Hezekiah’s Recovery

Introduction

When was Hezekiah’s recovery? One scholarly view is that he became sick in 705-704 and recovered by 703. This view is based on the fact that Merodach-Baladan[1] was resident on the throne in Babylon for 703 before being forced into exile by Sennacherib by the end of the year. J. H. Walton presents the historical case for this view and observes it is ‘commonly accepted’.[2] Since Merodach-Baladan is called ‘king of Babylon’ in the biblical record (2 Kgs 20:12; Isa 39:1), and he was on the throne in 704-703, Hezekiah’s sickness must have been over by this date, with Merodach-Baladan’s envoys visiting perhaps in 703.

At that time Berodach-baladan a son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah, for he heard that Hezekiah had been sick. 2 Kgs 20:12 (NASB)

This translates the Hebrew Perfect tense into the English Pluperfect suggesting that Hezekiah was no longer sick by the time of the letters and present were sent. We can equally translate the tense as an English Simple Past ‘for he heard that Hezekiah was sick’ as in 2 Kgs 20:1 ‘In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death’. However, Isaiah adds an extra detail:

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 recovered. Isa 39:1 (KJV revised)

This certainly justifies the ‘had been sick’ of 2 Kgs 20:12 (NASB) as a matter of history. Nevertheless, we do not know when Hezekiah became sick or how long the sickness lasted or when it was judged terminal. We are merely told that Merodach-Baladan’s letters and present came after Hezekiah’s recovery. This fact creates a problem for Walton’s common view because the biblical text coincides Hezekiah’s recovery with the siege of Jerusalem.

And I will add unto thy days fifteen years; and I will deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for mine own sake, and for my servant David’s sake. 2 Kgs 20:6 (KJV); cf. Isa 38:6

This assertion joins the healing of Hezekiah with the deliverance of Jerusalem,[3] and presupposes that the city (not just Judah) is under a siege or blockade, i.e. metaphorically it was already in the hand of the king of Assyria. Hezekiah connects peace with his sickness in his prayer after his recovery when he says,

Behold, for peace[4] I had great bitterness: but thou hast in love to my soul delivered it from the pit of corruption: for thou hast cast all my sins behind thy back. Isa 38:17 (KJV)

In some sense, Hezekiah saw his sickness as ‘for’ peace. Hezekiah’s recovery is thus most likely to have occurred at the same time as the siege of Jerusalem and this data counts against Walton.

Special Pleading

We have set up a conflict in data for the date of Merodach-Baladan’s letters and present. Should we read 2 Kgs 20:6 as a prediction from the politics of 703 presupposing that Sennacherib was bound to attack Judah and that God would deliver Hezekiah and Jerusalem? Or should we read it as a prediction from the politics of 701 with Sennacherib in the land and besieging Jerusalem?

The expression ‘from/out of the hand of’ requires analysis. Is this used to describe a current situation, i.e. one where you are presently in the hand of your enemies; or is it used to describe what will obtain in the near or distant future? The same conjunction+comparison+noun form is found elsewhere in two places:

And David spake unto the Lord the words of this song in the day that the Lord had delivered him out of the hand of all his enemies, and out of the hand of Saul… 2 Sam 22:1 (KJV)

So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, saying, I am thy servant and thy son: come up, and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, which rise up against me (2 Kgs 16:7 (KJV)).

These examples show that ‘from/out of the hand of’ is used for a current or recent plight. The same comparision+noun form (without the conjunction) is used in several places for the current and pressing threat of an enemy including Gideon and the Midianites (Jud 6:14); the Israelites and the Philistines (1 Sam 4:3; 2 Sam 19:10); and David and Saul (2 Sam 22:1). For example, the following text is typical:

Doth not Hezekiah persuade you to give over yourselves to die by famine and by thirst, saying, The Lord our God shall deliver us out of the hand of the king of Assyria? 2 Chron 32:11 (KJV)

The expression ‘from/out of the hand of’ is used for immediate and proximate threats (see also 2 Sam 14:26; Pss 18:1; 71:4; Jer 15:21).

This is how Chronicles reports the deliverance of Jerusalem in 701:

Thus the Lord saved Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem from the hand of Sennacherib the king of Assyria, and from the hand of all other, and guided them on every side. 2 Chron 32:22 (KJV)

This ‘thus’ refers directly to the action of the Angel of the Lord (2 Chron 32:21) and the metaphor of the ‘hand’ of Sennacherib is used to describe the blockade.

We do not know the politics of 703; Sennacherib is occupied in Mesopotamia. How would he deal with the West? What was the intelligence suggesting? In 703, the threat of a western campaign by Sennacherib is likely but the biblical prophecies about this campaign are in terms of his coming up against the land, the nation or the people (e.g. Isa 8:7-8; 10:6-7; 14:24-25) rather than  against the city Jerusalem. The point here is that the catalyst for general prophecies of the Assyrian threat is there in 703 and even earlier in the reign of Ahaz, but the catalyst for the specific prediction about defending Jerusalem does not emerge until she is directly threatened by a blockade.

Walton doesn’t offer an analysis of the intertexts of ‘from/out of the hand of’, nor does he consider what catalysts might lead to the prediction of 2 Kgs 20:6/Isa 38:6; instead he just avers that Isa 38:6 “mentions that Jerusalem will be delivered from the hand of the king of Assyria—thus suggesting that the siege of Jerusalem is still future”.[5] However, the database of usage for ‘from/out of the hand of’ suggests proximate and immediate threat and/or conflict and therefore the year is 701 rather than 703.

