Albert Barnes Commentary Isaiah 39

At that time - That is, soon after his recovery; or after he had amassed great wealth, and was surrounded with the evidences of prosperity (2 Chronicles 32:27–31).

Merodach-baladan, the son of Balddan, king of Babylon - In the parallel place in (2 Kings 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 (Jeremiah 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 circumstances:

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 (2 Kings 17:24), and Manasseh, not many years after, was carried captive to Babylon by the king of Assyria (2 Chronicles 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 reconcilable with sacred history.

‘In this darkness and doubt,’ says Dr. Wiseman, ‘we must have continued, and the apparent contradiction of this text to other passages would have remained inexplicable, had not the progress of modern Oriental study brought to light a document of the most venerable antiquity. This is nothing less than a fragment of Berosus, preserved in the chronicle of Eusebius. This interesting fragment informs us, that after Sennacherib’s brother had governed Babylon, as Assyrian viceroy, Acises unjustly possessed himself of the supreme command. After thirty days he was murdered by Merodach-baladan, who usurped the sovereignty for six months, when he was in turn killed, and was succeeded by Elibus. But after three years, Sennacherib collected an army, gave the usurper battle, conquered, and took him prisoner. Having once more reduced Babylon to his obedience, he left his son Assordan, the Esarhaddon of Scripture, as governor of the city.’

The only objection to this statement, or to the entire consistency of this fragment with the Scripture narrative is, that Isaiah relates the murder of Sennacherib, and the succession of Esarhaddon before Merodach-baladan’s embassy to Jerusalem. But to this Gesenius has well replied, that this arrangement is followed by the prophet in order to conclude the history of the Assyrian monarch, which has no further connection with the subject, so as not to return to it again.

By this order, also, the prophecy of his murder is more closely connected with the history of its fulfillment (Isaiah 37:7). And this solution, which supposes some interval to have elapsed between Sennacherib’s return to Nineveh, and his death, is rendered probable by the words of the text itself. He went and returned, and dwelt in Nineveh; and it came to pass, etc. (Isaiah 37:37–38).

Thus we have it certainly explained how there was a king, or rather a usurper in Babylon at the time when it was really a provincial city of the Assyrian empire. Nothing was more probable than that Merodach-baladan, having seized the throne, should endeavor to unite himself in league and amity with the enemies of his master, against whom he had revolted.

Hezekiah, who, no less than himself, had thrown off the Assyrian yoke, and was in powerful alliance with the king of Egypt, would be his first resource. No embassy, on the other hand, could be more welcome to the Jewish monarch who had the common enemy in his neighborhood, and who would be glad to see a division made in his favor by a rebellion in the very heart of that enemy’s kingdom. Hence arose that excessive attention which he paid to the envoys of the usurper, and which so offended Isaiah, or rather God, who, as a consequence, threatened the Babylonian captivity (see Dr. Wiseman’s Lectures on Science and Revealed Religion, pp. 369-371 Ed. And. 1837).

Sent letters - The Septuagint adds, καὶ πρέβεις kai presbeis - ‘and ambassadors.’

And a present - It was customary among the Orientals, as it is now, to send a valuable present when one prince sent an embassy for any purpose to another. It is stated in (2 Chronicles 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.

And Hezekiah was glad of them - Possibly he regarded himself as flattered by an embassy from such a great distance, and so celebrated a place as Babylon. It is certain that he erred in some way regarding the manner in which he received them, and especially in the ostentatious display which he made of his treasures (2 Chronicles 32:31).

And showed them the house of his precious things - The Septuagint renders this, Νεχωθᾶ (Nechōtha) – ‘The house of Nechotha,’ retaining the Hebrew word. The margin has ‘Spicery.’ The Hebrew word (נכתה, nekotoh) properly means, according to Gesenius, a contusion, a breaking to pieces; hence, aromatic powder, or spices reduced to powder, and then any kind of aromatics. Therefore, the word here may mean ‘the house of his spices,’ as Aquila, Symmachus, and the Vulgate translate it; or ‘a treasury,’ ‘a storehouse,’ as the Chaldee and the Syriac here render it. It was undoubtedly a treasure or storehouse, but it may have taken its name from the fact that it was mainly used as a place to keep spices, unguents, and the various kinds of aromatics which were used either in public worship or for luxury.

