Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Kings 16:1
In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah Ahaz the son of Jotham king of Judah began to reign.
Ch. 16. Reign of Ahaz, king of Judah. He reigns wickedly. Israel and Syria make war upon Jerusalem. Ahaz obtains assistance from Tiglath-pileser (2Ch 28:1-21)
1. In the seventeenth year of Pekah ] It is clear that some error has crept into the chronological statements of this period. In the previous chapter (2Ki 15:30) we read that Pekah was murdered by Hoshea in the twentieth year of Jotham. From the present verse it seems that Ahaz began to reign, and so Jotham died, before Pekah’s death. In reference to Ahaz too the figures are not without some difficulty. He begins his reign at 20 years old and reigns 16 years. But his son Hezekiah (2Ki 18:2) was twenty-five years old at his accession, and so must have been born when Ahaz was not more than eleven.
With reference, however, to the death of Pekah in the reign of Jotham, we see from Isa 7:1, that Pekah was still alive and conducting operations against Judah in the reign of Ahaz. This agrees entirely with verse 5 of the present chapter. Therefore in any chronological calculation the words of 2Ki 15:30 ought to be neglected. It is not easy to explain how the error arose, but it is manifest that there is an error.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
2Ki 16:1-20
In the seventeenth year of Pekah.
A peoples king and priest, or kinghood and priesthood
I. The kinghood.
1. The de-humanising force of false religion. Ahaz was an idolator.
2. The national curse of a corrupt king-hood.
3. The mischievous issues of a temporary expediency. Ahaz, in order to extricate himself from the difficulties and trials which Rezin and Pekah had brought on his country, applies to the King of Assyria.
(1) He degraded himself. He sold himself as a slave to the king whose help he revoked. He loses his self-respect, which is the very essence of true manhood. Another mischief of his temporary expediency was–
(2) He impoverished his people. This silver and gold belonged to the nation. It was public property. What right had he to dispose of a fraction?
II. The priesthood. Urijah is the priest. There seems to have been more than one of this name, and nothing is known of him more than what is recorded in this chapter. He was a priest, who at this time presided in the temple of Jerusalem. He seems to have been influential in the State, and, although a professed monotheist, was in somewhat close connection with Ahaz the idolatrous king. Two things are worthy of note concerning him.
1. An obsequious obedence to the royal will. The Assyrian king having taken Damascus, is followed by Ahaz to the city; in order, no doubt, to congratulate him on his triumphs. While at Damascus, Ahaz is struck with the beauty of an altar. He seems to have been so charmed with it that he commands Urijah, his priest, to make one exactly like it.
2. An obsequious silence to the royal profanation. See what the king did, no doubt, in the presence of the priest. This fawning, sacerdotal sycophant not only did according to all King Ahaz commanded, but he stood by silently and witnessed without a word of protest this spoliation of the holy temple. (David Thomas, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER XVI
Ahaz begins to reign, acts wickedly, and restores idolatry in
Judea, 1-4.
Rezin, king of Syria, besieges Jerusalem, but cannot take it;
he takes Elath, and drives the Jews thence, 5, 6.
Ahaz hires Tiglath-pileser against the king of Syria and the
king of Israel, and gives him the silver and gold that were
found in the treasures of the house of the Lord, 7, 8.
Tiglath-pileser takes Damascus and slays Rezin, 9.
Ahaz goes to meet him at Damascus: sees an altar there, a
pattern of which he sends to Urijah, the priest; and orders
him to make one like it, which he does, 10-15.
He makes several alterations in the temple; dies; and Hezekiah
his son reigns in his stead, 16-20.
NOTES ON CHAP. XVI
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
In the seventeenth year of Pekah; of which See Poole “2Ki 15:30“.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1-4. Ahaz . . . did not that whichwas right in the sight of the Lord[See on 2Ch28:1.] The character of this king’s reign, the voluptuousness andreligious degeneracy of all classes of the people, are graphicallyportrayed in the writings of Isaiah, who prophesied at that period.The great increase of worldly wealth and luxury in the reigns ofAzariah and Jotham had introduced a host of corruptions, which,during his reign, and by the influence of Ahaz, bore fruit in theidolatrous practices of every kind which prevailed in all parts ofthe kingdom (see 2Ch 28:24).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah Ahaz the son of Jotham king of Judah began to reign. Jotham began to reign in the second of Pekah, and he reigned sixteen years, and therefore his last year would fall in the eighteenth of Pekah; but as his first year might be at the beginning of the second of Pekah, his last was towards the end of the seventeenth of Pekah’s, as here; see 2Ki 15:32.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
2Ki 16:1-2 On the time mentioned, “in the seventeenth year of Pekah Ahaz became king” see at 2Ki 15:32. The datum “twenty years old” is a striking one, even if we compare with it 2Ki 18:2. As Ahaz reigned only sixteen years, and at his death his son Hezekiah became king at the age of twenty-five years (2Ki 18:2), Ahaz must have begotten him in the eleventh year of his age. It is true that in southern lands this is neither impossible nor unknown,
(Note: In the East they marry girls of nine or ten years of age to boys of twelve or thirteen (Volney, Reise, ii. p. 360). Among the Indians husbands of ten years of age and wives of eight are mentioned (Thevenot, Reisen, iii. pp. 100 and 165). In Abyssinia boys of twelve and even ten years old marry (Rppell, Abessynien, ii. p. 59). Among the Jews in Tiberias, mothers of eleven years of age and fathers of thirteen are not uncommon (Burckh. Syrien, p. 570); and Lynch saw a wife there, who to all appearance was a mere child about ten years of age, who had been married two years already. In the epist. ad N. Carbonelli, from Hieronymi epist. ad Vitalem, 132, and in an ancient glossa, Bochart has also cited examples of one boy of ten years and another of nine, qui nutricem suam gravidavit , together with several other cases of a similar kind from later writers. Cf. Bocharti Opp. i. ( Geogr. sacr.) p. 920, ed. Lugd. 1692.)
but in the case of the kings of Judah it would be without analogy. The reading found in the lxx, Syr., and Arab. at 2Ch 28:1, and also in certain codd., viz., five and twenty instead of twenty, may therefore be a preferable one. According to this, Hezekiah, like Ahaz, was born in his father’s sixteenth year.
2Ki 16:3-4 “Ahaz walked in the way of the kings of Israel,” to which there is added by way of explanation in 2Ch 28:2, “and also made molten images to the Baals.” This refers, primarily, simply to the worship of Jehovah under the image of a calf, which they had invented; for this was the way in which all the kings of Israel walked. At the same time, in 2Ki 8:18 the same formula is so used of Joram king of Judah as to include the worship of Baal by the dynasty of Ahab. Consequently in the verse before us also the way of the kings of Israel includes the worship of Baal, which is especially mentioned in the Chronicles. – “He even made his son pass through the fire,” i.e., offered him in sacrifice to Moloch in the valley of Benhinnom (see at 2Ki 23:10), after the abominations of the nations, whom Jehovah had cast out before Israel. Instead of we have the plural in 2Ch 28:3, and in 2Ch 28:16 , kings of Asshur, instead of , although only one, viz., Tiglath-pileser, is spoken of. This repeated use of the plural shows very plainly that it is to be understood rhetorically, as expressing the thought in the most general manner, since the number was of less importance than the fact.
(Note: The Greeks and Romans also use the plural instead of the singular in their rhetorical style of writing, especially when a father, a mother, or a son is spoken of. Cf. Cic. de prov. cons. xiv. 35: si ad jucundissimos liberos, si ad clarissimum generum redire properaret, where Julia, the only daughter of Caesar, and the wife of Pompey the Great, is referred to; and for other examples see Caspari, der Syr. Ephraimit. Krieg, p. 41.)
So far as the fact is concerned, we have here the first instance of an actual Moloch-sacrifice among the Israelites, i.e., of one performed by slaying and burning. For although the phrase or does not in itself denote the slaying and burning of the children as Moloch-sacrifices, but primarily affirms nothing more than the simple passing through fire, a kind of februation or baptism of fire (see at Lev 18:21); such passages as Eze 16:21 and Jer 7:31, where sacrificing in the valley of Benhinnom is called slaying and burning the children, show most distinctly that in the verse before us is to be taken as signifying actual sacrificing, i.e., the burning of the children slain in sacrifice to Moloch, and, as the emphatic indicates, that this kind of idolatrous worship, which had never been heard of before in Judah and Israel, was introduced by Ahaz.
(Note: “ If this idolatry had occurred among the Israelites before the time of Ahaz, its abominations would certainly not have been passed over by the biblical writers, who so frequently mention other forms of idolatry. ” These are the correct words of Movers ( Phniz. i. p. 65), who only errs in the fact that on the one hand he supposes the origin of human sacrifices in the time of Ahaz to have been inwardly connected with the appearance of the Assyrians, and traces them to the acquaintance of the Israelites with the Assyrian fire-deities Adrammelech and Anammelech (2Ki 17:31), and on the other hand gives this explanation of the phrase, “ cause to pass through the fire for Moloch, ” which is used to denote the sacrificing of children: “ the burning of children was regarded as a passage, whereby, after the separation of the impure and earthly dross of the body, the children attained to union with the deity ” (p. 329). To this J. G. Mller has correctly replied (in Herzog ‘ s Cyclop.): “ This mystic, pantheistic, moralizing view of human sacrifices is not the ancient and original view of genuine heathenism. It is no more the view of Hither Asia than the Mexican view (i.e., the one which lay at the foundation of the custom of the ancient Mexicans, of passing the new-born boy four times through the fire). The Phoenician myths, which Movers (p. 329) quotes in support of his view, refer to the offering of human sacrifices in worship, and the moral view is a later addition belonging to Hellenism. The sacrifices were rather given to the gods as food, as is evident from innumerable passages (compare the primitive religions of America), and they have no moral aim, but are intended to reward or bribe the gods with costly presents, either because of calamities that have already passed, or because of those that are anticipated with alarm; and, as Movers himself admits (p. 301), to make atonement for ceremonial sins, i.e., to follow smaller sacrifices by those of greater value. ” )
In the Chronicles, therefore is correctly explained by , “he burned;” though we cannot infer from this that is always a mere conjecture for , as Geiger does ( Urschrift u. Uebers, der Bibel, p. 305). The offering of his son for Moloch took place, in all probability, during the severe oppression of Ahaz by the Syrians, and was intended to appease the wrath of the gods, as was done by the king of the Moabites in similar circumstances (2Ki 3:27). – In 2Ki 16:4 the idolatry is described in the standing formulae as sacrificing upon high places and hills, etc., as in 1Ki 14:23. The temple-worship prescribed by the law could easily be continued along with this idolatry, since polytheism did not exclude the worship of Jehovah. It was not till the closing years of his reign that Ahaz went so far as to close the temple-hall, and thereby suspend the temple-worship (2Ch 28:24); in any case it was not till after the alterations described in 2Ki 16:11. as having been made in the temple.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Reign of Ahaz. | B. C. 726. |
1 In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah Ahaz the son of Jotham king of Judah began to reign. 2 Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem, and did not that which was right in the sight of the LORD his God, like David his father. 3 But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel. 4 And he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree.
We have here a general character of the reign of Ahaz. Few and evil were his days–few, for he died at thirty-six–evil, for we are here told, 1. That he did not that which was right like David (v. 2), that is, he had none of that concern and affection for the instituted service and worship of God for which David was celebrated. He had no love for the temple, made no conscience of his duty to God, nor had any regard to his law. Herein he was unlike David; it was his honour that he was of the house and lineage of David, and it was owing to God’s ancient covenant with David that he was now upon the throne, which aggravated his wickedness; for he was a reproach to that honourable name and family, which therefore was really a reproach to him (Degeneranti genus opprobrium—A good extraction is a disgrace to him who degenerates from it), and though he enjoyed the benefit of David’s piety he did not tread in the steps of it. 2. That he walked in the way of the kings of Israel (v. 3), who all worshipped the calves. He was not joined in any affinity with them, as Jehoram and Ahaziah were with the house of Ahab, but, ex mero motu–without any instigation, walked in their way. The kings of Israel pleaded policy and reasons of state for their idolatry, but Ahaz had no such pretence: in him it was the most unreasonable impolitic thing that could be. They were his enemies, and had proved enemies to themselves too by their idolatry; yet he walked in their way. 3. That he made his sons to pass through the fire, to the honour of his dunghill-deities. He burnt them, so it is expressly said of him (2 Chron. xxviii. 3), burnt some of them, and perhaps made others of them (Hezekiah himself not excepted, though afterwards he was never the worse for it) to pass between two fires, or to be drawn through a flame, in token of their dedication to the idol. 4. That he did according to the abominations of the heathen whom the Lord had cast out. it was an instance of his great folly that he would be guided in his religion by those whom he saw fallen into the ditch before his eyes, and follow them; and it was an instance of his great impiety that he would conform to those usages which God had declared to be abominable to him, and set himself to write after the copy of those whom God had cast out, thus walking directly contrary to God. 5. That he sacrificed in the high places, v. 4. If his father had but had zeal enough to take them away, the debauching of his sons might have been prevented; but those that connive at sin know not what dangerous snares they lay for those that come after them. He forsook God’s house, was weary of that place where, in his father’s time, he had often been detained before the Lord, and performed his devotions on high hills, where he had a better prospect, and under green trees, where he had a more pleasant shade. It was a religion little worth, which was guided by fancy, not by faith.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Second Kings – Chapter 16 AND Second Chronicles – Chapter 28
Ahaz Reigns in Judah Commentary on 2Ki 16:1-4 AND 2Ch 28:1-4
Ahaz, the son of Jotham, who succeeded his father as king of Judah, was an altogether paganistic king. It is almost inconceivable that he could be so in view of the character of his father, and even his grandfather Uzziah. Judah is about to experience a series of kings alternately bad and good presenting a surprisingly inexplicable question as to the reason. Ahaz became king at twenty years of age, reigned sixteen years, and so died at the young age of thirty-six. As his wicked reign is examined one is almost convinced that the Lord cut him down in judgment, though the Scriptures do not so state.
