Various ambassadors came with letters and gifts to congratulate Hezekiah on his recovery (2 Chron. xxxii, 23), and among them an embassy from Merodach-Ba- ladan (or Berodach, 2 Kings xx, 12; 6 BuXa^ag, Jose- phus, I. c), the viceroy of Babylon, the Mardokempados of Ptolemy's canon. The ostensible object of this mis- sion was to compliment Hezekiah on his convalescence (2 Kings XX, 12; Isa. xxxix, 1), and "to inquire of the wonder that was done in the land" (2 Chron. xxxii, 31), a rumor of which could not fail to interest a people de- voted to astrology. But its real purpose was to discov- er how far an alliance between the two powers was pos- sible or desirable, for Mardokempados, no less than Hez- ekiah, was in apprehension of the Assyrians. In fact, Sargon expelled him from the throne of Babylon in the following year (the IGth of Hezekiah), although after a time he seems to have returned and re-established him- self for six months, at the end of which he was murder- ed by Belibos (Dr. Hincks, /. c. ; RosenmiiUer, Bibl. Ge- oc/raph. eh. viii; Layai'd, Nin. and Bab. i, 141). Com- munity of interest made Hezekiah receive the overtiu'cs of Babylon with unconcealed gratification ; and, perhaps, to enhance the opinion of his owai importance as an ally, he displayed to the messengers the princely treasures which he and his predecessors had accumulated. These stores remained even after the largesses mentioned in 2 Kings xviii, 14, 16, If ostentation were his motive it received a terrible rebuke, and he was informed by Isa- iah that from the then tottering and subordinate prov- ince of Babylon, and not from the mighty Assj-ria, would come the ruin and captivity of Judah (Isa. xxxix, 5). This prophecy and the one of Blicah (Jlic. iv, 10) are the earliest definition of the locality of tliat hostile pow- er, where the clouds of exile so long threatened (Lev. xxvi, 33 ; Dent, iv, 27 ; xxx, 3) were beginning to gath- er. It is an impressive and fearfid circumstance that the moment of exultation was chosen as the opportuni- ty for warning, and that the prophecies of the Assyrian deliverance are set side by side with those of the Baby- lonian captivity (Davidson, On Prophecy, p. 256). The weak friend was to accomplish that which was impossi- ble to the powerful foe. But, although pride was the sin thus vehemently checked by the prophet, Isaiah was certainly not blind to the political motives (Joseph. Ant, X, 2, 2) which made Hezekiah so complaisant to the Babylonian ambassadors. Into those motives he had inquired in vain, for the king met t/iat portion of his question ("What said these men?") by emphatic si- lence. Hezekiah's meek answer to the stern denuncia- tion of future woe has been most unjustly censured as "a false resignation which combines selfishness with siUiness" (Newman, Ilebr. Mon. p. 274). On the contra- ry, it merely implies a conviction that God's decree could not be othenvise than just and right, and a natural thankfulness for even a temporary suspension of its m- evitable fidtilment.
After this embassy we have only a general account of the peace and prosperity in whicli Hezekiah closed liis days. No man before or since ever lived under the cer- tain knowledge of the precise length of the span of life before him, "He was buried in the gouig up (nbl'^
HEZEL
231
HEZRON
k
to the sepulchres of the sons of David," 2 Chron. xxxii, 33 : from this, and the fact that the succeediiif; kings were laid in sepulchres of their own, it may be inferred that after Ahaz, tliirteentli from David, there was no more room left m the ancestral sepulchre (Thenius, it. s. p. 410). In later times, he was held in honor as the king \\\\o had "after him none like him among all the kings (if Judah, nor any that were before him" (2 Kings xviii, 5 ) ; in Jer. xxvi, 17 the elders of the land cite him as an cxanii)le of pious submission to the word of the Lord spoken by Micah ; and the son of Sirach closes his recital of the kings with this judgment — that of all the kings of Judah, " David, Hezekiah, and Josiah alone transgrcssod not, nor forsook the law of the Most High" (EcrhlS. x!ix,4).
Ecsides the many authors and commentators who have written on this period of Jewish historj' (on which much light has been recently thrown by Mr. Layard, Sir G. Wilkinson, Sir H. Kawlinson, Dr. Hincks, and other scholars who have studied the Nineveh i-emains), see for continuous lives of Hezekiah, Josephus {Ant. ix, 13-x, 2), Prideaux {Connect, i, 16-30), Jahn {Hehr. Com. § xli), Ewald {Gesch. iii, 614-G44, 2d ed.), Stanley (Jew- ish f7»»T/j,ii, 305-540), Nicholson {Lectures on Hezekiah, Lond. 1839), Rochah {Meditations on Ilez. tr. by Hare, Lond. 1839), Michaelis {De Ezechia, Hal. 1717), Scheid (Caiiticum Ezechice, Leyd. 1769), Nicolai {De terroribus Iliskiir, Jlelmst. 1749),' Taddel (Precatio Chisl:ia',Wit- tenl). 1704). For sermons, etc., see Darling, Cyclopcedia Bihlio(jraphica, col. 330, 340, 341.— Kitto; Smith.
Hezekiah's Pool, the modem traditionary name of a cistern or reservoir in the western part of the city of Jerusalem, referred by Robinson {Later Researches, p. 112) and Bartlett {Walks about Jerusalem, p. 82) to the military preparations of that king (2 Chron. xxxii, 3 sq. ; compare 2 Kings xx, 20 ; Ecchis. xlviii, 17 sq. ; Isa. xxii, 9-11; Psa. xlviii, 12, 13), but disputed by Ritter (Erdk. xvii, 371 sq.). See jERLSALEjr.