Chapter Twenty

1–11. The illness of Hezekiah, his prayer and miraculous healing with the miraculous return of the shadow on the sundial. 12–21. The embassy of the Babylonian king, the vanity of Hezekiah; the threatening prediction of the prophet Isaiah concerning the Babylonian captivity and Hezekiah’s humbling.

2 Kings 20:1. In those days Hezekiah became sick and was at the point of death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him, and said to him, “Thus says the Lord: Set your house in order, for you shall die, you shall not recover. The illness of Hezekiah is usually dated to the time of Sennacherib’s invasion, namely before his defeat and withdrawal, since, according to verse 6, Hezekiah, while still ill, is only promised the withdrawal of the Assyrian king from Jerusalem. However, there is no need to suppose that the biblical account in its triple recension (2 Kgs 20; Isa 39 and 2 Chr 32:24 and others) departs from the historical sequence of events, placing a later event (the withdrawal of Sennacherib) before an earlier one (Hezekiah’s illness). Josephus Flavius (Jewish Antiquities 10:2, 1) directly says that the illness befell Hezekiah a little while (μετ᾿ οὐ Πολύ) after the invasion of Sennacherib; after this event, there also occurred the embassy of the Babylonian king (verses 12–13) to Hezekiah for the purpose (among other things) of congratulating him on his recovery and inquiring about the heavenly sign that accompanied this recovery (Isa 39; 2 Chr 32:31). The promise of verse 6 regarding the salvation of Hezekiah and his kingdom and Jerusalem from the hand of the Assyrian king (cf. 2 Kgs 19:34) had all the meaning and full force even after Sennacherib’s campaign, of which chapters 2 Kgs 18 and 2 Kgs 19 tell, since the power of Assyria continued to remain a threatening force to the integrity of Judah, and the Assyrian king could always undertake a new campaign against Judah (as, according to Assyr-Babylonian data, Sennacherib around this time undertook a campaign against the revolted Babylon). In view of the impending death, Hezekiah was to make the necessary arrangements for his house and family—a kind of known “will” (cf. 2 Sam 17:23).

2 Kings 20:2. And Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the Lord, saying, 2 Kings 20:3. “O Lord, please remember how I have walked before you in faithfulness and with a whole heart, and have done what is good in your sight.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly. Seized by ardent prayer, Hezekiah turns his face from the surroundings (not from despair, like Ahab, 1 Kgs 21:4) to the wall, perhaps toward the temple, that he might pray more freely. Perceiving in his illness the consequence of his own sin and divine punishment, Hezekiah humbly beseeches God to look upon his good deeds as his faithfulness to the theocratic ideal, of course, not in the sense of absolute moral purity (which Hezekiah could not claim for himself), but in the sense of Hezekiah’s zeal for the proper ordering of worship and the eradication of all forms of idolatry. Josephus Flavius adds: “to the illness (of Hezekiah) was also added a terrible spiritual disorder (ἀθυμία) of the king, which was caused by his thought of his childlessness and that he would have to die without leaving behind descendants and not having given the throne a legitimate heir. Suffering especially heavily and cruelly from this thought, the king turned to the Most High with a petition to grant him some more time of life, so that he could await descendants, and allow him to part with life no sooner than he becomes” (Jewish Antiquities 10:2, 1). In proof of this understanding, which was shared by blessed Jerome and some earlier interpreters, they pointed to the fact that Manasseh, the son and successor of Hezekiah, upon his accession to the throne was only 12 years old (2 Kgs 21:1), consequently, was born only 3 years after Hezekiah’s illness. But there is no need to consider Manasseh the first and only son of Hezekiah: he could have had other sons (Isa 38:19), either who died during his father’s lifetime, or excluded by him from the throne at his discretion. The true cause of Hezekiah’s burning sorrow and strong weeping is depicted in his thanksgiving hymn after his recovery (Isa 38:10-20).