Ahaz does not appear to have pretended to worship the Lord. He used the evil kings of Israel, the northern kingdom, who were his enemies, as his example in worship. He constructed images of the Baals of the Canaanites and Phoenicians. In the valley just outside Jerusalem, called Ben-hinnom (Gehenna in the New Testament), south of the city, he offered incense to his false gods. Here he worshipped all of the abominable idols which the Lord commanded the conquering Israelites to expel from the land. It was in this place Ahaz went further in heathenism than any king of Israel or Judah had ever gone before, when he sacrificed his children by burning them in the fire to the false god. Of this practice the law demanded swift attention, by stoning the offender promptly (De 12:29-32; 13:6-11).
Ahaz furthermore frequented the high places and established others “on the hills, and under every green tree.” In other words Ahaz made the religion of idolatry very prominent throughout the countryside of the land of Judah. These conditions were what Isaiah inveighed against in his prophecy. (Isa 1:2 ff).
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
THE REIGN OF AHAZ IN JUDAH
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.
2Ki. 16:2. Twenty years old was Ahab when, &c.The Sept. MS. of the Vatican, and other MSS., give twenty-five in the corresponding account of 2Ch. 28:1. Adopting this alteration, he died at the age of forty-one, having reigned sixteen years. He could only have reached the age of fifteen when his son Hesekiah was born, for the son was twenty five at his fathers death (chap. 2Ki. 18:2). Yet a youth of fifteen is not unduly young for such a relationship in the East.
2Ki. 16:3. Made his son to pass through the fireThis is the first record of human sacrifice among the Israelites. The force of evidence is against the lighter interpretation of the kings act, viz., that this was a mere fire-baptism, an act of lustration and purificationpassing his son through the heat or flames. The phrase go through the fire is shown in Num. 31:23 to mean a testing in the fire, as metal, &c. (2Ki. 16:20), so that what could be consumed by the fire was consumed; and 2Ch. 28:3 records that Ahab burnt his children in the fire. It was the immolation of his children to Moloch, in the Valley of Hinnom. Comp. chap. 2Ki. 17:31; Jer. 19:5. Josephus delares it to have been a holocaust: . There remains, however, the probability that the children were slain before being committed to the fires of Moloch (cf. Eze. 16:20, and Psa. 106:37).
2Ki. 16:7. Ahab sent messengers to Tiglath-pileserIsrael had asked Assyrian help (chap. 2Ki. 16:9); now Judah throws herself upon the protection of a heathen power. Already Jehovah had become discarded in the nations worship; how could any trust in his guardianship continue? Yet he sinned against most emphatic expostulations from Isaiah, and assurances sealed by supernatural signs (Isa. 7:14; Isa. 8:4).
2Ki. 16:9. King of Assyria took Damascus, and carried the people captive to KirThe aid Ahaz sought was purchased with the treasures of the palace and the Temple (2Ki. 16:8). Tiglath vanquished the confederate kingsRezin of Syria, and Pekah of Israeland seized Damascus. This occurred B.C. 732. A year later he held a court of his vassals there, and twenty-three abject kings there did him obeisance, among them being mentioned Pekah, king of Israel, and Ahaz, king of Judah. Kir is thought to have been Karine, now Karend, in Media.
2Ki. 16:10. Ahaz saw an altar that was at DamascusCharmed with its elegance and novelty, he transmitted a sketch of it to Urijah the priest at Jerusalem, and ordered that one be made forthwith to supplant the altar of Jehovah in the Tempe. Yet that old altar was designed under express direction and authority of the Lord God! It is called the great altar (2Ki. 16:15), doubtless more because of its gorgeous splendour. The priest of Jehovah raised no remonstrance, so perfidious had become the sacerdotal spirit (2Ki. 16:16).
2Ki. 16:15. The brazen altar shall be for me to enquire byJehovahs sacrifices were transferred to a heathenish altar. There were as yet no idolatrous offerings sacrificed in the Temple; no discontinuance of outward worship to the God of Israel. But the Divine altar was removed from its position in the Sanctuary, and left neglected; its destination was not yet clear to Ahaz, he would consider about it. For the words, for me to enquire by, is the simple significance of the phrase
2Ki. 16:17. Ahaz out off the borders of the bases, &c.Spoiling the adornments to gratify his capricious fancies in, probably, decorating his own palace. Thus men debase what is sacred to suit their own purposes, but God watches the sacrilege, and He will requite the dishonour done to Him.
2Ki. 16:18. The covert for the SabbathA portico used by the priests. Dr. Abraham Geiger renders these words molten images of the Shame (i.e., Baal), following 2Ch. 28:2; but was, says Keil, unquestionably a covered place, a platform or hall, in the forecourt of the temple, set apart for the king when he visited the temple with his retinue on the Sabbath or feast days. So went forward the abasement of Jadah; the Church yielding every trust for the sake of retaining State favour and glory. Jehovah deposed from supremacy in His own Temple, that a corrupt Court might be gratified, and the smile of a depraved king be retained. If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy (1Co. 3:17).W. H. J.
HOMILETICS OF 2Ki. 16:1-20
AN IDOLATROUS RULER A NATIONAL SCOURGE
AHAZ inherited the wealth and magnificence that had accumulated under the masterly government of his father, Jotham, and his grandfather, Azariah, but he had also inherited the pernicious effects of luxury and indulgence that ever follow in the train of prosperity. From his earliest years he seems to have fallen into the hands of a court party who championed idolatry, and he never acquired strength of character sufficient to shake off the baleful influence of their teaching and example. He was fundamentally weak. He cringed before the great Assyrian power (2Ki. 16:7), but, like all other cowards, he was imperious and exacting towards those who were subject to him (2Ki. 16:10-16). Under his feeble and idolatrous administration, Judah sank lower and lower, till it was brought to the verge of ruin. There was nothing to mitigate the successive series of national disasters: his influence upon the nation constantly operated as a blighting, withering curse. Observe
I. That idolatry becomes a dangerous power in a nation when patronised and encouraged by royalty (2Ki. 16:2-4).
1. The religious leanings of a youthful prince are anxiously seanned. Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord (2Ki. 16:2). The heathen party and the worshippers of Jehovah were on the outlook as to what stand the young king would make. Would he set his face against the idolatrous innovations which had already gone too far: and would he show more zeal and fidelity than his immediate predecessors had done towards the ancient faith? Neither party were kept long in suspense. The old court party triumphed; they had intrigued and flattered to some purpose. The idolatrous tendencies of Ahaz were soon detected; and the emphatic condemnation of the sacred writer was richly meritedhe did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord his God. It is a sincere grief to the good to witness a reign begun in defiance of the great religious principles which had given life and prestige to the nation. The fate of such a reign it is not difficult to predict.
2. Idolatrous practices rapidly degenerate to the level of the most atrocious examples (2Ki. 16:3-4). Ahaz excelled his idolatrous predecessors not only in imbecility, but also in cruelty. He descended to the most inhuman practices of the heathen: he made his children to pass through the firean abomination against which the Israelites were solemnly warned (comp. Lev. 18:21; Lev. 20:24; Deu. 18:10). The Jewish rabbis have mildly interpreted this passing through the fire as merely passing between two burning pyres as a purificatory rite; but the truth is, the victims were first slain and then burned (vide 2Ch. 28:3, compared with Psa. 106:37; Psa. 106:8; Jer. 7:31; Jer. 19:4-5; Eze. 16:20-21; Eze. 23:37). The brazen image of the idol was made red-hot, and the victim passed within its glowing arms. Other kings of Judah had allowed their people to sacrifice and burn incense in the high places; but Ahaz was the first, so far as we know, to countenance the practice by his own example (2Ki. 16:4). Idolatry debauches the moral sense, and prepares its votaries for the worst abominations.
II. That an idolatrous ruler wantonly sacrifices the national prestige and independence (2Ki. 16:5-9). I. His weakness exposes the nation to invasion and loss (2Ki. 16:5-6). The kings of Syria and Israel, who had been held in check by the strong hand of Azariah and Jotham, despised the feebleness of Ahaz, and harassed his kingdom with war and siege. They aimed at dethroning Ahaz and substituting a nominee of their own, whom they could compel to unite with them in resisting the encroachments of the Assyrian power. Had Ahaz been decided and open in his attachment to Jehovah, they would not have insulted him and his people with a proposal to form a league with Judah, nor would they have dared to use force. But the idolatry of Ahaz was a sufficient plea for them to take liberties: he was now so much like themselves that they might readily conclude he would be willing to unite with them in any enterprise. When the ruler sinks in moral reputation and force, the stringency of a wholesome government is relaxed, and the nation suffers.
2. He tamely subjects his people to the oppression of a foreign power (2Ki. 16:7). Judah had injured and oppressed Israel, and could not therefore hope to wean her from her compact with Syria. Israel and Syria had already won two battles against Judah, in which the flower of her troops had been destroyed. Egypt was at this time too weak to afford any assistance, and Ahaz was conscious of serious disaffection spreading among his own people (Isa. 7:13). In this emergency he abjectly throws himself at the feet of the Assyrian monarch, and piteously implores his help. It might be that this was Judahs only alternative from a point of view; but what a fall was this compared with the days of Azariah and Jotham! There was one resource yet open to Ahaz: he might have fallen back on Jehovah. But his apostacy was too complete and his idolatry too flagrant to allow such a thought to take deep root. Blind with infatuation he runs for refuge into the embrace of a power that erelong uses its advantage in oppressing his people.
3. He does not scruple to strip the temple of God of its sacred treasures to purchase an idolatrous alliance And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord, and sent it for a present to the king of Assyria (2Ki. 16:8). Here begins the work of spoliation. It does not appear that he took anything from the shrines of the idols he loved so muchthat would be sacrilege in his eyesand yet without compunction or misgiving he desecrates and robs the temple of Jehovah. In this we have another proof of the debasing influence of his heathenism, and how completely he had severed himself from Jehovah and His worship. The man who turns his back on God is ready for any deed of infamy.
III. That an idolatrous ruler is reckless in the introduction of innovations in worship which are an insult to the only true God (2Ki. 16:10-18).
1. He substitutes a heathen altar in the place of the one used in the worship of Jehovah (2Ki. 16:10). Carried away with the idolatrous ritual of the Assyrians, Ahaz, captivated with the pattern of a certain altar, has one made after the same model and placed in the inner court of the temple. Human fancies and predelictions are indulged in defiance of Divine authority and commandment. The temple altar was made after a Divine pattern (Exo. 25:40; Exo. 26:30; Exo. 27:1); and the introduction of the Assyrian specimen was an insulting and sinful intrusion.
2. He finds co-workers in those whose duty is to resist all heathenish innovations (2Ki. 16:11-16). The supine conduct of Urijah is in marked contrast with the stout, heroic opposition of Azariah and his priests to the proud assumptions of Uzziah (2Ch. 26:16-18). Ahaz was too weak a character to have succeeded in winning over Urijah to idolatry, either by threats or cajolery, unless there had been a predisposition on Urijahs part. He was infected with the theological laxity of the period, and instead of boldly maintaining the absolute supremacy of Jehovah, he was beginning to recognize Him as but one among the many deities to be worshipped. With confused ideas and impaired convictions, Urijah was not prepared to risk the loss of his place and income by opposing the wishes of the capricious monarch. 3. He adopts methods calculated to disparage and pour contempt on the worship of Jehovah (2Ki. 16:17-18). We are prepared now for any act of impiety Ahaz may commit. His reverence for God is gone, and with it his reverence for the sanctuary. The sacred vessels are mutilated, the treasures and costly ornaments appropriated to political exigencies, and the royal entrance to the Temple closed. There was no distinction now between Judah and the most idolatrous nations. The safeguard of Judahthe love and worship of Jehovahwas broken down, and the nation soon became a prey to the invader and involved in ruin.
LESSONS:
1. Idolatry debauches the moral sense of king and poople.
2. A wicked king will always find those who will imitate him in his most extravagant follies and vices.
3. The ruler who systematically ignores the claims of God inevitably drags his people into degradation and suffering.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
2Ki. 16:1. Under this most wicked prince prophesied Isaiah, Hosea, Micah, and Nahum, but with little good success, so incorrigibly flagitious were now all sorts grown.Trapp.
2Ki. 16:2-4. An idolatrous enthusiast
1. Eagerly embraces the advantage gained by his accession to power and authority in propagating his favourite theories. Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and did not that which was right (2Ki. 16:2).
2. Is ever ready to quote and imitate the examples of those whose policy favoured his own views. He walked in the ways of the kings of Israel (2Ki. 16:3).
3. Soon outstrips the most notorious examples, and sinks to the abominations of the rudest heathenism. Yea, and made his son to pass through the fire (2Ki. 16:3).
4. Spreads the blight of his pernicious system in every available place. He sacrificed in the high places, on the hills, and under every green tree (2Ki. 16:4).
2Ki. 16:2. The character of this kings reign, the voluptuousness and religious degeneracy of all classes of the people, are graphically portrayed in the writings of Isaiah. The great increase of worldly wealth and luxury in the reigns of Azariah and Jotham had introduced a host of corruptions which, during the reign and by the influence of Ahaz, bore fruit in the idolatrous practices of every kind which prevailed in all parts of the kingdom (see 2Ch. 28:24).Jamieson.
2Ki. 16:3. A man that is once fallen from truth knows not where he shall stay. From the calves of Jeroboam is Ahaz drawn to the gods of the heathen; yea, now bulls and goats are too little for those new deities; his own flesh and blood is but dear enough. Where do we find any religious Israelite thus zealous for God! Neither is our dull and niggardly heart ready to gratify Him with more easy obediences. O God, how gladly should we offer unto thee our souls and bodies, which we may enjoy so much the more when they are thine, since zealous Pagans stick not to lose their own flesh and blood in an idols fire!Bp. Hall.
