have hope in the faithfulness of God that rules over them and promises a better future. ["The true explanation of the words is given by CALVIN, viz., that the language is that of extreme agitation and distress, in which the prospect of the future is absorbed in contemplation of the present, and also that, so far as he does think of futurity, it is upon the supposition of God's wrath. Regarding death, in this case, as a proof of the divine displeasure, he cannot but look upon it as the termination of his solemn praises." -J. A. ALEX.]. 5. The LORD -house of the LORD.Ver. 20. Concluding verse, containing once again the chief thought, and a summons to continual praise of Jehovah. "Jehovah is present to save me," see Text. and Gram. So will we touch my stringed instruments, ibid. The song accompanying the stringed instrument is not excluded, though the latter alone is mentioned. The plural has been urged as favoring the meaning "song." But could not the musical King Hezekiah understand various sorts of playing on stringed instruments? Or, if not this, may not the plural be that of the general notion? Some suppose, that by the plural touch," Hezekiah sets himself as the choruswe will leader of his family. But one must not forget the Levitical musicians that he himself had instituted for the service of God's house (2 Chr. xxix. 30). Corresponding to the 777 ver. 15, Hezekiah thinks here not of private divine ser With jubilant emotions. Hezekiah feels that he again belongs to the living, hence the repetition of ' who lives, who lives, he praises, etc., and the joyous as I this day, in which appears how much the contrast between the mournful yesterday, and the blessed to-day moves the heart of the poet. The words father to the children, etc., have a peculiar significance in Hezekiah's mouth. His successor Manasseh, vice, but of the worship of Jehovah in the according to 2 Kings xxi. 1, ascended the throne at twelve years of age. Consequently he cannot have been born at this time. Indeed, since it was customary for the eldest son to succeed, it is very probable that at that time Hezekiah had no son at all, which seems to be confirmed by NY 1, xxxix. 7. Considered from this point of view our words appear prophetic. Yet, when one reflects what sort of a scn Manasseh was, it would almost seem to have been better had Hezekiah done nothing to avert the sentence of death ver. 1. temple. The preposition y is surprising Perhaps one may compare Hos. xi. 11. Perhaps, too, the preposition has reference to the elevated king into the temple, and afforded him an ele way which, according to 2 Kings xvi. 18, led the vated place from which he saw the greater part of the house beneath him. Moreover it is to be remarked, that tarrying in the house of the LORD has a prominent place in many Psalms: xv. 1; xxiii. 6; xlii. 5; xliii. 4; lxxxiv. 2 sqq. 11, etc. 2. THE BABYLONISH EMBASSY. CHAPTER XXXIX. 1-8. 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 2 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 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, 4 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 5 mine house have they seen: there is nothing among my treasures that I have not 6 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 7 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 8 thou hast spoken. He said moreover, For there shall be peace and truth in my days. 1 Or, spicery. chamberlain, 2 Or, jewels. Heb. vessels or, instruments. EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL. On ver. 1. The text of 2 Kings xx. 12 sqq., reads the case of chap. xxxvii. 32, compared with 2 Kings .31 .According to the xix מראון instead of בְּרֹאדָךְ בַּלְאֲדָן 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 777 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 mear. "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 D` comp. on Xxxvii. 14. Our text differs from 2 Kings xx. 12, in reading and pin. 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 1. But he also stumbled at its only being said 2 Kings: “he had heard that Hezekiah was sick." | For it seemed to him that the wonderful recovery of Hezekiah, and the proof it gave of his being a ruler under the protection of a mighty god, had as much to do with the Babylonian's sending an embassy. On ver. 2. Here, too, the two texts differ. The y of 2 Kings xx. 13, is the more difficult reading, compared with which appears an emendation: being the easier and more natural reading. On ver. 3. At the end of the verse our text has after 18, which is wanting in 2 Kings xx. 14. On ver. 5. Our text has 3 at the end, which is wanting 2 Kings xx. 16. It may be here the same as in On ver. 6. Our text has 7, 2 Kings xx. 17, haa. On ver. 7. Our text has p'; 2 Kings xx. 18 only K'ri has this reading, whereas K'thibh reads p'. Certainly the latter is the more difficult, and p' 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 ver. 8. 