The silver and the gold - Possibly Hezekiah may have obtained a considerable quantity of silver and gold from what was left in the camp of the Assyrians. It is certain that after he was delivered from danger he was signally prospered, and became one of the most wealthy and magnificent monarchs of the east (2 Chronicles 32:27–28): And Hezekiah had exceeding much riches and honor; and he made himself treasuries for silver and for gold, and for precious stones, and for spices, and for shields, and for all manner of pleasant jewels; storehouses also for the increase of grain, and wine, and oil; and stalls for all manner of beasts, and cotes for flocks. A considerable part of this wealth arose from presents which were made to him, and from gifts which were made for the service of the temple (2 Chronicles 32:23).

And the precious ointment - Used for anointing kings and priests. Or more probably, the ointment referred to here was that which was in more common use, to anoint the body after bathing, or when they were to appear in public.

And all the house of his armor - The margin has: ‘Vessels,’ or ‘instruments,’ or ‘jewels.’ The word כלי (kelîy) denotes any article of furniture, utensil, or vessel; any trapping, instrument, or tool; and any implement of war, weapon, or arms. It probably refers here to the latter, and denotes shields, swords, spears, such as were used in war, and such as Hezekiah had prepared for defense. The phrase is equivalent to our word arsenal (compare 2 Chronicles 32:27). Solomon had an extensive arsenal of this description (1 Kings 10:16–17), and it is probable that these were regarded as a part of the necessary defense of the kingdom.

Nor in all his dominion - Everything that contributed to the defense, the wealth, or the magnificence of his kingdom, he showed them. The purpose for which Hezekiah thus showed them all that he had was evidently display. In 2 Chronicles 32:25, it is stated that Hezekiah rendered not again according to the benefit done unto him, for his heart was lifted up; and in 2 Chronicles 32:31, it is said that in regard to this transaction, God left him, to try him, that he might know all that was in his heart. The result showed how much God hates pride, and how certainly He will punish all forms of ostentation.

Then Isaiah came — Isaiah was accustomed to declare the will of God most freely to monarchs .

What did these men say? — What proposition have they made? What is the purpose of their coming? It is implied in the question that there had been some improper communication from them. To this question Hezekiah returned no answer.

And from where did they come? — It was undoubtedly known in Jerusalem that ambassadors had come, but it would not likely be known from what country they had come.

From a far country — Probably this was said to palliate and excuse his conduct, by intimating to the prophet that it was proper to show respectful attention to foreigners, and that he had done nothing more than was demanded by the laws of hospitality and kindness.

What have they seen?—It is probable that the fact that Hezekiah had shown them the treasures of his kingdom was known in Jerusalem. Such a fact would be likely to attract attention and to produce inquiry among the people about the cause.

All that is in mine house—Here was the confession of a frank, an honest, and a pious man. There was no concealment; no disguise. Hezekiah knew that he was dealing with a man of God—a man to whom he had also been under great obligations. He knew that Isaiah had come commissioned by God, and that it would be in vain to attempt to conceal anything. Nor does he seem to have wished to make any concealment. If he was conscious that what he had done had been improper, he was willing to confess it; and at any rate, he was willing that the exact truth should be known. Had Hezekiah been like Ahaz, he might have spurned Isaiah from his presence for presenting improper inquiries.

But Hezekiah was accustomed to regard with respect the messengers of God, and he was therefore willing to submit his whole conduct to the divine adjudication and reproof. Piety makes a man willing that all that he has done should be known. It saves him from double-dealing and subterfuges, and a disposition to make vain excuses; and it inclines him to fear God, to respect his ambassadors, and to listen to the voice of eternal truth.

Hear the word of the Lord of hosts — Hear what the mighty God who rules in heaven says of this. This is an instance of great fidelity on the part of the prophet. He felt himself sent from God in a solemn manner to rebuke sin in a monarch, and a pious monarch. It is an instance that strikingly resembles the boldness and faithfulness of Nathan when he went to David and said, Thou art the man (2 Samuel 12:7).