2Ki. 16:3-4. Men are so blind that they think they serve God most truly by those very actions by which they sin most grossly against Him. The Moloch-sacrifice, or child-sacrifice, is a proof of the extravagance of error into which men can fall when they have not the knowledge of the living God and His revealed blood, or when they have rejected the same (Rom. 1:21-22). This abomination, which still continues among heathen nations, is the strongest and most direct call to all who know the living God and who possess His Word, to take part in the work of missions, and to help to bring it about that light may come to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death. God commands us to give our dearest and best to Him, but not to Moloch. There are no longer any sacrifices to Moloch in Christendom; but it happens often enough, even now, that parents sacrifice their children to the idols of the world which consume them, so that they are lost eternally.Lange.
2Ki. 16:4. Wherever God has a Church, the devil builds a temple by the side of it.
2Ki. 16:5-9. The disastrous results of national apostasy.
1. The enemy is emboldened to make combined attacks upon the nation (2Ki. 16:5).
2. Involves loss of prestige and of territory (2Ki. 16:5).
3. The national spirit is demoralised (2Ki. 16:7).
4. The nation is put in the power of those who, while professing to help and protect it, drain its resources and ultimately hasten its ruin (2Ki. 16:7-9).
2Ki. 16:7. The more plausible, really the more insane, desire of Ahaz to secure the favour of an empire which was the common enemy of all nations, that he might get rid of the two that were tormenting him, showed that faith had departed from Judah also. The idols of silver and gold had driven God out of its heart, and made the worship of Him a mockery.Maurice.
2Ki. 16:10-18. Innovations in Divine worship.
1. Are not to be confounded with an improved fervour and spirituality of service.
2. Are evidences of religious decline.
3. Are an insult to the Divine Being.
4. Should be firmly resisted by the faithful minister of God.
5. May lead to the most reprehensible acts of contempt and sacrilege.
See in this a clear picture of the lack of Christian spirit in the two highest ranks. The State desires to see everything arranged according to its whims; the Church yields for the sake of the temporal advantage. It is the fashion of depraved rulers that they think they can command in religions as well as in similar matters, and can control everything according to their own good pleasure.Lange.
A spirit of innovation is generally the result of a selfish temper and confined views. People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors.Burke.
It is a dangerous presumption to make innovations if but in the circumstances of Gods worship. Those human additions, which would seem to grace the institution of God, deprave it. That infinite Wisdom knows best what pleases itself, and prescribes accordingly. The foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men. Idolatry and falsehood are commonly more gaudy and plausible than truth. That heart which can, for the outward homeliness, despise the ordinances of God, is already alienated from true religion, and lies open to the grossest superstition.Bp. Hall.
2Ki. 16:10. A fit helve for such a hatchet. Urijah had been a maintainer of Gods true worship in the temple, and by the prophet Isaiah counted and called a faithful witness (Isa. 8:1-2); but now he becometh an apostate, as Damascen turned Mahommedan, after he had written against that execrable impiety; and Ahaz knew him, belike, to be a temporiser.Trapp.
2Ki. 16:13. Uzziah, for so doing, was smitten with leprosy; but Ahaz of a far worse disease, an incurable hardness of heart.Trapp.
For the heathens, and Ahazs imitation of them, offered the same sorts of offerings to their false gods which the Israelites did to the true, the devil being noted to be Gods ape in his worship.Pool.
2Ki. 16:16. We have in this high priest a specimen of those hypocrites and belly-servants who say, Whose bread I eat, his song I sing; who veer about with the wind, and seek to be pleasant to all men; dumb dogs who cannot bark; who wish to hurt no ones feelings, but teach and say just what any one wants to hear. But Gods word alone, and not the favour of men, nor the goods and honours of the world, ought to be the rule from which we ought not to turn aside, although it may involve risk of life or limb to speak the truth.Lange.
2Ki. 16:19-20. The reign of Ahaz was the most disastrous of any through which Judah had yet passed. The kingdom sank so low, both internally and externally, religiously and politically, that it was on the verge of ruin. Such an incapable ruler had never before ascended the throne. The predominant feature in his character was weaknessweakness of spirit and weakness of intellect. History records nothing about him worthy of respect.Bahr.
Of all the kings of Judah hitherto, there is none so dreadful an example, either of sin or judgment, as this son of good Jotham. I abhor to think that such a monster should descend from the loins of David. Where should be the period of this wickedness? He began with the high places; thence he descended to the calves of Dan and Bethel; from thence he falls to a Syrian altar, to the Syrian god; then he falls to an utter exclusion of the true God and blocking up His temple; then to the sacrifice of his own son; and at last, as if hell were broken loose on Gods inheritance, every several city, every high place of Judah, has a new God. No marvel if he be branded by the Spirit of GodThis is that king Ahaz!Bp. Hall.
2Ki. 16:20. His subjects complain that he died so late; and, as repenting that he ever was, denying him a room in the sepulchres of kings, as if they had saidThe common earth of Jerusalem is too good for him that degenerated from his progenitors, spoiled his kingdom, depraved his people, forsook his God.Ibid.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
B. THE REIGN OF AHAZ 16:120
Considerable attention is devoted to Ahaz because of the religious significance of his reign. For the first time since the bloody reign of Athaliah, the Davidic dynasty faced the threat of removal from the throne in Jerusalem. To preserve himself on the throne, Ahaz appealed for aid from Assyria. He thus brought Judah under the political influence andwhat is worsethe religious influence of the Mesopotamian superpower. After a brief introduction to the reign of Ahaz (2Ki. 16:1-4), the author discusses the Syro-Ephraimitic invasion of Judah (2Ki. 16:5-9), and the Temple alterations made by Ahaz (2Ki. 16:10-18).
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE REIGN OF AHAZ (2Ki. 16:1-4)
TRANSLATION
(1) In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah, Ahaz the son of Jotham the king of Judah began to reign. (2) Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and sixteen years he reigned in Jerusalem; he did not do that which was upright in the eyes of the LORD his God like David his father. (3) But he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, and even his son he caused to pass through the fire according to the abominations of the nations which the LORD drove out from before the children of Israel. (4) And he sacrificed and burned incense in the high places and on the hills and under every green tree.
Eleventh King of Judah
AHAZ BEN JOTHAM
735720 B.C.*
(Possessor)
2 Kings 16; 2 Chronicles 28
Synchronism
Ahaz 1 = Pekah 17
Contemporary Prophets
Isaiah, Micah, Oded
Mother: ?
Appraisal: Bad
It is an abomination to commit wickedness: for the throne is established by righteousness. Pro. 16:12
* coregent from 743 B.C.
emeritus king from 720 B.C.
COMMENTS
Ahaz seems to have usurped the reins of government from his father Jotham in 735 B.C., the seventeenth year of Pekah of Israel. His sixteen years of effective rule should be dated 735720 B.C. However, Ahaz served as coregent with Jotham from as early as 743 B.C. He was still living and occupying an emeritus position from 720715 B.C.
Ahaz was the most wicked king who to this point had reigned in Judah. Of all the kings of Judah only Manasseh and Amon receive greater condemnation. Ahaz reintroduced and personally participated in the worship of Canaanite deities. Like the kings of Israel, he made molten images for Baal (cf. 2Ch. 28:2), and, even worse, made his son to pass through the fire. The irony of this action is pointed out by the author: it was because of such abominable practices as these that God had driven the Canaanites out of the land before the armies of Israel![584] (2Ki. 16:3). Ahaz not only tolerated the continued existence of the worship in the high places and groves, he himself took part in that worship (2Ki. 16:4). This illegitimate and unregulated worship, while in many cases ostensibly directed to Yahweh, was very corrupt and paganized.
[584] See Lev. 18:21; Deu. 12:31; Deu. 18:9-10.
A further comment is necessary on the practice of passing ones son through the fire. This was no symbolic ceremony in which a child might be dedicated to the service of some pagan god as some commentators imagine. The Chronicler clearly states that Ahaz burnt his children (plural!) in the fire (2Ch. 28:3).[585] The sacrificial burning of children was a practice particularly associated with Moloch the god of Moab. The theory was that a man should offer to his deity what was nearest and dearest to himself. The sacrifice as it was performed at the Phoenician colony of Carthage is described by the Roman writer Diodorus Siculus (XX, 14). In the Temple there was an image of Moloch, a human figure with a bulls head and outstretched arms. This image of metal was made glowing hot by a fire kindled within it; and the children laid in its arms, rolled from thence into the fiery lap below. If the children cried, the parents stopped their noise by fondling and kissing them; for the victim was not supposed to weep, and the sound of complaint was drowned in the din of flutes and drums. It is not certain whether the children were first slain or whether they were placed alive in the glowing arms of the image. Eze. 16:21 suggests the former, but the precise ritual may have varied from time to time and place to place.
[585] Compare Jer. 19:5 and Eze. 16:21.
2. THE SYRO-EPHRAIMITIC INVASION OF JUDAH (2Ki. 16:5-9)
TRANSLATION
(5) Then Rezin king of Aram and Pekah the son of Remaliah king of Israel went up to Jerusalem to war; and they besieged Ahaz, but were not successful. (6) At that time Rezin king of Aram recovered Elath for Aram, and drove the Jews from Elath; and the Arameans came to Elath where they dwell to this day. (7) And Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, saying, Your servant and your son am I! Come up and deliver me from the hand of the king of Aram and from the hand of the king of Israel who are rising up against me. (8) And Ahaz took the silver and gold which was found in the house of the LORD and in the treasures of the kings house, and sent it to the king of Assyria as a present. (9) And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him, and the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried it captive to Kir, and he slew Rezin.
COMMENTS
The alliance between Rezin of Damascus and Pekah of Samaria was briefly noticed in 2Ki. 15:37 in connection with the reign of Jotham. This alliance is an extraordinary and somewhat unexpected political development. Not since the early days of Benhadad I had either Judah or Israel been allied with the Aramean state. For a century and a half the kings of Damascus had been bitter enemies of the people of God. However, the military resurgence of Assyria under the dynamic leadership of Tiglath-pileser in 745 B.C. forced the states of Syria-Palestine into a political realignment. For reasons which are not entirely clear, Ahaz of Judah rejected the overtures of this coalition and refused to lend his support to any military effort against Assyria. He either did not feel threatened by Assyria, or else he feared Tiglath-pileser so much that he did not wish to offend the Great King in any way.
Ahazs refusal to participate in the newly formed coalition brought down upon him the wrath of Rezin and Pekah. Jerusalem was besieged, but did not fall (2Ki. 16:5). The fortifications of Uzziah (2Ch. 26:9) and Jotham (2Ch. 27:3) had, no doubt, greatly strengthened the city since the time it was captured so easily by Jehoash (cf. 2Ki. 14:13). Frustrated at Jerusalem, Rezin roamed farther south and captured Elath and drove out the Jewish garrison which had been stationed there since the days of Uzziah (cf. 2Ki. 14:22). From that time on the Arameans (or perhaps Edomites[586]) occupied this important seaport city (2Ki. 16:6).
[586] The difference in the Hebrew spelling of Edomites and Arameans is so slight that it is conceivable that a scribal error occurred here. It is difficult to imagine Arameans from Damascus still remaining in far distant Elath for any length of time. It is far more reasonable to regard the capture of Elath as a blow against Judah. Once the city fell, it was returned to the native people.
In his extreme desperation, Ahaz turned to Tiglath-pileser of Assyria for relief from his two antagonists. This reliance on man rather than God is exactly what the prophet Isaiah had tried to forestall when he confronted Ahaz just before the Syro-Ephraimitic attack (Isa. 7:1-9). But the king was not a man of faith, and to him it appeared that the only logical and reasonable course of action was to submit willingly to the Assyrian. Better to be the vassal of a distant power than to lose his throne altogether. So Ahaz submitted himself completely to Tiglath-pileser, and at the same time asked the mighty king to deliver him from the Syro-Ephraimitic threat (2Ki. 16:7).
Sacred treasuries and royal treasuries were drained in order to send to Nineveh the appropriate gift which would seal the alliance between the two countries (2Ki. 16:8). Tiglath-pileser welcomed this overture. His imperialistic policy called for the eventual subjugation of Aram and the submission of Judah. In 732 B.C. the Assyrian attacked and captured the city of Damascus just as Amos the prophet had previously foretold (cf. Amo. 1:4-5). A great host of captivesthirty thousand according to the Assyrian annalswas carried away to Kir,[587] a district in the eastern Assyrian empire the location of which has not been positively identified, Rezin himself was slain when the city fell (2Ki. 16:9).
[587] According to Amo. 9:7 Kir was the original home of the Arameans.
4. TEMPLE ALTERATIONS BY AHAZ (2Ki. 16:10-18)
TRANSLATION
(10) And King Ahaz went to meet Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria in Damascus, and he saw an altar that was in Damascus; and King Ahaz sent unto Urijah the priest the pattern of the altar, and the specification for all its workmanship. (11) And Urijah the priest built the altar according to all which King Ahaz sent unto him from Damascus. (12) And the king came from Damascus; and the king saw the altar, and the king approached the altar, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. (13) And he offered burnt offerings and meal offerings, and poured out drink offering, and sprinkled the blood of his peace offerings upon the altar. (14) And the bronze altar which was before the LORD he removed from before the house, from between the (new) altar and the house of the LORD, and put it on the north side of the (new) altar. (15) And king Ahaz commanded Urijah the priest, saying, Upon the great altar offer the morning burnt offering and the evening sacrifice, the burnt offering of the king and his sacrifice, and the burnt offering of all the people of the land and their sacrifice and their drink offerings; and all the blood of the burnt offering and all the blood of the sacrifice you shall sprinkle upon it; and as for the bronze altar, it will be for me to inquire concerning it. (16) And Urijah the priest did according to all which King Ahaz commanded. (17) And King Ahaz cut off the borders of the bases, and removed from upon them the laver; and the sea he took down from upon the bronze oxen which were under it, and put it upon a pedestal of stone. (18) And the covert for the sabbath which they had built in the house, and the entry of the king without, he turned from the house of the LORD from before the king of Assyria.
