(12) At that time Berodach-baladan.--As to the name, Berodach is a transcriber's error for Merodach (Jeremiah 1:2). Some MSS. of Kings, and the LXX., Syriac, and Arabic, as well as Isaiah 39:1, and the Talmud, spell the name with m, a letter easily confused with b in Hebrew. Above all, the cuneiform inscriptions present Marduk (or, Maruduk)-abla-iddina ("Me-rodaeh gave a son"). A king of this name occupied the throne of Chaldea at intervals, during the reigns of the four Assyrian sovereigns Tiglath Pileser, Shalma-neser, Sargon, and Sennacherib. He is called in the inscriptions "son of Yakin," an expression which, like "Jehu son of Omri," is territorial rather than genealogical. Bit- Yakin was the name of the tribal domain of the "sons of Yakin," just as Bit-Humria was that of the territory of which Jehu was king. He is further designated as king of "the land of the sea" (mat tihamtim), i.e., the country at the head of the Persian Gulf, and of "the land of Chaldea" (mat Kaldi). He did homage to Tiglath Pileser in 731 B.C. In the first year of Sargon, Merodach-baladan established himself as king of Babylon, and was eventually recognised as such by the Assyrian sovereign. He reigned about twelve years contemporaneously with Sargon, who in 710 and 709 B.C. defeated and captured him, and burnt his stronghold D-r-Yakin. On the death of Sargon, Merodach-baladan once more gained possession of the throne of Babylon; and perhaps it was at this time (so Schrader) that he sent his famous embassy to seek the alliance of Hezekiah and other western princes. After a brief reign of six months, he was defeated by Sennacherib, and driven back to his old refuge in the morasses of South Chaldea. Belibus was made Assyrian viceroy of Babylon. These events belong to the beginning of Sennacherib's reign. (He says, ina ris sarrutiya, "in the beginning of my sovereignty.") There was yet another outbreak before Merodach-bala-dan was finally disheartened; and later still Esarhaddon mentions that he slew Nabu-zir-napisti-sutesir, son of Mardak-abla-iddina, and made his brother Na'id-Maruduk king of "the land of the sea" in his stead.
Son of Baladan.--The name of Merodach-baladan's father is not mentioned in the cuneiform inscriptions.
He had heard that Hezekiah had been sick.--The ostensible business of the embassy was to congratulate Hezekiah on his recovery, and to inquire about the sign that had been vouchsafed him (sec 2 Chronicles 32:31, and Note); but the Assyrian records make it pretty clear that the real object was to ascertain the extent of Hezekiah's resources, and to secure his alliance against the common enemy.
Verses 12-19. - Theembassy of Merodach-Baladan. Soon after his recovery, Hezekiah received an embassy from a new quarter. Hitherto Babylon and Judaea had been isolated from one another, and had perhaps scarcely known of each other's existence. Assyria had stood between them, and Babylonia had been for the most part an Assyrian dependency. But recently Babylonia had asserted herself. In B.C. 722, on the death of Shalmaneser, a native Chaldean named Meredach-Baladan had made himself king of the country, and maintained his independence against all the efforts of Sargon to reduce him. His position, however, was precarious, and it was probably in the hope of concluding an alliance with Hezekiah also an enemy of Sargon's (see the comment on ver. 6) - that he sent his embassy. He had two excuses for it. A neighboring king might well congratulate his brother monarch on his recovery; and a Chaldean prince might well inquire into an astronomical marvel (2 Chronicles 33:31). The date of the embassy appears to have been B.C. 712, the year following on Hezekiah's illness. Verse 12. - At that time Berodach-Baladan. Isaiah gives the name more correctly as "Merodach-Baladan" (Isaiah 39:1). The native form is Marduk-pal-iddin, i.e. "Mere-dacha son has given." This king makes his first appearance in an inscription of Tiglath-pileser's, where he is one of many chieftains among whom Babylonia is divided. Subsequently he is mentioned as revolting from Sargon in the latter's first year, B.C. 722 ('Records of the Past,' vol. 7. p. 29), and holding the throne of Babylon for twelve years (ibid., p. 41), when Sargon conquered him, deposed him, and took the kingdom (ibid., p. 48). This twelve-years' reign is acknowledged by Ptolemy in his Canon, but the name of the king is given as Mardoc-Empadus. On the death of Sargon, in B.C. 705, Merodach-Baladan again revolted, and reigned for six months, when he was driven out of the country by Sennacherib, B.C. 704. He continued, however, to give trouble even after this ('Records of the Past,' vol. 7. p. 63); and his sons and grandsons were pretenders to the Babylonian throne in the reigns of Esar-haddon and his successor, Asshur-bani-pal (see 'Ancient Monarchias,' vol. 2. pp. 469 and 490). The son of Baladan. In the Assyrian inscriptions Merodach-Baladan is always called "the son of Yakin" ('Records of the Past,' vol. 7. p. 40; vol. 9. p. 13, etc.). Yakin, however, may have been his grandfather, as Nimshi was the grandfather of Jehu, and Baladan (Bel-dash?) his father. King of Babylon, sent letters and a present unto Hezekiah. Thus opening diplomatic communication. It has been almost universally felt that the object of the embassy must have been to conclude, or at any rate to pave the way for, an alliance. So Josephus ('Ant. Jud.,' 10:2. § 2), Ewald, Von Gerlach, Thenius, Keil, Bahr, and others. Assyria menaced both countries, and the common danger produced naturally a mutual attraction. But it was prudent to disguise this motive. For he had heard that Hezekiah had been sick. Assyria could not take umbrage at an embassy of congratulation, nor at one for scientific purposes (2 Chronicles 33:31). So these two objects were paraded.