2 Kings xx. 19 has DN where our -does not occur else הלא אם כי text has simply where. EWALD (§ 324 b), takes it in the sense of "yea, 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 xxi. 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 xxi. 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 TiglathPileser, 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 Baby lon. 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, . c. p. 243 sqq.). In this year Sargon himself mounted the throne of Babylon. The Canon, from the year 709 onwards, names 'APKÉαvor, i. e, Sarrukin or Sargon, as king of Babylon. But the courage of Merodach-Baladan was not yet broken. He fled back into his own hereditary land Bit-Jakin, a narrow strip of land on the Persian gulf, extending from Schat-el-arab to Elam. Sargon marched against him again and stormed first the strongly fortified position where Merodach-Baladan awaited him, then the city Dur-Jakin, his opponent's last refuge on the mainland. Merodach-Baladan escaped with great difficulty. But still he did not submit. Sargon was compelled, in the beginning of the year 705, 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. to send his son Sennacherib against the obstinate rebel. But not long after, Sennacherib received in camp the intelligence of the murder of his father by a certain Belkaspai, probably a patriotic Chaldean and adherent of Merodach-Baladan's. Then there followed a period of two or three years, filled up with the strifes of various pretenders to the crown, and hence designated by the Canon as kaipos ȧßiciλevros. Thus it appears by the account of POLYHISTOR in EUSEBIUS (chron. armen. ed. MAI, p. 19), that after Sargon's death, his son and a brother of Sennacherib ascended the Babylonian throne. But after a short term this one was obliged to give place to a certain Hagisa, who, after not thirty days' reign, was killed by Merodach-Baladan. That this was our Merodach-Baladan can scarcely be doubted. The implacable enemy of the Assyrians boldly raised his head anew. Sennacherib marched against him and conquered him at Kis, a city that Nebuchadnezzar afterwards incorporated in the city territory of Babylon by means of his great wall. Sennacherib gave the throne of Babylon to a certain Belibus or Elibus, the son of a "wise man," The eldest son of Merodach-Baladan, Nabusuwhom, says the king, "they had brought up in miskun, was taken prisoner at the battle of Kalul the company of the small boys in my palace." and beheaded by Sennacherib. His brother next Hence this Belibus was not an independent pre- of age to him, Nabozirnapsatiasir, reigned after tender, as would seem according to POLYHISTOR, him in the land Bit Jakin. A third brother, Nabut a subordinate king recognized by Sennache-hib-Marduk, submitted to the Assyrians on the rib after the expulsion of Merodach-Baladan. condition that he be put in possession of the land According to the Canon of regents (SCHRADER, Bit-Jakin. Esar-Haddon, in the year 676, actup. 319), this expedition against Merodach-Bala-ally invaded the land and conquered it. Probadan 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. MerodachBaladan 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 Phoenician seamen manned them), with which he attacked the island and the coast possessed by Merodach-Baladan, and entirely devastated them (see the remarks on xliii. 14). At this point Merodach-Baladan disappears from history. It is related that the influential Babylonians then forsook him. On the other hand, they moved the king of Elam to send bly Nabozirnapsatiasir then lost his life (LENORMANT, l. c., p. 303). Nahir-Marduk's son, Nabobelsum, returned to the sentiments of his grandfather. He took part in the insurrection made by Samulsumukin, the second son of Esar-Haddon and viceroy of Babylon, against his elder brother Asurbanipal, great king of Assyria (651). Asurbanipal conquered. Samulsumukin burned himself in his palace in Babylon (648). After many negotiations, and finally after an expedition that devastated the whole land of Elam, the king of Elam, Ummanaldas, was obliged to promise that he would surrender Nabobelsum. The latter procured his death at the hands of a master of the horse. Asurbanipal, when the head of the corpse was sent to him, had it preserved in salt. A small bas-relief, found in the palace of Kujundschik, displays Asurbanipal banqueting in a garden with his wives, and the head of Nabobelsum hanging before him on a tree. Only thirty-five years later Nineveh was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and Cyaxares (605)! According to our chapter, the embassy of Merodach-Baladan to Hezekiah fell in the time when the former reigned undisputed king of Babylon. As shown above, this was a period of twelve years, reaching from 721-709. It must not be supposed that Merodach-Baladan would not have sought the friendship of Hezekiah had he not heard of his victory over Sennacherib. An inscription of Sargon's (LENORMANT, l. c., 231) says of Merodach-Baladan: "For twelve years had he sent embassies contrary to the will of the gods of Babylon, the city of Bel, the judge of the gods." These twelve years are manifestly the twelve years of Merodach-Baladan's undisputed reign. During this period the latter had sought allies for the event of war breaking out again. Is it to be racle of the sun-dial are meant. wondered if, under these circumstances, he should | was of prime importance to those ambassadors. send such an embassy to Hezekiah? According In this case is identical with the to 2 Chron. xxxii. 