COMMENTS
Following the conquest of Damascus, Tiglath-pileser summoned Ahaz and other vassal kings to confirm officially their submission to him through a formal treaty. While in the city, Ahaz saw an altaralmost certainly an Assyrian altarwhich struck his fancy. The Assyrian Kings were accustomed to carry altars about with them and to have them set up in their fortified camps or in other convenient places. Ahaz may have been required by Tiglath-pileser to order this Assyrian altar to be set up in Jerusalem; on the other hand, he may have volunteered to do so knowing that this would greatly please his new master. At an earlier time Ahaz had sacrificed to the gods of Damascus because that city had proved militarily superior to Judah (2Ch. 28:23). But with the destruction of Damascus, the gods of Damascus had been discredited. Pagan mentality viewed the gods of the prevailing military force to be superior deities. Furthermore, vassal treaties generally compelled recognition of the gods of the suzerain. For these reasons Ahaz sent back to Jerusalem to Urijah the high priest detailed instructions for making this altar which differed in size and workmanship from the altars which Solomon had constructed (2Ki. 16:10).
Being a man with no backbone, Urijah[588] does not seem to have thought even of remonstrance, much less of resistance to
the royal orders. He did just as Ahaz ordered (2Ki. 16:11). Upon return from Damascus, the king personally made use of the new altar for his private sacrifices[589] (2Ki. 16:12-13). One sin led to another, and shortly Ahaz ordered the Solomonic bronze altar which stood directly in front of the Temple moved to one side. This left the space clear between the Temple and the new altar. Solomons altar, shifted to one side, was put, as it were, in the background; the eye rested on the new altar, right in front of the porch of the Temple (2Ki. 16:14). By virtue of its position immediately before the sacred house, the new altar, which was probably smaller than the Solomonic altar, became the great altar. The king ordered Urijah to offer all the regular and occasional sacrifices upon that new altar. The king was probably afraid to completely remove or break up the old altar which by this order had become superfluous. He therefore said that he would take time to inquire, i.e., consider what he would do with it (2Ki. 16:15). Again the high priest acquiesced in the demands of the king (2Ki. 16:16).
[588] Urijah is almost certainly the Uriah of Isa. 8:2 who earlier had served as a witness to one of Isaiahs most dramatic predictions.
[589] The words might be construed to mean that Ahaz, like Uzziah, usurped priestly functions; but if such had been the case it would seem that the author would have made this perfectly clear.
With the passage of time, Ahaz became ever more bold in the innovations which he introduced into Gods Temple. He removed the border of the bases of the ten bronze lavers which were used in the Temple court. These borders seem to have consisted of ornamental panels on which were carved in relief figures of lions, oxen and cherubim (cf. 1Ki. 7:29). What may have motivated the king in this action is not clear. Perhaps he was merely being destructive. On the other hand he may have wished to use these beautiful panels for some other decorative purpose. The king also took the lavers off their bases, which in effect made these lavers immobile. Solomons molten sea or giant laver was taken off the backs of the twelve bronze oxen which supported it (cf. 1Ki. 7:23-26) and placed on a pedestal of stone (2Ki. 16:17). Once again the kings motives are obscure. The most likely guess is that he wished to use the bronze oxen for decorative purposes elsewhere.
The covert for the sabbath was probably a covered place or stand in the court of the Temple which was used by the king whenever he visited the Temple on sabbath days or festival days. It probably was richly ornamented. The entry of the king without probably refers to the ascent into the house of the Lord which Solomon constructed for his own use (1Ki. 10:5). The queen of Sheba marveled over this work of art. Ahaz is said to have turned them from the house of the Lord from before, i.e., because of, or for fear of, the king of Assyria. Commentators have had a great deal of trouble interpreting this sentence and any suggestion as to its meaning would be pure speculation. Perhaps the meaning is that Ahaz was forced to destroy these works of art in order to meet his tribute obligations to Tiglath-pileser (2Ki. 16:18).
5. THE DEATH OF AHAZ (2Ki. 16:19-20)
TRANSLATION
(19) Now the rest of the acts of Ahaz which he did are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (20) And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and he was buried with his fathers in the city of David, and Hezekiah his son reigned in his place.
COMMENTS
The Book of Chronicles adds some important information about Ahaz which is not recorded in Kings. The most significant information is as follows: (1) The complete defeat of Ahaz by Pekah (2Ch. 28:5-8); (2) the losses he sustained at the hands of the Edomites and Philistines (2Ch. 28:17-18); (3) the fact that at one point in his life Ahaz adopted the worship of the Aramean gods (2Ch. 28:23); (4) the fact that in his latter years he shut up the Temple and suspended the sacrificial offerings and burning of incense (2Ch. 28:24; 2Ch. 29:7); (5) the fact that he set up additional high places so that each city would have its own place of worship (2Ch. 28:5). When he died, Ahaz was buried in the city of David (2Ki. 16:20), but not in the sepulchers of the kings (2Ch. 28:27). Like Uzziah before him, he was not considered worthy of a sepulcher in the royal catacomb.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
Details Of The Commencement Of Ahaz’s reign And His Behaviour And Actions In The Eyes Of YHWH ( 2Ki 16:1-3 ).
Ahaz was twenty years old when he commenced his co-regency with his father, and his sole reign ‘in Jerusalem’ lasted for sixteen years. As his co-regency with his father was for about eight years he would die at around forty four years old. Hezekiah was twenty five years old when Ahaz died (2Ki 18:2). Thus on this basis Ahaz would have been about nineteen years old when he begat Hezekiah.
But as a result of the momentous choice that he made when he rejected YHWH’s offer to see him safely through all difficulties, he sank into spiritual degradation and behaved like the kings of Israel, and even worse, for in the extremity of his need and despair he introduced child sacrifice into Judah
2Ki 16:1
‘In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah Ahaz the son of Jotham king of Judah began to reign.
Ahaz the son of Jotham of Judah commenced his sole reign in the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah. This was the seventeenth year of Pekah commencing from his becoming deputy and co-regent (or rival ruler) to Pekahiah in Gilead.
The full name of Ahaz was Jeho-ahaz. It may be that his behaviour was seen as so abominable that the name of YHWH was dropped from his name. In an Assyrian list of kings who paid tribute to Assyria he was named as Ya-u-ha-zi of Ya-u-da-aia. But it may even be that Ahaz chose to drop the name of YHWH from his name himself when he became an apostate. The discovery of a seal bearing the inscription, ‘Ashan, official of Ahaz’ would appear to confirm the use of the shorter name officially.
2Ki 16:2
‘Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem.’
When Ahaz became co-regent to his father he was twenty years old, the co-regency lasted the length of his father’s sole reign (eight years), thus he began his sole reign at twenty eight years old and reigned ‘in Jerusalem’ (i.e. as sole Davidic ruler) for sixteen years. The name of the queen mother is not given. That may be because she had already died when this was first recorded.
2Ki 16:2
-4 ‘And he did not do what was right in the eyes of YHWH his God, like David his father, but he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yes, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the nations, whom YHWH cast out from before the children of Israel, and he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree.’
Apart from when under the influence of the house of Ahab, the kings of Judah since the days of Asa had ‘done what was right in the eyes of YHWH’ even though they had not sufficiently clamped down on the illegitimate high places which had proliferated in the days of Rehoboam (1Ki 15:23). But now Ahaz did a full turn about and became more evil than all who had gone before him in either Judah or Israel. There were two reasons for this. The first was the political necessity that resulted from his submission to the king of Assyria. The second was as a result of his own reaction to his refusal to respond to YHWH when he rejected YHWH’s almost incredible offer to give him any sign that he wanted in heaven or earth so that he might stand firm in his trust in YHWH in the face of all opposition (Isa 7:11). It was inevitable that having made such a rejection he would seek refuge elsewhere, in other words in polytheism.
Note the unique way in which this is put in order to bring out the contrast between his behaviour and that of his ‘father’ David, and even between his behaviour and that of the kings of Judah who had done evil in the sight of YHWH (Solomon – 1Ki 11:4-6; Jehoram – 2Ki 8:18; Ahaziah – 2Ki 8:27). ‘He DID NOT do what was right in the eyes of YHWH.’ Rather he went to the other extreme, behaving like the kings of Israel, and going even further into degradation than them, for he not only offered worship to Baal, but he engaged in child sacrifice, probably by way of the worship of Melek (Molech – which is Melek with the vowels altered by being replaced with the vowels of ‘bosheth’ = ‘shame’) the god of the Ammonites whose worship had spread wider than Ammon.
The only other incidence of child sacrifice that we have previously come across was that which took place when the king of Moab, in extreme desperation, offered up his son on the walls of Kir-har-a-seth, an incident of such abomination that it caused the forces of Israel, Judah and Edom to withdraw in horror (2Ki 3:27). Later the practise would become more prevalent in Judah (see 2Ki 17:17; 2Ki 21:6 ; 2Ki 23:10; Mic 6:7; Jer 7:31; Jer 19:5 – ‘to burn their sons as burnt offerings to Baal’; 2Ki 23:10 – ‘to Molech’; etc). It was primarily carried out in the valley of Hinnom which finally became the rubbish dump of Jerusalem. This was seen as the greatest depth of evil to which a man could sink.
Thus Ahaz’s evil is emphasised in three ways:
Firstly he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, both in their full worship of Baal, and in their ignoring of the covenant of YHWH..
Secondly he made his sons to pass through the fire according to the abomination of the nations whom YHWH cast out from before the children of Israel. Jer 19:5 makes clear that this refers to child sacrifice, although it must be recognised that child sacrifice had not been common among the Canaanites. It was something indulged in (apart from in the case of the half savage Ammonites) only in extreme circumstances. This illustrates the extremeness of Ahaz’s desperation as a result of his rejection of YHWH.
Thirdly he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills and under every green tree. This had become common practise among many in Judah in the time of Rehoboam (1Ki 14:23) following on the example of Solomon in his later years, and had never been properly stamped out even by kings who did ‘right in the eyes of YHWH’. But now the king was indulging in it himself. The hills were seen as being nearer to the abode of the gods, and as even being such. The spreading green trees were seen as containing ‘divine’ life, in other words, animism.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Reign Of Ahaz King Of Judah c. 732/1-716/15 BC. Co-regent from 744/43 BC.
Ahaz came to the throne of Judah as sole ruler at a crucial time in Judah’s history. Never before in that history had they faced the challenge of becoming permanently subservient to a large Empire whose requirements would include the placing of their gods in the Temple of YHWH. But as Ahaz faced up to the invasion of Judah by Israel and Aram, who were seeking to depose him and set up a puppet king, probably because of Jotham and Ahaz’s refusal to join in an alliance with them against Assyria, he found himself in a great quandary. As the son of David should he look to YHWH alone for protection, and trust Him for deliverance, or should he bastardise that sonship and submit to the king of Assyria as his ‘father’, and call on his assistance, with the inevitable result that he would become his vassal, along with all the consequences that would follow from that?
Isaiah the prophet assured him that he should look to YHWH alone, and so huge and difficult did YHWH see the decision to be that He offered to do for Ahaz, as the scion of the house of David, literally anything at all that he requested as a sign that He, YHWH, was totally reliable, was quite able to deliver him from all his enemies, and would prove Himself worthy of his trust (Isa 7:11). YHWH wanted him to remain totally independent, and promised deliverance on that basis. But Ahaz did not feel that YHWH was trustworthy, and the result was that instead of maintaining the honour of the house of David by holding to the Davidic covenant and to YHWH as his Father and Overlord he submitted to the king of Assyria as his father and overlord. It was the low point in Judah’s history. YHWH had finally been rejected as King over His people, and as Father to the sons of David. But equally as momentous as the initial option was the consequence, for YHWH informed Ahaz that because of the choice that he had made the coming promised future king would not be descended from Ahaz, whose house had been rejected. Rather He would be born of a virgin (Isa 7:14). And Ahaz was to see that as a sign, not of YHWH’s continued favour, but of the fact that he was now totally rejected. The offer was no longer open.
The somewhat inevitable further result of Ahaz’s decision to reject YHWH to His face was that he reacted to it by sinking into spiritual degradation. In the desperation and spiritual bankruptcy that resulted from his decision he threw himself into the lowest forms of Canaanite worship, by indulging in child sacrifice, and entering fully into the debased worship of the worst of the high places. Having despised YHWH and been rejected by Him he had totally lost his way spiritually. It was not therefore surprising that he also yielded the Temple to the gods of Assyria. By becoming a vassal of the king of Assyria (and of the gods of Assyria) he had to some extent made that inevitable, but as the author reveals he went far beyond what was required, and thrust YHWH right into the background in His own Temple, replacing the Temple paraphernalia with some patterned on a model which had impressed him in Damascus (probably one brought from Assyria, accompanying the king of Assyria) and turned the true altar of YHWH into a private source of divination.
In his own way the prophetic author is bringing out the same thing as Isaiah had emphasised. That Ahaz was withdrawing from his position as son of David, and ‘son’ of YHWH (Psa 2:7), and was becoming the ‘son’ of the king of Assyria, replacing the covenant with YHWH by one of a covenant with the gods of Assyria and their king. He had become a total reprobate.
