg. has “house of his spicery,” identifying the word with one found in Genesis 37:25; Genesis 43:11. But this rendering has only an apparent justification in the “spices” mentioned below. The right meaning is given by the Targ. and Peshito: treasure-house. According to the younger Delitzsch it is the Assyrian bit nakanti. It is obvious that Hezekiah’s treasury was still full, which could not have been the case after the ruinous fine exacted by Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:14-16).

the spices, and the precious ointment] the spices and the fine oil. (Cf. 2 Chronicles 32:27.) These natural products of the land were probably stored for commerce and are mentioned as a source of wealth.

the house of his armour] better: his armoury. It is probably the same as the “house of the forest (of Lebanon)” in ch. Isaiah 22:8.

3. The prophet’s appearance on the scene shews that he suspected the king of coquetting with a foreign alliance, although it is remarkable that on neither side is there any explicit allusion to the political aspect of the affair. Perhaps the first evasive answer of Hezekiah betrays a consciousness of wrong-doing.

from a far country] He answers that part of the question which involved least embarrassment. It is hardly likely that he means to hint that an alliance with so distant a country was out of the question; more probably he will excuse himself on the ground of hospitality to strangers who had come so far. It is noticeable that he does not mention the ostensible motive of the embassy.

5. Hear the word of the Lord] Isaiah’s tone is threatening, because he sees in this thing a sin against Jehovah. It was not necessary to specify wherein the offence consisted; king and prophet understood each other perfectly. The reception of an embassy from the sworn enemy of the king of Assyria was in itself an act of rebellion likely to precipitate a conflict which Isaiah strove to avert; and the childish vanity displayed by Hezekiah, his pride in earthly resources, and his readiness to enter into friendly relations with the powers of this world, were tendencies against which Isaiah’s ministry had been a continuous protest. All these tendencies sprang from a single root, the lack of that absolute faith in Jehovah as the all-sufficient guide and protector of the nation which was the fundamental article of Isaiah’s political programme.

6, 7. This is the only occasion on which a prophecy of the Babylonian Exile appears to be attributed to Isaiah. It is not easy to reconcile such a prediction with the particular circumstances in which it is reported to have been uttered. The announcement naturally left on Hezekiah’s mind the impression that his own days would be spent in peace, whereas in reality the most critical juncture of his reign still lay before him, and it is hardly credible that Isaiah should have disclosed to him the remote fate of his descendants, without warning him of the more immediate and personal consequences of his folly. This difficulty would be removed if we could hold that the prophecy was uttered after the deliverance from Sennacherib; but we have seen that this supposition is inadmissible on historical grounds. A more serious consideration is that Isaiah’s Messianic ideal leaves no room for a transference of the world-power from Assyria to Babylon, or the substitution of the latter for the former as the instrument of Israel’s chastisement. He uniformly regards the intervention of Jehovah in the Assyrian crisis as the supreme moment of human history and the turning point in the destinies of the kingdom of God, to be succeeded immediately by the glories of the Messianic age. The prediction, moreover, is without a parallel in the prophetic literature of Isaiah’s age (in Micah 4:10 the clause “and thou shalt go to Babylon” is inconsistent with the context, and in all probability a gloss). These objections are partly neutralised by the hypothesis that some nearer and more limited judgment is referred to, such as the imprisonment of Manasseh in Babylon (2 Chronicles 33:11) in the reign of Asshurbanipal. The terms of the prophecy fall short of a deportation of the people and a destruction of the city, only the fate of the treasures and the royal family being indicated. No great stress, however, can be laid on this limitation (comp. a somewhat similar case in Amos 7:17) and the suggestion fails to harmonise the prediction with Isaiah’s known anticipation of the course of events. It is possible that the prophet’s actual communication had reached the late writer of this narrative in a form coloured by subsequent events.

7. The words which thou shalt beget seem, according to usage, to imply that the calamity would fall on Hezekiah’s own children.

8. Good is the word of the Lord] An expression of pious resignation, including repentance; cf. 1 Samuel 3:18.

there shall be peace and truth (or steadfastness) in my days] In the Old Testament the postponement of a calamity is always regarded as a mitigation of its severity; see 1 Kings 21:28 f.; 1 Kings 22:18 ff. Hezekiah’s words probably mean no more than that mercy is mingled with judgment in the sentence pronounced on him.