Walton does not plead for us to treat Isa 38:6/2 Kgs 20:6 as a special case of ‘from/out of the hand of’ and therefore as part of a general prediction about the near future, but he is assuming that we can read it in this special way. In saying this, we are unpacking Walton, noting what he does not do, and offering some special pleading on behalf of his view.

As we have noted, the biblical text refers to Merodach-Baladan as the king of Babylon, but after Hezekiah’s recovery in 701 and in 700, the likely date of the Babylonian letters and present, he was not the resident king of Babylon according to Assyrian records; he had been ousted from Babylon by 702. Was he therefore a ‘king in exile’?

Sennacherib’s fourth campaign in 700 against Babylon was necessary because his first campaign in the region, which had taken place in 703, and which had deposed Merodach-Baladan for an Assyrian puppet—Bêl-ibni, had not secured stability. Merodach-Baladan and the Elamites were agitating to usurp Assyrian control and replace Bêl-ibni as the king of Babylon. This met with success, as their own puppet king, Shuzubu, was nominated king of Babylon (Annals,[6] 34-35, 71).

Sennacherib’s campaign in 700 was successful, and Merodach-Baladan packed up his gods, loaded them onto ships and fled to the Elamite city of Nagitu. Sennacherib placed his own son on the Babylonian throne and returned to Nineveh:

That (same) Merodach-Baladan, whose defeat I had brought about in my first campaign, and whose forces I had shattered, —the roar of my mighty arms and the onset of my terrible battle he feared and he gathered the gods of his whole land in their shrines, and loaded them into ships and fled like a bird to Nagite-rakki… Annals, 35

His brothers, the seed of his father-house, whom he abandoned by the sea-shore, the rest of the people of his land, I carried off as spoil from Bît-Yakin, out of the marshes and swamps. Annals, 71

These records resonate with the text of Isa 43:14; Merodach-Baladan’s flight by ship is noted in both records.

While Sennacherib’s annals record his various military campaigns, inscriptions abbreviate his achievements. The Nebi Yunis inscription records,

In open battle like a hurricane I cast down Merodach-Baladan, king of Babylonia, the Chaldeans and Aramaeans, together with the armies of Elam, his ally. That one fled to the Sea-land and the gods of his whole land…he loaded on ships and crossed over to Nagitu… Annals, 85; cf. 35

This inscription abbreviates the first and fourth campaign and presents the Sennacherib’s achievement against Merodach-Baladan as if it occurred in one campaign. Merodach-Baladan is referred to as king of Babylon retrospectively even though he was not the resident king of Babylon during Sennacherib’s fourth campaign. Another reference to Merodach-Baladan after the success of the fourth campaign is the following:

…on my return, I placed my son Assur-nâdin-shum on his royal throne. Annals 71

On the basis of this evidence, we can see that the biblical record is accurate by Assyrian standards in recording Merodach-Baladan as ‘king of Babylon’, even though in 700 he was no longer resident on the throne. Walton’s comment on this treatment of the data is,

Some might claim, however, that perhaps the envoys came to Jerusalem while Merodach-Baladan was a fugitive and that he was called king of Babylon because that was a title he at one time held, currently aspired to, and for which he was the only legitimate contender. Not only would this be special pleading, but it would not make historical sense.[7]

Walton is therefore mistaken here in his characterization of our argument as ‘special pleading’ because we have cited data from Assyrian records covering the 700 campaign that speak of Merodach-Baladan as ‘king’ and having a ‘royal throne’.

Walton says that our case for a post-701 visit does not make historical sense. He gives three reasons:

Consider the following: (1) Merodach-Baladan would have been very occupied keeping himself hidden and mustering support in his own region; (2) Merodach-Baladan would certainly not expect manpower help from Hezekiah, and having just been defeated, Hezekiah’s willingness to enter an alliance would be open to great doubt and it is unlikely that he could even create a diversion; (3) why would Hezekiah seek to impress Merodach-Baladan with his treasury if the latter were nothing more than a fugitive? And what treasury would Hezekiah have to show if he had just paid Sennacherib a massive tribute? So while this scenario is theoretically possible, historically speaking it is highly unlikely.[8]

With these reasons, we are in the realm of historical reconstruction. Our hard information is little to go on; we don’t know the ebb and flow of Merodach-Baladan’s fortunes in 701-700; we cannot just rely for our history on what is written by the victor—Sennacherib; the Babylonian Chronicle is more positive in its reports of Elamite/Babylonian fortunes. Thus, we have no basis to doubt that he would have had the time to initiate sending envoys to Hezekiah. Hence, Walton’s first point is weak.

Critical scholars do not accept the account of the decimation of the Assyrian army.[9] However, if we accept the biblical record, this provides an explanation for why Merodach-Baladan would seek an alliance with Hezekiah. He might well have thought that Hezekiah could occupy the remaining Assyrian forces in the West and force Sennacherib to divert resources to the West. So, Walton’s second consideration is too dismissive of the biblical evidence when he says Hezekiah had “just been defeated”.

Finally, did Hezekiah have much of a treasury to show the Babylonian delegation? This depends on what booty he had taken from the decimated Assyrian camp and what tribute had been brought to him immediately afterwards when the surrounding city-states heard of the destruction of the Assyrian army. So, again, if we follow the biblical record, the likelihood of Merodach-Baladan sending envoys as a ‘king’ and they being shown treasure by Hezekiah is a consistent account for post-701.

Conclusion

The date of Hezekiah’s recovery is important to the interpretation of Isaiah 40-66. Scholarship since the 1950s has settled on 701 as the date for the Assyrian invasion of Judah but in older dating schemes for Hezekiah’s reign, it is placed before 710. If we assume the modern framework,[10] 701 rather than 703 is the more likely date for Hezekiah’s recovery with the Babylonian envoys visit in 701-700.[11]