The literary construction of this passage is more complicated than usual. It commences and ends with the usual opening and closing formulae which form an inclusio, but the inner core is composed of three different subsections dealing with different aspects of Ahaz’s life. The overall analysis is thus as follows:
Overall Analysis.
a
b His behaviour and actions in the eyes of YHWH (2Ki 16:3).
c The invasion of Judah by Rezin of Aram and Pekah of Israel. Judah is despoiled (2Ki 16:4-6).
d The submission of Ahaz to Tiglath Pileser in Damascus (2Ki 16:7-11).
c The subsequent bastardisation of the Temple resulting from that submission. The Temple is despoiled (2Ki 16:12-18).
b Ahaz’s further actions to be found in the official annals of the kings of Judah (2Ki 16:19).
a Details of the cessation of his reign (2Ki 16:20).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
2Ki 16:1-20 The Reign of Ahaz Over Judah (735-715 B.C.) 2Ki 16:1-20 records the account of the reign of Ahaz over Judah.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Ahaz Calls upon Assyria for Help
v. 1. In the seventeenth year of Pekah, the son of Remaliah, v. 2. Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem, and did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord, his God, like David, his father; v. 3. But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, v. 4. And he sacrificed and burned incense, v. 5. Then Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, son of Remaliah, king of Israel, v. 6. At that time Rezin, king of Syria, recovered Elath, v. 7. So Ahaz, v. 8. And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasures of the king’s house, v. 9. And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him; for the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, the capital of Syria, and took it, and carried the people of It captive to Kir,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
2Ki 16:1-20
REIGN OF AHAZ OVER JUDAH. WAR OF AHAZ WITH PEKAH AND REZIN. EXPEDITION OF TIGLATH–PILESER AGAINST THEM. RELIGIOUS CHANGES MADE BY AHAZ. HIS DEATH.
2Ki 16:1-4
General character of the reign of Ahaz. Ahaz was the most wicked king that had as yet reigned in Judah. The author, therefore, prefaces his account of the reign by a brief summary of some of the king’s chief iniquities.
(1) He departed from the way of David (2Ki 16:2);
(2) he made his son pass through the fire to Moloch (2Ki 16:3); and
(3) he took an active part in the worship at the high places and in the groves, at which most previous kings had winked, but which they had not countenanced.
2Ki 16:1
In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah Ahaz the son of Jotham King of Judah began to reign. (For the chronological difficulties connected with this statement, see the comment on 2Ki 15:27.)
2Ki 16:2
Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign. As sixteen years afterwards his son Hezekiah was twenty-five (2Ki 18:2), it is scarcely possible that Ahaz can have been no more than twenty at his accession, since in that case he must have married at ten years of age, and have had a son at eleven! The reading of “twenty-five” instead of “twenty,” found in some Hebrew codices, in the Vatican manuscript of the Septuagint, and elsewhere, is therefore to be preferred. And reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. So the author of Chronicles (2Ch 28:1) and Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 2Ki 9:12. 3). The reign of Ahaz probably lasted from B.C. 742 to B.C. 727. And did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord his God, like David his father. Compare what is said of Abijah (1Ki 15:3), but the form of speech here used is stronger. Manasseh (2Ki 21:2) and Amon (2Ki 21:20-22) alone, of all the kings of Judah, receive greater condemnation.
2Ki 16:3
But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel. Not, of course, by establishing a worship of calves, but by following the worst practices of the worst Israelite kings, e.g. Ahab and Ahaziah, and reintroducing into Judah the Phoenician idolatry, which Joash and the high priest Jehoiada had cast out (2Ki 11:17, 2Ki 11:18). As the writer of Chronicles says (2Ch 28:2), “He walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, and made also molten images for Baalim.” Baalim is either a plural of dignity, or a word denoting the different forms under which Baal was worshipped, as Melkarth, Adonis, Rimmon, etc. Yea, and made his son to pass through the fire. In Chronicles (2Ch 28:3) we are told that “he burnt incense in the valley of Hinnom, and burnt his children in the fire,” as if he had sacrificed more than one son. The practice of offering children in sacrifice was not a feature of the Assyro-Babylonian religion, as some suppose, but an intrinsic part of the worship of the Phoenicians, common to them with the Moabites, Ammonites, and others. It was based upon the principle of a man’s offering to God that which was dearest and most precious to himself, whence the crowning sacrifice of the kind was a man’s offering of his firstborn son (see 2Ki 3:27; Mic 6:7). Some hare supposed that the rite was a mere dedication or lustration, the children passing between two fires, and being thenceforward employed only in God’s service. But the expressions used by the sacred writer and others, and still more the descriptions that have come down to us from heathen and patristic authors, make it absolutely certain that the “passing through the fire’ was no such innocent ceremony as this, but involved the death of the children. The author of Chronicles says, “Ahaz burnt his children in the fire;” Jer 19:5, “They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal;” Eze 16:21, “Thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire.” Josephus declares of Ahaz that he “made his own son a whole burnt offering ( ).” Diodorus Sicalus describes the ceremony as it took place at Carthage, the Phoenician colony. There was in the great temple there, he says, an image of Saturn (Moloch), which was a human figure with a bull’s head and outstretched arms. This image of metal was made glowing hot by a fire kindled within it; and the children, laid in its arms, rolled from thence into the fiery lap below. If the children cried, the parents stopped their noise by fondling and kissing them; for the victim ought not to weep, and the sound of complaint was drowned in the din of flutes and kettle-drums (Died. Sic; Eze 20:14). “Mothers,” says Plutarch (‘De Superstitione,’ 13), “stood by without tears or sobs; if they wept or sobbed, they lost the honor of the act, and the children were sacrificed notwithstanding.” The only doubtful point is whether the children were placed alive in the glowing arms of the image, or whether they were first killed and afterwards burnt in sacrifice; but the description of Diodorus seems to imply the more cruel of the two proceedings. According to the abominations of the heathen, whom the Lord east out from before the children of Israel. (On the practice of this terrible rite by the Canaanitish nations at the time of the Israelite invasion, see Le Eze 18:21; Deu 12:31; Deu 18:9,Deu 18:10; Psa 106:37, Psa 106:38.)
2Ki 16:4
And he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places. The special sin of Ahaz here noted is that he not only allowed the high-place and grove worship, as so many other kings of Judah had done, e.g. Solomon (1Ki 3:2), Rehoboam (1Ki 14:23), Asa (1Ki 15:14), Jehoshaphat (1Ki 22:43), Joash (2Ki 12:3), Amaziah (2Ki 14:4), Azariah (2Ki 15:4), and Jotham (2Ki 15:35), but himself countenanced and took part in it, which no other king appears to have done. It was probably the stimulus that his example gave to the cult which induced Hezekiah to abolish it (see 2Ki 18:4). And on the hills, and under every green tree.
2Ki 16:5, 2Ki 16:6
War of Ahazleith Pekah and Rezin.
2Ki 16:5
Then Rezin King of Syria and Pekah son of Remaliah King of Israel came up to Jerusalem to war. The alliance between Rezin and Pekah has been already glanced at (2Ki 16:1-20 :37). It began, apparently, in the reign of Jotham. The policy which brought it about was one that was entirely new. Since Syria developed an aggressive tendency under the first Ben-hadad (1Ki 20:1), there had till now been no alliance made with her by either of the two Israelite kingdoms. She had been reckoned as their common enemy; and while they had on two occasions been allied together against her (1Ki 22:4-36; 2Ki 8:28), never as yet had either asked her help against the other. Now, however, Ephraim became confederate with Syria against Judah. The new policy must be ascribed to the new condition of things consequent upon the attitude assumed by Assyria under Tiglath-pileser. Assyria had been under a cloud for forty years. The nations of the western coast of Asia had ceased to fear her, and had felt at liberty to pursue their own quarrels. Her recovery of vigor altered the whole situation. It was at once evident to the statesmen who directed the policy of the small western states that, unless they combined; they were lost. Hence the alliance between Pekah and Rezin. Probably they would have been glad to have drawn Ahaz into the confederacy; but it would seem that he did not share their fears, and would not join them. Hereupon the design was formed to dethrone him, and set up in his place a new ruler, a certain Ben-Tabeal (Isa 7:6), on whose assistance they could rely. The two confederate princes then began the campaign. Pekah invaded Judaea, and gained a great victory over Ahaz, which is perhaps exaggerated in 2Ch 28:6-15; Rezin carried his arms further south, took Elath, and reestablished the Edomites in power (see the comment on 2Ch 28:6). Then the allies joined forces and proceeded to besiege Jerusalem. And they besieged Ahaz, but could not ever-come him. The siege is mentioned by Isa 7:1, who was commissioned by God to comfort Ahaz, and assure him that the city would not fall (Isa 7:7). The fortifications of Uzziah (2Ch 26:9) and Jotham (2Ch 27:3) had, no doubt, greatly strengthened the city since the time when (as related in 2Ki 14:13) it was captured so easily by Joash.
2Ki 16:6
At that time Rezin, King of Syria recovered Elath to Syria. The Syrians had certainly never previously been masters of Elath, which had always hitherto been either Jewish or Edomite (see 1Ki 9:26; 1Ki 22:48; 2Ki 14:22). Hence it seems to be necessary that we should either translate the Hebrew verb by “gained,” “conquered,” instead of “recovered;” or else change , “Syria,” into “Edom.” The Syrians could “recover” Elath for Edom; they could only “gain” it for themselves. And drave the Jews from Elathi.e. expelled the Jewish garrison which had been maintained in Elath from the time of its conquest by Uzziah (2Ki 14:22)and the Syrians came to Elath; rather, the Edomites for . Rezin could not have thought of holding a place so remote from Damascus as Elath; and, had he done so, the danger of his kingdom in the next year would have necessitated the relinquishment of so distant a possession. And dwelt there unto this day. It is quite certain that Elath belonged to Edom, and not to Syria, at the time when the Books of Kings were written.
2Ki 16:7-9
Expedition of Tiglath-pileser against Pekah and Rezin. In the extremity of his danger, when the confederacy had declared itself, or perhaps later, when he had suffered terrible defeats, and was about. to be besieged in his capital (2Ch 28:5, 2Ch 28:6), Ahaz invoked the aid of Tiglath-pileser, sent him all the treasure on which he could lay his hands (2Ki 16:8), offered to place himself and his kingdom under the Assyrian monarch’s suzerainty, and entreated him to come and “save him out of the hands” of his enemies (2Ki 16:7). Humanly speaking, he might be justified. He had not called in one foreign power until Pekah had called in another. There was no other prospect (again humanly speaking) of escape. But, had he accepted the offers of Isa 7:4-16, and relied wholly on Jehovah, his position would have been far better. However, he was unable to see this; he made his application; and Tiglath-pileser “came up,” and utterly crushed the Syro-Israelite confederacy (Isa 7:9).
2Ki 16:7
So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser King of Assyria, saying. This appeal to man rather than to God, this trust in “an arm of flesh,” was exactly what Isaiah had been endeavoring to prevent, what he viewed as unfaithfulness, and as inevitably drawing down God’s wrath both upon king and kingdom. Ahaz was young, was weak, and had no doubt a large body of advisers, who considered the prophet to be a fanatic, who had no belief in supernatural aid, and who thought that in any emergency recourse was to be had to the measures which human prudence and human policy dictated. The aid of Tiglath-pileser seemed to them, under the circumstances, the only thing that could save them; and they persuaded the weak prince to adopt their views. I am thy servant and thy son. The offer of submission was unmistakable. “Servant,” in the language of the time, meant “slave.” Complete subjection, enrollment among Assyria’s feudatories, the entire loss of independence, was well understood to be the price that had to be paid for Assyria’s protection. Ahaz and his worldly advisers were prepared to pay it. They surrendered themselves, body and soul, into the hands of the great world-power of the period. 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. Syria is put forward as at once the more formidable of the two foes, and the one most open to Assyrian attack. Already Damascus had been more than once menaced by Assyrian armies, while the kingdom of Samaria had only suffered at her extremities (2Ki 15:29). Samaria could not well be approached excepting through Syria, and after Syria’s downfall.
2Ki 16:8
And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house. Hitherto the temple treasures had been diverted from their proper use, and secularized for the sole purpose (except in one instance) of buying off the hostility of foreign foe, who threatened the city and the temple itself with destruction (see 1Ki 14:26; 2Ki 12:18; 2Ki 14:14). Now, as on one former occasion (1Ki 15:18), they were utilized to purchase an alliance. And sent it for a present to the King of Assyria. So Gyges King of Syria sent presents to Asshur-bani-pal to purchase his aid against the Cimmerians, and Susub of Babylon sent his temple treasures to Umman-Minan of Elam, to purchase his assistance against Sennacherib.
2Ki 16:9
And the King of Assyria hearkened unto him. Overtures of the kind were almost certain to be accepted. The great conquering monarchs of the East were always glad to receive small states into their alliance for a time, and even to allow them a shadow of independence, while they made use of their services against their near neighbors. Tiglath-pileser was already bent on conquering Samaria and Damascus, and could not fail to perceive that their subjugation would be greatly facilitated by his having the support of Judaea. For the King of Assyriarather, and the King of Assyriawent up against Damascus. Damascus was naturally attacked first, as nearer to Assyria than Samaria, and also as more wealthy and more important. Tiglath-pileser’s records contain an account of the campaign, but it is unfortunately much mutilated. We may gather from it, however, that Resin began by meeting his assailant in the field, and engaging him in a battle which was stoutly contested. Eventually the Assyrians were victorious, and Resin, having fled hastily to Damascus, shut himself up within its walls. Tiglath-pileser pursued him, laid siege to the city, and eventually took it, though not perhaps till it had resisted for above a year. The Assyrian monarch thus describes the siege: “Damascus, his city, I besieged, and like a caged bird I enclosed him. His forests, the trees of which were without number, I cut down; I did not leave a tree standing. [I burnt] Hadara, the house of the father of Rezin, King of Syria.” And took it. The ancient Damascene kingdom, which had lasted from the time of Solomon (1Ki 11:24), was thus brought to an end. Damascus gave the Assyrians no further trouble; and within little more than thirty years it had been so absolutely absorbed into the empire that its governor was one of the Assyrian eponyms. The capture of the city, foretold by Amo 1:4, Amo 1:5, was followed by the destruction of its walls and palaces. And carried the people of it captive. The system of transplanting large masses of the population from one part of the empire to another seems to have begun with Tiglath-pileser. In his very imperfect and fragmentary annals we find the removal of above thirty thousand captives recorded, of whom more than half are women. His example was followed by his successors on a still larger scale. To Kir. The situation of “Kir” () is wholly uncertain. It has been identified with Kis (Elam or Kissia); with the country watered by the Kur; with Kourena or Koura, on the river Mardus; with Karine, the modern Kirrind; with Kirkhi near Diartekr; and with Kiransi in the Urumiyeh country. But the similarity of sound is the sole basis for each and all of these identifications. It is best to confess our ignorance. And slew Rezin. This is perhaps implied, but it is not distinctly stated, in the extant annals of Tiglath-pileser.
