II. Hezekiah in his weakness.

The weakness of his character was displayed—1. When the king of Babylon sent messengers and a present to him to congratulate him on his recovery from his illness. Then he must needs take them over his house and his armoury, and parade before them all the strength of his dominions (2 Kings xx. 12–13). It was natural and right that he should be pleased with the conduct of the king of Babylon; it was gratifying to him personally; it augured well for the future, as concerning his kingdom, that he should be on good terms with the king of Babylon, now rising into power; but it was unworthy of him to lose his self-possession in the manner described. (1.) He was evidently overcome for the nonce by silly feelings of vanity. He seems to have thought that inasmuch as the king of Babylon had considered him worthy of the compliment of sending to him, he on his part must show that he was indeed a very magnificent king, as the king of Babylon had no doubt heard that he was. (2.) His vanity caused him to forget how little service his armoury and his treasures had been to him in the hour of peril (H. E. I. 3998, 4000, 4001, 4011). (3.) His vanity caused him to forego an opportunity of honouring God and of instructing his neighbours in Divine truth.[2] Doubtless it was his failure in duty in this respect that brought upon him so severe a rebuke (vers. 3–7). 2. The weakness of his character had already manifested itself in his conduct during his illness. In the prospect of death his strength of mind quite broke down (ch. xxxviii.) But there was a difference: in the other case he acted unworthily of his knowledge; in this case he was weak because he was, compared with ourselves, weak in religious privileges. He looked to his grave with such melancholy feelings because he could not clearly see a life beyond it. The answer of the great riddle of humanity had been guessed by many before Christ, but His resurrection made the truth clear (2 Tim. i. 10; H. E. I. 3415). If it were not for the light which our Lord has thrown into the grave, we should mourn like Hezekiah, and our eyes would fail as did his. Having more light than he had, it is our duty to live a nobler life than he did, and not to be cowards in prospect of death (H. E. I. 1570–1643).—Harvey Goodwin, M.A.: Plain Truth Sermons, Third Series, pp. 78–92.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Amongst other idolatrous forms of worship which he destroyed, he broke in pieces the brazen serpent which Moses had made in the wilderness (2 Kings xviii. 4). Many men would have been ready to destroy all the heathen forms of idolatry; they would have made no peace with Baal, or Dagon, or any other gods of the nations, but they would have hesitated to destroy a relic of the life of Israel in the wilderness; they would have thought it sacrilegious to break up an image which Moses himself had made, and they would have reasoned that the religious feelings of the people were so entwined about this memorial of their early days, that it would do more harm than good to violate their feelings, and take away that which excited in their minds religious thoughts. If a king of Judah had so argued, it would not have seemed right to confound him with the mere rabble of idolaters. If Hezekiah had destroyed all other forms of idolatry and left this remaining, we could easily have found an excuse for his conduct; but forasmuch as he took a higher view of his duty, we are bound to give him credit for that higher view, and to remark his spiritual discernment. Hezekiah was not deceived by any flimsy arguments about the sacred nature of the relic which the people adored; it was a cause of idolatry, that was enough. It had been sacred once. In the wilderness, when it was held up as an object upon which the people might gaze, it would have been a sacrilege to mutilate it; but now it was but “a piece of brass,” and if that piece of brass be the centre of a system of idolatry, there is but one safe course, and that is to destroy it.—Goodwin.

[2] If his purpose was to impress upon the Babylonians the greatness of his strength, the story of the destruction of Sennacherib would have answered his purpose much better. If Hezekiah had taken the ambassadors to the Temple, and told them how he had spread Sennacherib’s letter before the invisible presence of his God in that holy house, and how he had prayed that the designs of his enemy might be brought to nought, and how that eventually the Assyrians had all either perished or fled, the men of Babylon would have been far more impressed with the power of Hezekiah, believing as they would that he was under the protection of an unseen Hand, than they possibly could be by the mere vulgar display of treasures and armour, which their own country would show in abundance, and which was the very thing calculated to excite their desire of plunder.—Goodwin.

Home Life and Influence.

xxxix. 4. What have they seen in Thy house?

State briefly the circumstances that gave rise to this question. It evidently suggests to Hezekiah that he has not made the best use of the visit of the Babylonians. He might have turned it to greater account than the gratification of his vanity by displaying his treasures. Instead of magnifying the greatness and glory of God, and thus lifting the minds of his visitors to the highest themes, he had only held out a bait to their covetous desires, and tempted them to steal the treasures so vainly displayed. This was to be the result of his folly (ver. 6). This is how we miss the great opportunities of our life. There come to us golden seasons when we might bear valuable testimony for God; but we have some petty, personal desires of our own to carry out, and they pass away unimproved. Then comes the prophetic message, borne by our own conscience, that the plan we adopted to gratify our improper desires will only lead us to confusion and unhappiness.

The extent to which Hezekiah came under the censure of God in this matter we shall not now further consider. We shall extend the application of this question to the matter of home life and home influence. So it has a bearing on all of us. “What have they seen in thy house?”

I. It should be seen that our home is the common centre of attraction for all the family (P. D. 1828–1830, 1836).