20:12-21 The king of Babylon was at this time independent of the king of Assyria, though shortly after subdued by him. Hezekiah showed his treasures and armour, and other proofs of his wealth and power. This was the effect of pride and ostentation, and departing from simple reliance on God. He also seems to have missed the opportunity of speaking to the Chaldeans, about Him who had wrought the miracles which excited their attention, and of pointing out to them the absurdity and evil of idolatry. What is more common than to show our friends our houses and possessions? But if we do this in the pride of ours hearts, to gain applause from men, not giving praise to God, it becomes sin in us, as it did in Hezekiah. We may expect vexation from every object with which we are unduly pleased. Isaiah, who had often been Hezekiah's comforter, is now is reprover. The blessed Spirit is both, Joh 16:7,8. Ministers must be both, as there is occasion. Hezekiah allowed the justice of the sentence, and God's goodness in the respite. Yet the prospect respecting his family and nation must have given him many painful feelings. Hezekiah was indeed humbled for the pride of his heart. And blessed are the dead who die in the Lord; for they rest from their labours, and their works do follow them.
At that time Berodachbaladan,.... He is called Merodachbaladan, Isaiah 39:1, so here in the Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic versions; See Gill on Isaiah 39:1; and by Metasthenes (z) his father is called Merodach, and he Ben Merodach, who reigned twenty one years, and his father fifty two; from hence to the end of 2 Kings 20:12 the same account is given in the same words as in Isaiah 39:1 throughout, except in 2 Kings 20:13, where it is, "hearkened unto them", and there, "glad of them"; heard the letter the ambassadors brought with pleasure; see the notes there. See Gill on Isaiah 39:1 and following.
(2 Kings 20:12-19).
(12) At that time Berodach-baladan.--As to the name, Berodach is a transcriber's error for Merodach (Jeremiah 1:2). Some MSS. of Kings, and the LXX., Syriac, and Arabic, as well as Isaiah 39:1, and the Talmud, spell the name with m, a letter easily confused with b in Hebrew. Above all, the cuneiform inscriptions present Marduk (or, Maruduk)-abla-iddina ("Me-rodaeh gave a son"). A king of this name occupied the throne of Chaldea at intervals, during the reigns of the four Assyrian sovereigns Tiglath Pileser, Shalma-neser, Sargon, and Sennacherib. He is called in the inscriptions "son of Yakin," an expression which, like "Jehu son of Omri," is territorial rather than genealogical. Bit- Yakin was the name of the tribal domain of the "sons of Yakin," just as Bit-Humria was that of the territory of which Jehu was king. He is further designated as king of "the land of the sea" (mat tihamtim), i.e., the country at the head of the Persian Gulf, and of "the land of Chaldea" (mat Kaldi). He did homage to Tiglath Pileser in 731 B.C. In the first year of Sargon, Merodach-baladan established himself as king of Babylon, and was eventually recognised as such by the Assyrian sovereign. He reigned about twelve years contemporaneously with Sargon, who in 710 and 709 B.C. defeated and captured him, and burnt his stronghold D-r-Yakin. On the death of Sargon, Merodach-baladan once more gained possession of the throne of Babylon; and perhaps it was at this time (so Schrader) that he sent his famous embassy to seek the alliance of Hezekiah and other western princes. After a brief reign of six months, he was defeated by Sennacherib, and driven back to his old refuge in the morasses of South Chaldea. Belibus was made Assyrian viceroy of Babylon. These events belong to the beginning of Sennacherib's reign. (He says, ina ris sarrutiya, "in the beginning of my sovereignty.") There was yet another outbreak before Merodach-bala-dan was finally disheartened; and later still Esarhaddon mentions that he slew Nabu-zir-napisti-sutesir, son of Mardak-abla-iddina, and made his brother Na'id-Maruduk king of "the land of the sea" in his stead.
Son of Baladan.--The name of Merodach-baladan's father is not mentioned in the cuneiform inscriptions.
He had heard that Hezekiah had been sick.--The ostensible business of the embassy was to congratulate Hezekiah on his recovery, and to inquire about the sign that had been vouchsafed him (sec 2 Chronicles 32:31, and Note); but the Assyrian records make it pretty clear that the real object was to ascertain the extent of Hezekiah's resources, and to secure his alliance against the common enemy.
(z) Ut supra. (De Judicio Temp. fol. 221. 2.)