2Ki 16:10-18
Religious changes introduced into Judea by Ahaz. The new position into which Ahaz had brought himself with respect to Assyria was followed by certain religious changes, which were probably, in part at any rate, its consequence, though some of them may have been the result of his own religious (or irreligious) convictions. He had a new altar made and introduced into the temple, which at first he used for his own private sacrifices (2Ki 16:10-13); then, that his new altar might occupy the pest of honor, he removed from its place the old brazen altar of Solomon, and put it in an inferior position (2Ki 16:14). After this, he required all sacrifices to be offered on the new altar (2Ki 16:15). Finally, he proceeded to interfere with several other of Solomon’s arrangements, with what particular object is not very apparent (2Ki 16:17, 2Ki 16:18). In carrying out all these changes, he had the high priest of the time for his obsequious servant.
2Ki 16:10
And King Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-pileser King of Assyria. It was a practice of the Assyrian monarchs to hold durbar‘s, or courts, at central places in the provinces, in the course of their military expeditions, whereat to receive the subject princes of the neighborhood, who were expected to do homage, and bring with them presents, or their fixed tribute. Tiglath-pileser held one such court in the earlier part of his reign at Arpad, a Syrian town, at which were present the kings of Comma-gene, Syria, Tyre, Carchemish, Gaugama, and others. He seems to have held another at some unknown place, about B.C. 732, which was attended by the kings of Commagene, Carchemish, Gebal, Hamath, Gaugama, Tubal, Arvad, Ammon, Moab, Askelon, Gaza, Edom, and Judah, the last-mentioned being Yahu-khazi (Jehoahaz), by which is probably meant Ahaz. It is with reason conjectured that this was the occasion mentioned in the text, when “King Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-pileser.” And saw an altar that was at Damascus. It is almost certain that this was an Assyrian altar. Ahaz may at one time have turned for help to the gods of Syria (2Ch 28:23), and asked their aid against his enemies; but the glory of Syria was now gone, her gods were discredited, and the place of power was occupied by Assyria, which had asserted its supremacy. When Ahaz visited Tiglath-pileser at Damascus, and “saw an altar,” it was, in all probability, Tiglath-pileser’s altar. The Assyrian kings were accustomed to carry altars about with them, and to have them set up in their fortified camps, or in other convenient places. They also, not infrequently, set up altars to the great gods in the countries which they conquered, and required the inhabitants to pay them reverence. Ahaz may either have been required by Tiglath-pileser to set up an Assyrian altar in the temple, or he may have volunteered the act as one which was likely to please his suzerain. And King Ahaz sent to Urijah the priesti.e; the high priestthe fashion of the altar and the pattern of it. Assyrian altars were quite different from Jewish ones. Generally they were of small size, either square with a battlemented edge, or round at the top and supported on a triangular base. It is scarcely likely that Ahaz was particularly pleased with the pattern (Keil), and therefore wished to have one like it. He probably merely wished to satisfy his suzerain that he had conformed to some of his religious usages. According to all the workmanship thereof. Though not very elaborate, the Assyrian altars have an ornamentation which is peculiar and unmistakable. Careful instructions would be needed for workmen who had never seen the sort of object which they were required to produce.
2Ki 16:11
And Urijah the priest. No doubt the Uriah of Isaiah (Isa 8:2), who might be a “faithful witness” to the record of a fact, though a bad man, over-complaisant in carrying out the will of the king. Built an altar according to all that King Ahaz had sent from Damascus:rather, built the altar, i.e. the altar commanded by the monarchso Urijah the priest made it against King Ahaz came from Damascus. A bold high priest like Azariah (2Ch 26:17) would have refused to work the king’s will in such a matter, which was certainly a desecration of the temple, and to some extent a compromise with idolatry. But Urijah was a man of a weaker fiber, and does not seem to have thought even of remonstrance, much less of resistance.
2Ki 16:12
And when the king was come from Damascus, the king saw the altar: and the king approached to the altar, and offered thereon. It is not necessarily implied in these words that Ahaz, like Uzziah, usurped the priestly functions, though conceivably he may have done so, and Urijah may have stood tamely by. What the writer has it in his mind to record is that the king, on his return from Damascus, at once made use of the new’ altar for his private sacrifices. If he had meant to tax Ahaz with so great a sin as that which brought the curse of leprosy upon Uzziah, he would almost certainly have made his meaning clearer.
2Ki 16:13
And he burnt his burnt offering and his meat offering, and poured his drink offering, and sprinkled the blood of his peace offerings, upon the altar. (On the different kinds of offerings, see Leviticus 1-7.)
2Ki 16:14
And he brought also the brazen altar, which was before the Lord. One sin leads on to another. Having introduced his self-invented quasi-idolatrous altar into the temple, and so inserted “the thin end of the wedge,” Ahaz was not satisfied, but proceeded to another innovation. Urijah, having had no express order from the king with respect to the position of the new altar, had placed it in front of the old one, between it and the eastern gate of the court. Thus the old altar, which was directly in front of the temple porch, seemed to cut the new altar off from the temple. Ahaz would not have this continue, and resolved on removing the altar of Solomon from, its place, and putting it elsewhere. From the forefront of the house, from between the altari.e; the new altarand the house of the Lordi.e. the temple buildingand put it on the north side of the altar. The removal of Solomon’s altar from its place of honor to a side position left the space clear between the temple and the new altar, which thus, without exactly occupying the same site, took practically the place of Solomon’s altar. Solomon’s altar, shifted to one side, was put, as it were, in the background; the eye rested on the new altar, right in front of the porch and temple, which so became “the main altar” ( ), as it is called in the next verse.
2Ki 16:15
And King Ahaz commanded Urijah the priest, saying. Here the king, no doubt, stepped out of the sphere of his duties, not to usurp exactly the priestly office, but to give directions in matters which belonged, not to the regale, but to the pontificale. Urijah ought to have refused obedience. Upon the great altar. Certainly not so called because of its size (Keil), for it was probably much smaller than the old altar, but because of its position (see the comment on 2Ki 16:14). Burn the morning burnt offering, and the evening meat offeringi.e. offer the daily sacrifice both morning and eveningand the king’s burnt sacrifice, and his meat offeringi.e. the customary royal sacrifices (see 1Ki 8:62)with the burnt offering of all the people of the land, and their meat offering, and their drink offeringsi.e; all the private offerings of the people for themselvesand sprinkle upon it all the blood of the burnt offering, and all the blood of the sacrifice (comp. Exo 29:16, Exo 29:20; Le Exo 1:5, Exo 1:11; Exo 3:2, Exo 3:8, Exo 3:13; Exo 7:2; Exo 17:6; Num 18:17, etc.) and the brazen altar shall be for me to inquire by; rather, and as for the brazen altar, it will be for me to inquire concerning it; i.e. I shall hereafter determine what use, if any, it shall be put to. As, by the king’s directions, all the regular and all the occasional sacrifices were to be offered upon his new altar, the other would practically be superfluous. It would have been only logical to remove it, or break it up; but this the king was probably afraid of doing. He therefore said that he would take time to consider what he should do.
2Ki 16:16
Thus did Urijah the priest, according to all that King Ahaz commanded. An emphatic condemnation of the high priest, whose subserviency evidently pro-yokes the writer’s indignation.
2Ki 16:17
And King Ahaz cut off the borders of the bases. By “the bases” are probably meant the stands of the ten brazen layers, which Hiram the Tyrian artificer made for Solomon, and which Solomon placed outside the temple, five on either side of the entrance (1Ki 7:39). The “borders of the bases” seem to have consisted of ornamental panels, on which were carved, in relief, figures of lions, oxen, and cherubim (1Ki 7:29), The object of Ahaz in these mutilations may have been merely destructive, as we find Egyptian kings, after a change of religion, mutilating the tablets, and erasing the inscriptions put up in honor of those gods who had ceased to be in favor with them. Or, possibly, he may, as Keil supposes, have wished to transfer the ornamental carvings to some other edifice, e.g. an idolatrous temple or a palace. And removed the laver from off themremoved, i.e; from each base “the laver” which stood upon itand took down the sea from off the brazen oxen that were under it. The “sea” was probably removed from off the backs of the oxen, in order that they might be made use of, as ornaments, elsewhere. And put it upon a pavement of stones; rather, upon a pedestal of stone ( , LXX.).
2Ki 16:18
And the covert for the sabbath that they had built in the house. The “covert for the sabbath” was probably (as Keil notes) “a covered place or stand in the court of the temple, to be used by the king whenever he visited the temple with his retinue on the sabbath, or on feast-days.” It may have been elaborately ornamented. And the king’s entry without. This may have been “the ascent into the house of the Lord,” which Solomon constructed for his own use (1Ki 10:5), and which was among those marvels of art that made the spirit of the Queen of Sheba faint within her. Turned he from the house of the Lord for the King of Assyria. It is not clear what meaning our translators intended to express, and it is still less clear what was the sense intended by the original writer. Ahaz did something to the royal stand inside the temple, and to the;’ ascent” which led to it, and what he did was done, not “for the King of Assyria,” but “for fear of the King of Assyria;” but what exactly his action was, we cannot say. No satisfactory meaning has been assigned to by any commentator.
2Ki 16:19, 2Ki 16:20
The death of Ahaz. The writer terminates his account of the reign of Ahaz with his usual formulae, which in this instance are wholly colorless. Ahaz’s acts were written in the book of the chronicles of the kings; he died, and was buried with his fathers; Hezekiah, his son, reigned in his stead. This is all that he thinks it needful to say.
2Ki 16:19
Now the rest of the acts of Ahaz which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? The writer of Chronicles adds some important facts not found in the narrative of Kings. Among them are the following:
(1) The complete defeat of Ahaz by Pekah, who “smote him with a great slaughter” (2Ch 28:5), killing a hundred and twenty thousand of his soldiers, and carrying Off two hundred thousand captives, men, women, and children (2Ch 28:8); these captives were, however, afterwards restored (2Ki 16:15).
(2) His defeat by the Syrians (2Ki 16:5). This is, perhaps, implied in 2Ki 16:6; but it is not expressly stated.
(3) His defeat by the Edomites, who invaded his land, and made a largo number of prisoners (2Ch 28:17).
(4) The conquest in his reign of a considerable portion of Southern Judaea by the Philistines (2Ki 16:18).
(5) The fact that Ahaz at one time in his life adopted the Syrian worship, and “sacrificed to the gods of Damascus which smote him” (verse 23).
(6) The fact that in his latter years he shut up the temple (verse 24), closing the doors of the porch (2Ch 29:7), extinguishing the lamps (2Ch 29:7), and putting an end to the burning of incense and the offering of sacrifice.
(7) The fact that, not content with the previously existing high places, he set up a number of new ones, so that there should be a “high place” in every several city (2Ch 28:25). The religious condition of Judaea can scarcely have been worse in the worst time of Manasseh or Amon.
2Ki 16:20
And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David. This must be taken in the same sense, and with the same limitations, as the same phrase in 2Ki 12:21. The writer of Chronicles (2Ch 28:27) says, “And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the city, even in Jerusalem: but they brought him not into the sepulchers of the kings.” Like Uzziah, he was not thought worthy of sepulture in the royal catacomb (see the comment on 2Ki 12:21).
HOMILETICS
2Ki 16:1-4
The godliness of parents does not secure the perseverance of their children in well doing, but increases the children’s guilt if they take to evil courses.
Ahaz, the worst of all the kings of Judah, is the son of one of whom it is said that “he did right in the sight of the Lord” (2Ki 15:34). Manasseh, perhaps the next worst, is the child of the one king for whom the sacred writers have no word of blame. Wicked Abimelech is the son of the pious Gideon (Jdg 9:1). We naturally expect the contrary of this to happen. We suppose that education does everything, and we look to see the children of godly parents grow up godly, and are apt, without any inquiry into the circumstances, to suppose that every ill-conducted young man must have been badly brought up. The dictum of the wise man, “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it” (Pro 22:6), may be quoted in justification of such views, and is often so quoted, as if it were a rule without any exception. But no proverb is of this character. All are general rules, which admit of exceptions; and the exceptional character of this particular proverb is continually allowed in the Scriptures (Pro 17:21, Pro 17:25; Pro 19:13; Eze 18:10, etc.). The points to be urged practically are
I. THAT PARENTS SHOULD MAKE EVERY POSSIBLE EFFORT, JUST AS IF THEIR CHILDREN‘S CHARACTERS DEPENDED ENTIRELY UPON THEM. “Instruction,” education, training, though sometimes of no avail, have, in the majority of cases, very great weight. Even when they seem to have failed, it often happens that their results remain deep buried in the soul, and in the end show themselves, and are of sufficient force to snatch many a brand from the burning. The parent must not despair because he does not see much fruit of his labors at once. He has to do his best, to “liberate his own soul,” to see that, if his child be lost, it is not owing to his neglect. He has to “hope against hope,” to persevere with his efforts, to be unwearied in his prayers, to do the utmost that lies in his power to lead his children into the right path. A parent ought never to despair. While there is life there is hope. The way of repentance is open to all; and, historically, there have been repentances from such a depth of depravity that no case should seem quite hopeless. Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound” (Rom 5:20). The mercy of God is unsearchable, unfathomable. There is no saying what sinner may not turn from his sin, put away the iniquity of his doings, and become a true servant of the Most High.