2 Kings 20:4. And Isaiah had not yet left the middle court when the word of the Lord came to him: 2 Kings 20:5. “Return and say to Hezekiah the leader of my people, Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer; I have seen your tears. Behold, I will heal you. On the third day you shall go up to the house of the Lord, 2 Kings 20:6. “and I will add fifteen years to your life. I will deliver you and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria, and I will defend this city for my own sake and for my servant David’s sake. 2 Kings 20:7. “And Isaiah said, “Take a lump of figs.” And they took and laid it on the boil, and he recovered. Having announced to Hezekiah (cf. verse 1) the determination of God concerning Hezekiah’s death, the prophet Isaiah departed. But the ardent prayer of the pious king (verses 2–3) was already heard by God, and He was pleased to reverse the former decision before the prophet had time to leave the middle or inner court adjoining the royal palace (verse 4; cf. 1 Kgs 7:8): the present Hebrew text in the Ketib has in verse 4: “from the middle of the city” (gair gattichona, Russian Synodal: “from the city”), but in codex 93; 180 according to Kennicott and in the Keri of codices 70, 112, 115, 149, 150, 153, 174, 225, 240, 252, 253 and others it reads: “from the middle court” (“chatzér” instead of “gair”), and in favor of the latter reading, besides its greater naturalness, speaks the authority of ancient translations: LXX: ἐν τῆ αὐλῆ τῆ μέσῆ, Vulgate: mediam partem atrii, Slavonic: “(Isaiah was still) in the middle of the court” (in Prof. Gulyaev: “from the inner court”). The prophet receives a new command to announce to Hezekiah as the theocratic king (“leader of my people,” verse 5) about his forthcoming quick healing, granted by God Himself, and about the prolongation of his life another 15 years (verses 5–6). Concerning the mentioned in verse 6 deliverance from the Assyrian yoke, see the remarks on verse 1 (cf. 2 Kgs 19:34; Isa 37:35). What was the sickness—shchin (verse 7), LXX: ἕλκος, Vulgate: ulcus, Slavonic: “injury”, Russian: “boil”, for the treatment of which the prophet advised to apply dvelet-tenim, LXX: παλαθην σύκων, Vulgate: masa ficorum, Slavonic: “binding of figs”, Russian: “lump of figs”, that is, a pressed mass of figs—a kind of poultice? Usually it is seen in this boil of Hezekiah a plague bubo, while allowing the possibility of Hezekiah’s infection from the plague that struck the Assyrian army (Knobel, Winer, and others). Of course, this last assumption is completely arbitrary: the Bible says nothing of any plague epidemic and infection at this time; besides, with plague there appears not one boil, but many boils on different parts of the body; finally, the remedy indicated by the prophet, although sometimes used, for instance, by Arab doctors for plague growths (see remark p. 364), cannot be considered specific against plague. More probable is the opinion (of Bennett, Brunton, Pyassetski, and others) that this was a carbuncle (anthrax) and inflammation of the tonsils, with which the symptoms indicated by Hezekiah in his prayer (Isa 38:13-14) supposedly agree (aching of the bones, general organic weakness, difficult, throaty and nasal voice, compression of the respiratory tract); the brief duration and nature of the treatment (See A. Pyassetski, “Medicine in the Bible and the Talmud”. St. Petersburg 1902, p. 68; cf. T. Popov, “Biblical Information on Various Diseases”, 1904, p. 115. Cf. Smith, A dictionary of the Bible, vol. II, p. 302. Hastings. A dictionary of the Bible, vol. II, p. 324). But the precise determination of Hezekiah’s illness, due to the very indefiniteness of the term shchin (in Exod 9:9) the word means “suppurating boils”, and in Job 2:7)—“leprosy”) is not established.

2 Kings 20:8. And Hezekiah said to Isaiah, “What shall be the sign that the Lord will heal me, and that I shall go up to the house of the Lord on the third day? Not yet free from the sense of fear of death, the sick Hezekiah asks for some external sign to strengthen his faith in the truth of the prophet’s word about his healing; in view of the difficulty of the promised miracle, such a desire is quite natural (Isa 7:11; 2 Kgs 19:29), and the prophet Isaiah once proposed to Ahaz to ask for some miracle as an assurance of the truth of the prophetic word.

