Isaiah 39

This chapter contains an account of the Babylonian embassy to Hezekiah, and of his indiscreet and ostentatious conduct, which became the occasion of a threatening message by the hands of Isaiah, predicting the Babylonian conquest and captivity, but with a tacit promise of exemption to the king himself, and to the country while he lived, which he received with humble acquiescence and thankful acknowledgment. The chapter is evidently a direct continuation of the narrative before it, nor is there any real ground, internal or external, for suspecting its authenticity, antiquity, or genuineness.

Isaiah 39:1

9:1 “In that time, Merodach Baladan (Marduk apla iddina), son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a gift to Hezekiah, and (i.e., when) he heard that he was sick and was recovered.” The first phrase is used with great latitude of meaning, and may describe one event either as contemporaneous with another or as following it, at once or more remotely Merodach occurs in Jeremiah 50:2, as the name of a Babylonian idol (Marduk). Most of the modern writers agree in identifying this king with the Mardokempad of Berosus, as preserved in the Armenian version of Eusebius. The same authority describes these Babylonian princes, not as sovereigns, but as viceroys or tributaries subject to Assyria. In that case, it is not improbable that Merodach Baladan was meditating a revolt, and sent this embassy to gain Hezekiah’s co-operation. The congratulation on his recovery may have been a secondary object, or perhaps a mere pretext. In 2 Chronicles 32:31, a further design is mentioned, namely, to inquire of the wonder that was done in the land, whether this be understood to mean the destruction of Sennacherib’s army, or the miraculous recession of the shadow.

There is no incompatibility between these different designs. Perhaps an embassy is seldom sent to such a distance with a single undivided errand.

Isaiah 39:2

9:2 “And Hezekiah, was glad of them, and showed them his house of rarities, the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the good oil (or ointment), and all his house of arms, and all that was found in his treasures; there was not a thing which Hezekiah did not show them, in his house and in all his dominion.” The parallel passage (2 Kings 20:13) has ‘and he hearkened unto them’. There is no need of regarding either as an error of transcription, or as the correction of a later writer. Nothing could be more natural than such a variation on the part of the original writer, describing Hezekiah’s feelings in the one case and his conduct in the other. He hearkened to them courteously because he was glad of their arrival. The goodly or precious oil is supposed by some to have been that used in the unction of kings and priests, or perhaps applied to more ordinary purposes in the royal household.

Isaiah 39:3

9:3 “Then came Haman the prophet to the king Hezekiah, and said to him, What said these men, and whence came they unto thee? And Hezekiah said, From a far country came they unto me, from Babylon.” The Prophet was not sent for by the king, as in Isaiah 37:2; but he was no doubt sent by God, and came in his official character. The statement in Chronicles is that God left him, to try him, to know all in his heart. (2 Chronicles 32:31). This may include the sins of vain ostentation and of distrust in God, showing itself in a longing after foreign alliances. A far country is nothing more than a familiar designation of Babylon or Babylonia.

Isaiah 39:4

9:4 “And he said, What have they seen in thy house? And Hezekiah said, All that is in my house have they seen; there is not a thing that I have not showed them in my treasures.” The frankness of the answer here recorded rather shows, that there was no attempt at concealment from the first. It was not until the Prophet questioned him, that Hezekiah became aware of the error which he had committed.

Isaiah 39:5

9:5 “And Isaiah said to Hezekiah, Hear the word of Jehovah of Hosts.” This form of expression gives to what follows the solemnity and authority of a divine decree. The parallel passage (2 Kings 20:16) omits ‘Hosts’.

Isaiah 39:6

9:6 “Behold, days (are) coming, when all that (is) in thy house, and that which thy fathers have hoarded until this day, shall be carried to Babylon; there shall not be left a thing (literally a word), saith Jehovah.” Observe the exact correspondence of the punishment with the offence. As the Babylonians had seen all, they should one day take all; as nothing had been withheld from them now, so nothing should be withheld from them hereafter. To those who are under no unhappy necessity of explaining away the clearest proofs of inspiration and prophetic foresight, this passage affords a striking instance of the gradual development of prophecy. The general threatening of expatriation had been uttered seven hundred years before by Moses. (Leviticus 26:33; Deuteronomy 28:64-67; Deuteronomy 30:3). Five hundred years later, Ahijah had declared that Israel should be rooted up and scattered beyond the river (1 Kings 14:15). Within a hundred years, they had been threatened by Amos with captivity beyond Damascus (Amos 5:27).

Isaiah himself had obscurely intimated a future connection between the fortunes of Israel and Babylon (Isaiah 14:1; Isaiah 21:10). But here, for the first time, the Babylonish exile is explicitly foretold, unless the similar prediction of the contemporary prophet Micah (Micah 4:10) be considered earlier. The fulfillment of the prophecy began in the deportation of Manasseh (2 Chronicles 33:11), but was described as something still prospective by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 20:5) in whose days and in the reign of Zedekiah, it was at length fully accomplished (2 Chronicles 36:18). To the objection, that a national calamity of this description bears no proportion to the fault of Hezekiah, there is no need of any other answer than that Hezekiah’s fault was not the cause but the occasion of the punishment which fell upon the people, or rather of its being so explicitly predicted in the case before us. The punishment of Hezekiah’s individual fault was included in the punishment of Israel for national offences.

Isaiah 39:7

9:7 “And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shall beget, shall they take away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.” The future form of the expression in the first clause has respect to the fact that Hezekiah had as yet no children. (See above on Isaiah 38:2). ‘They shall take’ may either be an indefinite construction, or agree with ‘the Babylonians’ understood. Instead of ‘they shall take’, the parallel passage (2 Kings 20:17) has the singular ‘he shall take’, which is equally correct and regular, in a case of indefinite construction. The fulfillment of this prophecy is recorded in 2 Kings 24:12-16 and Daniel 1:1-7, and that so clearly, that the neologists are driven to their usual supposition of an interpolation, or of such an alteration as to make the terms of the prediction more determinate.

Isaiah 39:8

9:8 “And Hezekiah said to Isaiah, Good is the word of Jehovah which thou hast spoken. And he said, For there shall be peace and truth in my days.” The word ‘good’ is here used, neither in the sense of ‘gracious’ nor in that of ‘just’ exclusively, but in that of ‘right’, as comprehending both. While the king acquiesces in the threatening prophecy as righteous and deserved, he gratefully acknowledges the mercy with which it is tempered. That he looked upon the woes denounced against his children as a personal misfortune of his own, is clear from his regarding the postponement of the execution as a mitigation of the sentence on himself. The expression of thankfulness at this exemption shows how true the narrative is to nature and experience. It was not more clearly Hezekiah’s duty to submit without a murmur to God’s threatening, than it was to accept with gratitude the exemption promised to himself.

The words, ‘which thou hast spoken’, are emphatic, and intended to recognize Isaiah as an authoritative messenger from God. The repetition of the verb ‘he said’ implies a pause or interval however short. ‘Peace’ may be here taken in the wide sense of prosperity, but with special reference to its proper import, as denoting exemption from war. ‘Truth’ has its primary etymological sense of permanence, stability, in which the ideas of fidelity and veracity may be included, as effects necessarily imply their cause.