II. THAT PARENTS SHOULD NOT BE OVER–SORROWFUL, OR DEPRESSED BEYOND MEASURE, BECAUSE THEIR EFFORTS TO KEEP THEIR CHILDREN IN THE RIGHT PATH HAVE IN SOME CASES FAILED. If, indeed, they have had many children, and their efforts have failed with all, they may reasonably suspect some defect in themselves or in their system. But if the results are varied, if a portion of their children have been all that they could wish, while othersdespite all that they could dohave preferred to “walk in the way of sinners,” and even to “sit in the seat of the scornful,” then they have no need to sorrow overmuch, or to regard themselves as culpable. The influences which go to form each man’s character are countless, and with hundreds of them a parent has nothing to do. Again, there is “the personal equation,” There do seem to be some who, “as soon as they are born, go astray and speak lies.” It is among the mysteries of man’s existence here on earth that natural dispositions should so greatly vary. No parent of many children but knows, by certain experience, that this is so. One child gives no trouble, and scarcely requires any guidance. Another is willful, perverse, headstrong, almost devoid of good impulses, and full of inclination to evil. Parents are answerable for neglect, for unwisdom, above all for bad example; but they need not fear, if they earnestly endeavor to do their duty by their children, that in God’s just judgment the iniquity of their children will be imputed to them. “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son“ (Eze 18:20); “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” (Eze 18:4).
III. THAT CHILDREN WHO HAVE BEEN RELIGIOUSLY BROUGHT UP, IF THEY TURN TO EVIL COURSES, INCUR A FEARFUL RESPONSIBILITY. “It had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them” (2Pe 2:21). If children, notwithstanding a godly training, take to an evil life, what must we suppose that they would have done had they been born, as so many are, amidst adverse influences, and from infancy exposed to contact with indecency, drunkenness, blasphemy? Alas! every blessing abused becomes a curse; and to have a pattern of goodness before our eyes, to have virtue instilled into us, and then to reject itto choose the evil and refuse the goodis to provoke God’s heavy displeasure, and bring down his severe judgments upon us. What excuse can such persons offer for their misconduct? They know that by sin they displease God, grieve their parents, injure themselves, ruin their worldly prospects, imperil their salvation; yet for a little present pleasure they shut their eyes to all future consequences, and rush to their destruction. Their conduct is folly, madness, idiocy; but not the sort of madness which shuts out responsibility. They are answerable for it, and will have to answer at God’s judgment-seat. Oh! that they would pause ere it is too late, recognize the folly of their evil courses, and “put away their iniquity!” God is still willing to pardon all whom he suffers to live. Let them “arise, and go to their Father,” and say unto him, “We have sinned;” and he will go out to meet them, and receive them, and “there will be joy in the presence of the angels of God over each such sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance” (Luk 15:7, Luk 15:10).
2Ki 16:5-7
God’s punishments of a nation’s sins are often long delayed, but, when they come, it is not by degrees, but suddenly, violently, and at once.
This subject may best be treated, as the last, under three heads, viz.
(1) the sins of Judah, which had provoked God;
(2) the long delay in their punishment; and
(3) the suddenness and overwhelming force with which the punishment came at last.
I. THE SINS OF JUDAH. Though, on the whole, less guilty than her sister, Ephraim, still Judah had, from the division of the kingdom of Solomon, been more or less unfaithful to Jehovah in several respects.
1. An unauthorized and illegitimate high-place worship, tinged with superstition and perhaps even idolatry, had maintained its place by the side of the authorized Jehovah-cult, throughout the whole period of the divided monarchy, from the accession of Rehoboam to the death of Ahaz (1Ki 14:23; 1Ki 15:14; 1Ki 22:43; 2Ki 12:3; 2Ki 14:4; 2Ki 15:4, 2Ki 15:35; 2Ki 16:4).
2. The worship of Baal had been introduced from the sister kingdom by the influence of Athaliah, and had prevailed during the reigns of her husband, Jehoram, her son, Ahaziah, and her own (2Ki 8:18, 2Ki 8:27; 2Ki 11:18).
3. Luxury and effeminacy had crept in, especially during the prosperous reigns of Uzziah and Jotham, and had led on to debauchery and licentiousness (Isa 1:4; Isa 2:6-8; Isa 3:16-24; Isa 5:11, Isa 5:12; Joe 1:5; Amo 6:1-6, etc.).
4. Injustice and oppression had become rife. The rich men sought to “join house to house, and field to field’ (Isa 5:8); they stripped the poor of their small properties by legal chicanery (Isa 3:14), oppressed them, and “ground their faces” (Isa 3:15). The judges in the courts accepted bribes (Isa 1:23) and gave wrong judgments (Isa 5:23). Widows and orphans were the special objects of attack, on account of their weakness and defenselessness (Isa 1:17, Isa 1:23; Isa 10:2).
5. The forms of religion were kept up, but the spirit had evaporated. Men thronged God’s courts, brought abundant offerings, made many prayers, kept the new moons and the sabbaths and the appointed feasts, but without any real care for the honor of God or any thought of seeking to serve and obey him. Hence their worship was “an offence;” their ceremonies were mockeries, their oblations “vain,” their solemn meetings “iniquity” God was “weary to bear them” (Isa 1:11-15).
II. THE LONG DELAY IN THEIR PUNISHMENT. More than two centuries had elapsed since Judah began to “do evil in the sight of the Lord, and to provoke him to jealousy with their sins which they had committed, above all that their fathers had done” (1Ki 14:22). Above a century had passed since the apostasy of Jehoram and Ahaziah. During all this time Judah had maintained her independence, had received no severe blow, fallen under no crushing affliction. Latterly, she had even prospered. Under Uzziah she had recovered Elath (2Ki 14:22), conquered a part of Philistia (2Ch 26:6), defeated the Arabians and Mehunim (2Ch 26:7), and made the Ammonites her tributaries (2Ch 26:8); under Jotham she had maintained these conquests, and when Ammon revolted bad reduced her to subjection (2Ch 27:5) without any difficulty. God, in his long-suffering mercy, bore with his people. He would win them by kindness, draw them to him by cords of love, at any rate give them ample time for repentance. But it was in vain. The longer he left them unpunished, the further they wandered from the right way, and the more they hardened their hearts. The time came when the prophet could only say of them, “Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil-doers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward. The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores” (Isa 1:4-6).
III. THE SUDDENNESS AND OVERWHELMING FORCE WITH WHICH THE PUNISHMENT DESCENDED WHEN IT CAME. Bishop Butler remarks how, in the punishment which God brings upon vicious individuals in this world, there is often a long respite. “After the chief bad consequences, temporal consequences, of their follies have been delayed for a great while; at length they break in irresistibly, like an armed force; repentance is too late to relieve, and can only serve to aggravate their distress; the case is become desperate, and poverty and sickness, remorse and anguish, infamy and death, the effects of their own doings, overwhelm them, beyond possibility of remedy or escape”. And so it is often with nations; so it was now with the nation of the Jews. As soon as the punishment began, blow was dealt upon blow. First, Rezin “smote them, and carried away a great multitude of them captives, and brought them to Damascus” (2Ch 28:5). Then they were delivered into the hand of Pekah, who “smote them with a great slaughter, slaying a hundred and twenty thousand in one day, which were all valiant men” (2Ch 28:5, 2Ch 28:6). Next, Edom had her fling at the sick lion, and “came and smote Judah, and carried away captives” (2Ch 28:17). Then Philistia attacked the cities of the low country, and of the south of Judah, and took a number of them, “and dwelt there” (2Ch 28:18). Presently, Pekah and Rezin, joining their forces, advanced together to the siege of Jerusalem. All was lost, except only honor; and then honor was thrown into the gulf; Judah went down on her knees to Assyria, and implored aid, gave tribute, accepted a suzerain, made the inglorious confession, “I am thy servant and thy son” (2Ki 16:7). Having incurred defeat, disgrace, the loss of military honor, the loss of the flower of her troops, she crowns all by giving up her national independence, inviting a master, and herself placing a foreign yoke upon her own shoulders. But for the wonderful efforts made by Hezekiah when he ascended the throne (2Ki 18:3-8), Judaea’s ruin would have been completed under Ahaz; and the punishment so long delayed, when it came, would have been final, “without escape or remedy.”
2Ki 16:10-17
A wicked king allowed to have his way by a weak priest.
The double regime, civil and ecclesiastical, which it pleased God to establish in his first Church, the Jewish, and to continue, with certain modifications, in his second Church, the Christian, seems to have been designed for the mutual advantage of both parties. Authority, in whatever hands it is placed, is always liable to be abused, to over-assert itself, to grow arbitrary, autocratic, tyrannical. Hence the necessity of checks, of a balance of forces, of counterpoise, of an arrangement by which the undue preponderance of any single authority shall be prevented. It is sometimes needful that the civil authority shall interpose to keep the spiritual within due bounds, and disallow the establishment of sacerdotal tyranny. It is quite as often requisite for the spirituality to assert itself, and check the endeavors of kings and nobles to establish an unlimited autocracy. From time to time the two independent authorities, the civil and ecclesiastical, the regale and the pontificale, are sure to come into collision. Our own history presents instances in the struggles of Anselm against Rufus, of Becket against Henry II; and of the seven bishops against the last of the Stuart kings. Under such circumstances weakness on either side constitutes a serious peril to the community. A weak king, priest-ridden, makes dangerous concessions to the ecclesiastical order, and imperils the peace and prosperity of his kingdom by so doing. A weak priest, timid and timeserving, allows the rights of his order to be trampled on, and lays up no less an amount of trouble in the future for the nation to which he belongs. If Ahaz had been succeeded by another worldly minded and ambitious king, instead of the pious Hezekiah, there is no saying how low the ecclesiastical authority might not have sunk, or how soon the kingly office might not have freed itself from all checks, arid have become absolute, and in a short time tyrannical. Urijah did his best to destroy the constitution of his country, and to turn the Judaean limited monarchy into a pure despotism. He was weak rather than wicked; but his weakness might have had the worst results. It was only the accident of Ahaz being succeeded by a truly religious prince that prevented the precedent, which he had set, from entailing ruinous consequences.
HOMILIES BY C.H IRWIN
2Ki 16:1-20
Steps in a downward path: the reign of Ahaz.
In the opening chapters of Isaiah we have an account of the condition of the kingdom of Judah at the time that Ahaz succeeded to the throne. The prosperity which the country had enjoyed under Uzziah had been continued and increased under the righteous reign of his son Jotham. And now the grandson, Ahaz, a young man of twenty, finds the country abounding in wealth, full of silver and gold. Isaiah says there was no end of their treasure; their land also was full of horses, neither was there any end of their chariots. Their commerce, too, was in a thriving condition. “The ships of Tarshish, sailing from Elath, could boast their gilded prows and stems, and purple sails, and brought home rich cargoes from the distant East”. But before Ahaz died, all this was changed. Enemy after enemy invaded his country. The land became desolate. The king was reduced to great extremities to obtain money. Instead of the sunshine of prosperity, there was on every side the dark shadow of desolation and decay. We have the explanation of it all in the third and fourth verses. Ahaz began badly, and every fresh movement in his life was a step from bad to worse. His history is a further illustration of how one sin leads to another. It was a continuously downward path.
I. THE FIRST STEP IN THE DOWNWARD CAREER OF AHAZ WAS HIS IDOLATRY. (Verses 3, 4.) He forsook the worship of the true and living God, and worshipped the gods of the heathen. Even that step he would seem to have taken gradually. At first he began with the high places, which bad never been taken away. Then graven images and other heathen customs were used in the worship of God; and finally the idols of the false gods themselves were set up. The policy of compromise had now reached its fitting conclusion. When the right makes compromise with the wrong, the wrong is sure to gain the victory. So it was in this case. The people had got accustomed to the high places. They saw no harm in them. And now they see no harm in the idols. Isaiah describes the universal corruption when he says, “Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made.” And what a worship it was to substitute for the worship of the only true and living and almighty God! A useless worship, as Isaiah indicates, to worship the work of their own hands. It brought them no help in their hour of distress. But it was worse than useless. It was a foul and degrading worship. It is best described in the words of the third verse, “the abominations of the heathen.” We can have but a faint conception of the loathsome practices associated with the worship of the pagan deities. The passage before us speaks of one act of worshipby no means the worst, though sufficiently cruel and revolting. This was the worship of Moloch Kings In the valley of Hinnom, afterwards called Gehenna or Tophet, an image of Moloch was erected. Dr. Thomson, in ‘The Land and the Book,’ refers to the passage in Jeremiah (19) where the valley of Hinnom is spoken of, and thinks, because it is said there that the image of Baal was there, that Moloch and Baal were one and the same. At any rate, part of the worship of Moloch consisted in making children pass through the fire before his image, or in actually burning them in it. The cries of the children were drowned by the sound of musical instruments and the shouts of the frenzied worshippers. It is to this that Milton refers when he says
“First, Moloch, horrid king, besmear’d with blood
Of human sacrifice, and parents’ tears;
Though for the noise of drums and timbrels loud
Their children’s cries unheard, that passed through fire
To his grim idol.”
Such was the worship which Ahaz, in his infatuation and desire to be like the nations round about him, substituted for the spiritual, elevating worship of the great Father of us all. After all, was he much worse than many in modern times who profess to be so enlightened that they regard the Christian religion as a superstition? And what do they give us in place of it? A worship of dead matter, of blind force; of a mere supposition of their own minds. If Christianity be a superstition, what are some of the fancies of our philosophers? Before we give up our Christian religion, let us know, what we are to have in place of it. Let us compare the results of Christianity with the results of any rival system, and how immeasurably superior to them all it stands, in the purity of its teaching, in the power it exercises to elevate and ennoble human life, and in the blessings it has brought to the nations! How it alone lights up the darkness of the grave, and breathes into the bereaved heart the inspiration and comfort of the heavenly hope! This was the first downward step in the career of Ahazforsaking the worship of God. So many a man has begun the downward path. The empty seat in the house of God indicates often the beginning of a useless and wasted life. Or if he comes to the house of God, he worships God in form only. His thoughts are far away. Self and the world, money and pleasure,how often are these the idols men worship with the thoughts of their hearts and with all the efforts of their lives!