2 Kings 20:9. And Isaiah said, “This is the sign from the Lord, that the Lord will do the thing that he has promised: shall the shadow go forward ten steps, or go back ten steps? 2 Kings 20:10. And Hezekiah answered, “It is an easy thing for the shadow to go forward ten steps. Nay, but let the shadow go backward ten steps. 2 Kings 20:11. And Isaiah the prophet cried to the Lord, and he brought the shadow back ten steps, by which it had gone down on the steps of Ahaz. See Isa 38:8. This reassuring sign of Hezekiah’s forthcoming healing was a miracle analogous to the miraculous standing still of the sun in the days of Joshua (Josh 10:12-14), namely, the return of the solar shadow “on the steps of Ahaz” (Hebrew: maalot Ahaz, LXX: αναβοθμοί Αχαζ, Vulgate: horologium Achaz), “ten steps back” (verse 11). For interpreters here, from ancient times, two difficulties or two questions, solved differently, have presented themselves: 1) how did it happen, what was the nature of this miracle? 2) what was the kind and structure of the mechanism of the “steps of Ahaz”? The solution to the first question in the sense of the actual turning back of the sun is favored by parallel biblical passages from the books of the prophet Isaiah and the Second Book of Chronicles. Philaret notes: “Did only the shadow turn back, or did the sun also return? The latter is affirmed in Isaiah, Isa 38:8, and also is concluded from the question of the Babylonian envoys about the miracle that took place on earth, 2 Chr 32:31. In the affirmative sense, the question of the sun’s turning back was resolved even by blessed Theodoret, when he writes (question 52): “the miracle accomplished with the sun was heard of throughout the whole universe. For it became known to all that the sun went backward. Therefore the king of Babylon, having heard of the destruction, and also knowing that a miracle had been accomplished with the sun, sent ambassadors and gifts to the king of the Judeans.” How this turning of the sun happened, more precisely, of the earth in its motion around the sun, nothing definite can be said (cf., however, the remark on Josh 10:12-14). As to the second question, i.e., the structure of Ahaz’s sundial, by the movement of the shadow along the steps (Vulg. lineae) of which one could determine the time of day, we have already noted in the remark on 2 Kgs 16:10 and further, that this mechanism, without doubt, could have been borrowed by Ahaz from Assyro-Babylon, the birthplace of astronomy and time-reckoning. And the Greeks, among whom the mechanism of the sundial first appeared under Anaximander, who traveled through Chaldea, attributed the invention of primitive sundials (σκάφη) to the Babylonians. Although the structure of Ahaz’s hours cannot be determined with precision, and we must inevitably move about in a circle of various suppositions, the most probable of these seems to be the following. The mechanism, perhaps, represented a column or obelisk on a certain base, set on a completely open place, so that the shadow from it was visible on all the surrounding steps: the latter appeared in the form of divisions on the shadow side of the obelisk, and by the number of steps captured by the shadow one could determine the time of day, and quite accurately, since the position of the ecliptic was known to the Assyr-Babylonians from ancient times. Various forms of sundials in antiquity are depicted in Philippson’s, D. Israelitische Bibel II, s. 679). The miraculous return of the solar shadow to the sun’s zenith was the most expressive symbol that the evening of Hezekiah’s life was not yet near with its shadow (Ps 101:12; Eccl 12:2; Jer 6:4). Concerning the division of the day into hours, here there could be no question, since it appeared among the Hebrews only later.

