Isaiah 39:1

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."[1] 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.[2] Cheyne located it in the era of Sargon's invasion;[3] D. J. Wiseman placed it in the year 705 B.C.[4] We fully agree with Hailey who wrote that, "Determining dates for events in this chapter is beyond our ability."[5] 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 ..." (Isaiah 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."[6] 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.[7] 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."[8]

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."[9]

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.

Isaiah 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 2 Chronicles 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."[10]

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 (2 Chronicles 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.