31, the messenger came from Babylon to Hezekiah "to inquire of the wonder that was done in the land." The context shows that Hezekiah's miraculous recovery and the miIt 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. of xxii. 8. It appears that Hezekiah in this dis- 2. At that time-shewed them not.-store-house, the spiceries, the fine oil," do not inVers. 1, 2. The author would say that Hezekiah gave ear to the words of those ambassadors (see Text. and Gram.). Probably there is in this an intimation that they already made propositions of a political nature not displeasing to Hezekiah. And as he was pleased to hear what they said, so he wished them to see the things that gave him joy. There appears to me, therefore, in this antithesis of hearing and showing, to be a hint of Hezekiah's sin. is an obscure word both as 3. Then came Isaiah my days.-Vers. 3-8. Apart from the internal probability of it, one may conclude from 18 that Isaiah came to the king with the inquiry of ver. 3 while the ambas sadors 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 (ver. 4). The Prophet regarded them as advenas, arrivals, and that is a quality they have as long as they are in Jerusalem (comp. xxxvii. 34 with 2 Kings xix. 33; Josh. ix. 8 with Gen. xlii. 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 This suits entirely the free and exalted position that the prophets assumed as the immediate mes that "these men" is to be understood dƐLKTIKOS. to derivation and meaning. In Gen. xxxvii. 25; xliii. 11 ♫ either means spices in general, or, which is more likely, a particular sort of spice (storax-or tragacanth gum. Comp. LEYRER in HERZOG'S Real-Eycyclop. XIV. p. 664). Many expositors are disposed to recognize in our л (K'ri, 2 Kings xx. 13, 1) the same word, and to understand by a spice magazine; on which LEYRER, I. 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 o potiori for "provision house" in general.sengers and instruments of Jehovah, even toward the kings themselves. Comp. on vii. 14. If Others, finally, derive Л, not from 2 ("to thereby those ambassadors enjoyed the opportubeat, pound,” hence Л, “that which is pounded nity of observing for once a genuine prophet of in a mortar "), but from a root Л, not used in the true God in the exercise of his office, and if Hebrew, but which is kindred to D2, "to gather, it was one of those revelations of His being such thereby the true God Himself drew near to them, preserve," and in Arabic means (Pi. kajjata) "to as the LORD at times vouchsafed to the heathen, cram, stuff full." Of this would be a Niphal e. g., Moses before Pharaoh, Balaam before Baform (xxx. 12), and mean "provision, treasure." lak, Elisha before Naaman, Daniel before the Thus HITZIG, KNOBEL, FUERST (Lex. under kings of Babylon. To the question what said D and 1), DELITZSCH (comp. EWALD, Gesch. Isaiah presses it no further. Their very presence these men? Hezekiah gives no answer, and d. V. Isr. III. p. 690, Anm. 1). The items that there and the reception they found were adequate follow, in which, beside gold, silver and spiceries proof that Hezekiah allowed himself to treat with (, the most general expression for aromatic them, that once again, as he had done by the substances, comp. LEYRER, l. c., p. 661) are par- Egyptian alliance (xxvii.-xxxii.), he had exticularly named, of course correspond best with a tended to the world-power at least the little finword of such general significance as "provision." ger. That, in his answer, he lays stress on the Still the subject is not satisfactorily cleared up. far country, betrays an attempt to excuse himOn "the precious ointment," MOVERS (who trans- self. One cannot show men the door who come lates "styrax house") makes the follow- from a distance to show one honor and friending remark: "Here Jewish expositors, no doubt ship. And Hezekiah ought not to do that. Neion the best grounds, understand the balsam oil got ther ought he to indulge in vain boasting nor to from the royal gardens, comp. 2 Chron. xxxii. 27. seek false supports. O, had he only known how Olive oil, that was obtained in all Judea, was not ill-timed both were in the case of Babylon! He stored in the treasuries along with gold, silver and would surely, without violating the duties of hosaromatics, but in special store-houses, 2 Chron.pitality, have yet avoided with anxious care every xxxii. 