2 Kings 20:12. At that time Merodach-baladan the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent envoys with letters and a present to Hezekiah, for he heard that Hezekiah had been sick. 2 Kings 20:13. And Hezekiah listened to them and showed them all his treasure house, the silver, the gold, the spices, the precious oil, his armory, and all that was found in his storehouses. There was nothing in his house or in all his realm that Hezekiah did not show them. The account of the embassy of the Babylonian king to Hezekiah in all three parallel narratives (the Fourth Book of Kings, the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, the Second Book of Chronicles) has a direct connection with Hezekiah’s illness, his miraculous recovery, and the astronomical miracle that took place at this time. Of course, these purposes—congratulation of Hezekiah on his recovery (Isa 39:1) and inquiry about the astronomical miracle (2 Chr 32:31)—served only as a respectable pretext for the true purpose of the embassy—the desire of the Babylonian king to draw Judah into a coalition with Babylon and other states against Assyria. The spelling of the name of the Babylonian king in the Fourth Book of Kings—“Berodach” (Hebrew Brodach), probably occurred because of the confusion of Hebrew letters mem and bet: in Isa 39) this name reads Merodach, so it stands in the variants on 2 Kgs 20:12) (codices 93, 115, 145, 154, 172, 174, 240, 418, 476, 531 by Kennicott, 701 by Rossi). The name Berodach cannot be explained either etymologically or historically. Meanwhile, Merodach or Marduk was a well-known god of the ancient Babylonians (Jer 50:2, according to the LXX—27:2), especially honored by Nebuchadnezzar (Concerning Merodach see M. Palmov, Idolatry among the Ancient Hebrews, pp. 362–364), but, of course, by other kings as well. In the Bible are found the names of two Babylonian kings with the name Merodach in the composition of these names: 1) Merodach-Baladan (Isa 39:1)—in the inscriptions Mardukhabal-Iddina (“Merodach gave a son”) and 2) Evil-Merodach in inscriptions Avil Marduk (“man of Merodach”). According to the explanation of orientalists, the word Merodach, by its root meaning, meant a warlike, destructive deity, corresponding to the Roman Mars (Prof. Gulyaev, p. 366). According to Assyr-Babylonian monuments, Merodach-Baladan, “son of Yakin,” a Chaldean commander, seized Babylon under Sargon in 720 and reigned until 710, when he was again driven out by Sargon, and then again, already under Sennacherib in 702, seized Babylon, but held it here for only 9 months. “Son of Yakin”—probably the name of the dynasty to which Merodach-Baladan belonged. His embassy to Hezekiah is usually dated to the first period of his reign in Babylon (720–710), which would agree with the Bible (713–712: 15 years before Hezekiah’s death), except that at this time, according to the Bible, the king of Assyria was Sennacherib, but according to Assyrian monuments, Sargon. This difficulty is apparently resolved when one supposes that Merodach-Baladan sent the given embassy to Hezekiah already in his second, brief reign in Babylon, under Sennacherib (about 703); but then the event will be pushed back 10 years from the time of Hezekiah’s illness, which contradicts the three recensions of the biblical account of Hezekiah (cf. Schrader in Riehm, Handwörterbuch des biblischen Alterthums, vol. II, p. 995–996. Cf. Bishop Platon, “The Ancient East in the Light of Divine Revelation”, pp. 236–237). The embassy of the Babylonian king exceedingly gladdened Hezekiah (instead of the standing in the accepted Hebrew text of verse 13 (2 Kgs 20:13) “listened”—Hebrew shama, Isa 39:2) has “was glad”—samach; the latter reading is also found in variants (2 Kgs 20:13), codices 195, 530, 541, 587, 201, 451 and others), flattered his vanity; wishing, probably, to show himself worthy of an alliance with the Babylonian king, he hurried with unwise candor and courtesy to show to the messengers all his treasures personal and state (verse 13; Hebrew nechot—“aromatics”, cf. 1 Kgs 10:10), LXX leave without translation: νεχωθα; Chaldean, Syrian, and Arabic: “house of treasures”), and also “his armory,” i.e., probably, the well-known “house of the forest of Lebanon” (cf. 1 Kgs 7:2) and remarks). In this case “Hezekiah did not render to the Lord according to the benefit done to him, for his heart was proud. And there was wrath upon him and upon Judah and Jerusalem” (2 Chr 32:25). According to blessed Theodoret (question 53), “Hezekiah ought to have made known to the messengers the power of God and that care with which he himself was treated, but he showed wealth, in which there is nothing permanent.”

2 Kings 20:14. Then Isaiah the prophet came to King Hezekiah, and said to him, “What did these men say? And from where did they come to you?” And Hezekiah said, “They came from a far country, from Babylon. 2 Kings 20:15. And he said, “What have they seen in your house?” And Hezekiah answered, “They have seen all that is in my house; there is nothing among my storehouses that I have not shown them. 2 Kings 20:16. And Isaiah said to Hezekiah, “Hear the word of the Lord: 2 Kings 20:17. “Behold, the days are coming, when all that is in your house, and that which your fathers have stored up until this day, shall be carried to Babylon; nothing shall be left, says the Lord. 2 Kings 20:18. “And some of your own sons, who are born to you, shall be taken away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon. The prophet Isaiah, who clearly foresaw the present and future state of affairs in Judah and the surrounding countries and who therefore negatively regarded all attempts of the Kingdom of Judah to enter into alliances with Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon (Isa 30-31), did not delay in opening the eyes of deluded Hezekiah and pronounced to him a completely clear and threatening prophecy that this present alliance of the Judean king with the Babylonian one would be a harbinger of the captivity of the Kingdom of Judah and its people in Babylon, when all the treasures royal and state from Judah would be carried to Babylon, and the royal descendants of Hezekiah would serve as eunuchs at the court of the Babylonian king.

2 Kings 20:19. And Hezekiah said to Isaiah, “The word of the Lord which you have spoken is good.” And he thought, “For there will be peace and security in my days. The pious Hezekiah immediately recognized his sin and “humbled himself for the pride of his heart, both he and the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (2 Chr 32:26). The threatening word of the prophet Hezekiah, in his complete submission to the will of God (as once the high priest Eli, 1 Sam 3:10)) calls even good; completely submitting himself to the determination of God’s judgment concerning the people and the kingdom of Judah, he beseeches Jehovah only that the coming calamities overtake his kingdom not during his reign. Many interpreters, following the example of the rabbis, saw in Hezekiah’s last words the expression of a selfish craving for personal well-being and indifference to the fate of his people. But perhaps it was precisely love for this people that prompted Hezekiah to wish—not to survive its prosperity, not to see its fall and captivity; Hezekiah spoke these words with sorrow (according to Josephus Flavius λυπηθείς). However, Hezekiah, as a son of the Old Covenant, could not show true courage of faith here, although for his righteousness he is in Sir 49:5) blessed alongside David and Josiah.

2 Kings 20:20. Now the rest of the acts of Hezekiah and all his might and how he made the pool and the conduit and brought water into the city, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah? 2 Kings 20:21. And Hezekiah slept with his fathers, and Manasseh his son reigned in his place. In the concluding remarks of the sacred writer concerning Hezekiah’s reign, besides the usual stereotyped formula, Hezekiah, like a few other kings, for instance, Asa (1 Kgs 15:23), is credited with military and political “exploits” (Hebrew gebura), but what is especially important from a biblical-archaeological point of view is the testimony that Hezekiah “made the pool and the conduit and brought water into the city” (verse 20). More clearly about this important undertaking of King Hezekiah it is stated in 2 Chr 32:30: “This same Hezekiah stopped the upper spring of the waters of Gihon, and brought them down straight on the west side of the city of David.” The same important matter of state significance is spoken of by Sirach, adding a new feature: “And Hezekiah fortified his city and brought water into the midst of it; he cut out the rock with iron and built reservoirs for the water” (Sir 48:19). From the comparison of all these testimonies, biblical science rightfully concludes that under Hezekiah, namely about the time of Sennacherib’s invasion, the drilling of the so-called Siloam tunnel or canal in Jerusalem was accomplished. The purpose of the canal, connecting the spring of the Holy Virgin with the pool of Siloam, to preserve water in the city in case of a siege, which Hezekiah was so concerned about before Sennacherib’s invasion (2 Chr 32:3-4): instead of the plugged up underground springs, Hezekiah saw to the drilling of an underground tunnel to constantly supply the city with water, for which purpose the mentioned water reservoirs were connected (cf. Prof. Gulyaev, p. 367; Stade Geschichte Isr. 1, 593, Anm). Concerning the location of Gihon or Gihon see the commentaries on 1 Kgs 1:39. In this Siloam canal in 1880 was found the most ancient inscription in Hebrew—the so-called “Siloam inscription,” consisting of 6 lines (190 letters, of which only 170 were read) and telling about the method of drilling the Siloam tunnel (see Prof. I. G. Troitski, “The Siloam Inscription”, Christian Reading, 1887, II). According to the testimony of 2 Chr 32:33), Hezekiah was buried “in the ascent of the tombs of the sons of David”, bemale kibrei bene-David, ἐν ἀναβασει τῶν τάφων, Slavonic: “on the ascent of the tombs of the sons of David”, from which one can conclude that the family crypt of the kings of the David dynasty consisted of several floors or tiers. * * * Cf. Kamphausen Riehm. Handworterbuch d. bibl. Alterthums, vol. II, p. 1724. The number of steps on Ahaz’s hours, judging by 2 Kgs 20:9-11), could not be less than 20, but probably there were many more. Clericus notes to verse 19: bonum vocatur id, in quo acquiescere par est, quippe ab eo profectum, qui nihil facit, quod non tantum justissimum, sed quod summa bonitate non sit temperatun, etiam cum poenas sumit.