28" (Phön. II. 3, p. 227 Anm.). is likely "the arsenal," as often signifies all sorts of war implements, and the arsenal doubtless 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 | (comp. 1 Kings ii. 38, 42). For the meaning of TR. below.] We stand here on a boundary of immeasurable, 2 Kings xx. 19), see Text, and Gram. importance. Assyria is done away, but Babylon I fall back on the conjecture given above, that the rises aloft. Ahaz had formally introduced Assy- ambassadors were present at this interview. It ria by seeking its help. Here Babylon offers itone then considers that the prophecy of vers. 6, 7 self. With cat-like friendliness it creeps up. presupposes war between Babylon and Judah, Hezekiah ought to have maintained an attitude of and that this poorly corresponds with the assupolite refusal. His vanity betrayed him into boast- rances of friendship just interchanged between ing and coquetting. Still by just this he yielded Hezekiah and the ambassadors, he can see that himself to the world-power. The Theocracy was the word of the Prophet would embarrass these later, under Zedekiah, ground to pieces between parties. It would the king, because it must seem Egypt and Babylon. Only by leaning solely and strange that he, at the moment when an honorawholly on the LORD could it maintain itself be- ble embassy had brought him offers of peace and tween the southern and the northern world-power, friendship, should call the announcement of the between the Nile kingdom on the one hand, and termination of the friendship (though it should the Euphrates-Tigris kingdom on the other. He- turn to his disadvantage) a "good word." It zekiah had unfortunately indulged in intimacies might appear as if he, Hezekiah, were a weatherboth with Egypt and with Babylon. The necessary cock, an unreliable man, who in turning about consequence was that the Theocracy succumbed knew how to transform himself from a friend into to the mightier of these. Hence it is announced an enemy. To ward off this evil appearance from to him that the precious things, of which he had himself, Hezekiah speaks these words, which are He made a boastful display, must go to Babylon, yea, primarily addressed to the ambassadors. that the posterity that was to issue from him who would say: is it not self-evident that I call the as yet was childless, would once do chamberlain prophetic word good only on the assumption that service in the palace of the kings of Babylon. peace and truth shall continue while I live? By With this the Prophet points to a new and fatal this construction disappears also the objection future. Here, between the first and second parts that has been made to Hezekiah, as if he betrayed of Isaiah, we stand on the bridge between Nine- by this expression a sentiment like that depraved veh and Babylon. For what Nineveh was for the motto: apres moi le deluge." first part of Isaiah, Babylon is for the second. xiv. 13; Esther ix. 30. It means here, manifestly, peace and faithfulness in the sense of political peaceableness and fidelity to alliances.* It may be seen from 1 Kings xxi. 27 sqq. that Let it be particularly noted that Isaiah says: the LORD lets Himself be moved by a penitent that which thy fathers have laid up in mind to postpone punishment beyond the lifestore until this day (ver. 6). Had Hezekiah's time of the man whom it primarily threatens.treasures been emptied by the event narrated 20 occurs again Jer. xxxiii. 6; comp. Kings xviii. 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 came into the hands of Sennacherib," etc., as just above. -TR.] That D' is not simply the "eunuch appears from Gen. xxxvii. 36; xxxix. 1. The word often stands for court officer, chamberlain generally (1 Ki. xxii. 9; 2 Ki. viii. 6; ix. 32; xxv. 19, etc.). It is clear that ' must not be understood of direct generation, and that is agreeable to usage. Hezekiah's son Manasseh went, indeed, as prisoner to Babylon (2 Chron. xxxiii. 11), but he did not act as chamberlain. Yet the prophecy was fulfilled by what is related Dan. j. 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. 1 Kings xviii. 24), especially that of submission under a severe judgment, but one that is recognized as just [In his conjectural interpretation of Hezekiah's conhas only built on a foundation dating back to the duct and its relation to Isaiah's prophecy the Author 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 reasonablethe very foundation as, not only without warrant in Scripture, but actually against Scripture. on 2 Kings xx. 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. ness of it. But his work may be challenged down to See BAEHR, The only Scripture that can seem to give positive support to the (so commonly accepted) injurious view of Hezekiah's conduct in the case before us is 2 Chr. xxxii. 25, 31. Ver. 31 clearly relates to the transactions of our text. But ver. 25 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 ver. of his heart, both he and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, 26, viz. that "Hezekiah humbled himself for the pride so that the wrath of the LORD came not upon them in here combated. It means "And so" or "in this man- The context must supply this, and we must not under |