II. THE NEXT STEP IN THE DOWNWARD PATH OF AHAZ WAS THE ALLIANCE HE ENTERED INTO. (Verses 5-7.) The Syrians made war on him along with the King of Israel. Ahaz, in his difficulty, sought the help of the King of Assyria. How humiliating is his entreaty! “I am thy servant and thy son,” was the message he sent: “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.” There was nothing wrong in itself in seeking the help of friendly kings. On this occasion, however, God absolutely warned Ahaz against seeking their help. But, to begin with, there was something wanting. Ahaz did not seek God’s guidance in the matter. He did not seek God’s help. He who had rejected the service of the living God, makes himself the cringing slave of the King of Assyria, and humbles himself to a heathen for help. What a mistake when a nation trusts to its resources or its strong alliances, and forgets to look to that Divine power from whom all blessings flow! There may be nothing wrong in all our efforts to improve our worldly position, but there may be something wanting. There may be nothing wrong in your life, but there may be something wanting. You may be anxious to be useful in the world; but are you setting about it in the light way? One thing is needful, one thing is essential to all true happiness, to all true usefulness. That is the presence and help of God. Is the Lord Jesus dwelling in your heart? Whatever else may disappoint you, he will never fail.
“When other helpers fail, and comforts flee,
Help of the helpless, oh, abide with me:”
III. THE NEXT DOWNWARD STEP WHICH AHAZ TOOK WAS HIS PLUNDERING– THE HOUSE OF GOD. (Verses 8, 9, 17, 18.) Ahaz paid dear for his alliance with the King of Assyria. He had already disobeyed and dishonored God by his idolatry. He had already dishonored God by refusing to heed the warnings which Isaiah gave him. But now he commits a still more flagrant act of defiance and desecration. In order to reward the Assyrian king for his help, and to retain his friendship, he actually takes the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord, and sends it for a present to the King of Assyria. The world‘s friendships are often dearly bought. We pay for them, in peace of mind, in peace of conscience, in loss of money, in loss of time, a greater price than they are worth. Sooner or later the crisis must come in every man’s life when he must choose between the friendship of God and the friendship of the world. What choice are you making? What choice would you make if you were put to the test now? Perhaps you are being put to the test in your daily life. Perhaps you are being tempted, for the sake of worldly friendship, for the sake of your business, for the sake of popularity, to sacrifice some principle, to trample on some command of God, to neglect some plain duty which conscience and the Word of God alike point out. Business! The great business of your life, of every man’s life, is to fear God and keep his commandments. “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and enjoy him forever.” Oh what a fearful thing it is to take from God that which rightfully belongs to him! It is a crime against law, against morality, to take from our fellow-creatures, without their permission, that which belongs to them. But how much more guilty is he who would take from God that which is his! We condemn Ahaz for his impiety and sacrilege in taking from the temple those things which had been consecrated to God. But let us look into our own hearts and lives. Are we giving God that which is his due? Are we keeping back nothing from him? Has he no greater claim on our daily thoughts than a hurried prayer at morning or evening, or none at all? Has he no greater claim on our money than the few shillings, or, it may be, few pounds we give to him every year? Let us measure our service of God much less by what others do and give, and much more by our own responsibilities, by our own overflowing cup of mercies, by the relation of our own soul to God.
IV. THE NEXT DOWNWARD STEP OF AHAZ WAS TO SET UP A HEATHEN ALTAR IN THE HOUSE OF THE LORD. (Verses 10-17.) Ahaz had gone to Damascus to meet the King of Assyria. While there he saw an altar used in the worship of the heathen gods. Its workmanship may perhaps have pleased him. He sent to Urijah the priest a description, perhaps a drawing of it, and Urijah, influenced more by the fear of the king than by the fear of God, caused a similar altar to be erected in the temple at Jerusalem. When Ahaz returned, he substituted this altar for the altar of the Lord, although God himself had given the pattern of that altar to Moses and to David. But all the idols and sacrifices of Ahaz did not benefit him much. He thought the gods of the heathen would help him; but, says the writer in 2 Chronicles, “They were the ruin of him and of Israel” So in everyday experience many a man finds, when he forsakes the gospel of Christ, and turns his back upon the Law of God, to follow worldly gain or pleasure, or society, or dissipation, that these things are the ruin of him. “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”C.H.I.
HOMILIES BY D. THOMAS
2Ki 16:1-20
A people’s king and priest; or, kinghood and priesthood.
“In the seventeenth year of Pekah,” etc. Throughout all lands, almost throughout all times, two functionaries have been at the head of the peoples, too often treading them down by oppression, and fattening on them by their greed. One of these functionaries was not, among the Jews, of Divine ordinations; for the Almighty is represented as saying, “They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not.” Let us notice each functionary as presented in this chapterthe king and the priestthe one named Ahaz, the other Urijah.
I. THE KINGHOOD. It is said, “In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah Ahaz the son of Jotham King of Judah began to reign. Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem, and did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord his God, like David his father.” Here we learn that Ahaz, who was the son of Jotham, began to reign over Judah in his twentieth year, and that his reign continued for sixteen years. Elsewhere we are told that Hezekiah, his son, succeeded him at the age of twenty-five (see 2Ki 18:17). According to this he became a father when he was only eleven years of age. This is not, necessarily, a mistake of the historian, since among the Jews in Tiberias there are mothers of eleven years of age and fathers of thirteen. And in Abyssinia boys of ten years and twelve years enter into the marriage relationship (see Keil). The account given of Ahaz in this chapter furnishes us with an illustration of several enormous evils.
1. The dehumanizing force of false religion. Ahaz was an idolater. “He walked in the way of the kings of Israel,” we are told. Instead of worshipping the one true and living God, he bowed down before the idols of the heathen. This false religion of his made him so inhuman that he “made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel; and he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree.” Moloch was this idol-god of fire, and the rabbins tell us “that it was made of brass, and placed on a brazen throne, and that the head was that of a calf, with a crown upon it. The throne and image were made hollow, and a furious fife was kindled within it. The flames penetrated into the body and limbs of the idol, and, when the arms were red hot, the victim was thrown into them, and was almost immediately burnt to death.” The revolting cruelty of Moloch-worship is thus described by Milton
“In Argob and in Basan, to the stream
Of utmost Arnon. Nor content with such
Audacious neighborhood, the wisest heart
Of Solomon he led by fraud to build
His temple right against the temple of God
On that opprobrious hill; and made his grove
The pleasant valley of Hinnom, Tophet thence
And black Gehenna call’d, the type of hell.”
Thus the idolatrous religion of this Ahaz dehumanized him, by destroying within him all parental affection and transforming him into a fiend. This is true, more or less, of all false religions. Idolatry is not the only religion that makes men cruel. A corrupt Judaism and a corrupt Christianity generate in their votaries the same dehumanizing results. False religion kindled in Paul the savage ferocity of a wild beast. “He breathed out slaughter.” Ecclesiastical history abounds with illustrations.
2. The national curse of a corrupt kinghood. Then “Rezin King of Syria and Pekah son of Remaliah King of Israel came up to Jerusalem to war: and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him. At that time Rezin King of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day.” These two kings, Rezin of Syria and Pekah of Israel, had their eyes upon this Ahaz, saw, perhaps, how his wickedness had injured his people, had taken away their heart and exhausted their resources, until they felt that this was the time for striking at Jerusalem, taking possession of the metropolis, and subjugating the country. And they made the attempt. Although they could not “overcome” Ahaz, and failed to strike him down personally, yet they “recovered Elath to Syria [or, ‘Edom’], and drave the Jews from Elath.” So it has ever been; corrupt kings expose their country to danger, they invite the invader and make way for him.
“Proudly up the regal heights they sit in pampered power,
While fires smoulder underground that strengthen every hour.”
3. The mischievous issues of a temporary expediency. Ahaz, in order to extricate himself from the difficulties and trials which Rezin and Pekah had brought on his country, applies to the King of Assyria. “So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser 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. And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house, and sent it for a present to the King of Assyria. And the King of Assyria hearkened unto him: for the King of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin.” What else could he do? To whom could he have looked for help in his emergency? The right thing to have done would have been the utter renunciation of his idolatry, submission to the Divine will, and invocation of the Almighty’s help; but he followed what appeared to him the expedient, not the right, and hence two evils ensued.
(1) He degraded himself. He sold himself as a slave to the king whose help he invoked. “I am thy servant and thy son: come up, and save me out of the hand of the King of Syria.” What more dishonorable thing can a man do than to renounce his independence and become the slave of another? He loses his self-respect, which is the very essence of true manhood.
(2) He impoverished his people. “And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house, and sent it for a present to the King of Assyria.” This silver and gold belonged to the nation. It was public property. What right had he to dispose of a fraction? No right whatever. Alas! it is not uncommon for kings to rob their people, consume what they have never produced, live on the property of others, and thus impoverish their subjects! What happened with Ahaz must happen with all, in the long run, who pursue the expedient rather than the right. The right alone is truly expedient.
II. HIS PRIESTHOOD. Urijah is the priest. There seems to have been more priests than one of this name, and little is known of this Urijah more than what is recorded in the present chapter. He was the priest, who at this time presided in the temple of Jerusalem. He seems to have been influential in the state, and, although a professed monotheist, was in far too close connection with Ahaz the idolatrous king. Two things are worthy of note concerning him, which too frequently characterize wicked priests in all times.
1. An obsequious obedience to the royal will. The Assyrian king, having taken Damascus, is visited by Ahaz in the city, the object of his visit being, no doubt, to congratulate him on his triumphs. While at Damascus, Ahaz is struck with the beauty of an altar. He seems to have been so charmed with it that he commands Urijah, the priest, to make one exactly like it. “And King Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the fashion of the altar, and the pattern of it, according to all the workmanship thereof.” Knowing the king’s wishes, with shameful obsequiousness he sets to the work. “And Urijah the priest built an altar according to all that King Ahaz had sent from Damascus: so Urijah the priest made it against King Ahaz came from Damascus. And when the king was come from Damascus, the king saw the altar: and the king approached to the altar, and offered thereon.” This obsequious priest not only did this, but, without one word of protest or reproof, he witnessed the sacrifices of the king at the altar, and allowed the position of the brazen altar in the temple to be altered; further, he actually engaged, according to the king’s command, in the services. “And King Ahaz commanded Urijah the priest, saying, Upon the great altar burn the morning burnt offering, and the evening meat offering, and the king’s burnt sacrifice, and his meat offering, with the burnt offerings of all the people of the land, and their meat offering, and their drink offerings; and sprinkle upon it all the blood of the burnt offering, and all the blood of the sacrifice; and the brazen altar shall be for me to inquire by. Thus did Urijah the priest, according to all that King Ahaz commanded.” Thus wicked priests have too often acted.
2. An obsequious silence to the royal profanation. See what the king did, no doubt in the presence of the priest. “And King Ahaz cut off the borders of the bases, and removed the laver from off them; and took down the sea from off the brazen oxen that were under it, and put it upon a pavement of stones. And the covert for the sabbath that they had built in the house, and the king’s entry without, turned he from the house of the Lord for the King of Assyria.” This fawning, sacerdotal traitor not only “did according to all King Ahaz commanded,” but he stood by silently and witnessed without a word of protest this spoliation of the holy temple. Had he acted according to his profession as a minister of the most high God, he would have risen up in all the sternness of honesty and manhood against the first intimation of Ahaz concerning the construction of an unauthorized altar. He would have said, “We have a divinely sanctioned altar already; we do not need another.” And when the command came to him to make such an altar, he would have felt it an insult to his conscience, an outrage on his loyalty to Heaven, and have broken into thunders of reproof. When he saw the king’s hand employed in disturbing and altering the furniture of the temple, he would have resisted him, as Azariah resisted Uzziah when he wished to offer incense. But instead of this, he, like some of his class in almost every age, seems to have been transported with the honor of seeing the royal presence, hearing the royal voice, and doing the royal bidding. A true priest should, by inflexible loyalty to Heaven, mould kings to be lords paramount in all mundane affairs, and in none other; and should lead them to be very kings of men, governing, not by craft and force, fraud and violence, but by royal thoughts, actions, and aims.D.T.
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
2Ki 16:1-4
The wickedness of Ahaz.
The history has passed rapidly over the later kings of Israel. That kingdom was lost beyond recovery. “The victim having once got his stroke-of-grace, the catastrophe can be considered as almost come. There is small interest now in watching his long low moans; notable only are his sharper agonies, what convulsive struggles he may make to cast the torture off from him; and then, finally, the last departure of life itself” (Carlyle). In Judah the crisis too is approaching, but it is not yet reached. Prophets and good kings are yet to do their utmost for the nation. But a reign like that of Ahaz is a sensible step in the advance to the catastrophe.
I. THE CHARACTER OF THE KING. Though the son of the vigorous Jotham, and already twenty or twenty-five years old when he ascended the throne, Ahaz proved one of the weakest and most incapable of rulers. One sees in him the reflection of the luxurious and effeminate age described by Isa 3:12-26. Feeble, petulant, arbitrary, in his ways of acting; without strength of mind or strength of will; busying interests of his kingdom were at stake; craven in war; above all, full of religiosity and himself in dilettante fashion with novelties, with altars and sun-dials, while the greatest superstition without the faintest spark of true religion”this is that King Ahaz” (2Ch 28:22). Possibly his father Jotham was too much occupied with state and public affairs to give the necessary attention to his softs educationa fatal mistake not unfrequently committed by parents.
II. HIS ABOUNDING IDOLATRIES. Ahaz displays great zeal of his own kind in religion, but it is zeal of the most perverse and suicidal description. We observe:
1. His imitation of the kings of Israel. He took for his pattern, not his ancestor David, the type of the true theocratic king, but the wicked kings of the northern kingdom, whose idolatries were bringing their own realm to ruin. He made, like them, molten images to Baal, and sacrificed to them (2Ch 28:2). Wicked men seem absolutely impervious to warning. The northern kingdom was an object-lesson, to those who had eyes to see, of the folly and fatal effects of this very course on which Ahaz was now entering. Yet he would not be deterred.
2. His reversion to Canaanitish practices. Not content with importing the licentious Baal-worship patronized in Israel, Ahaz revived the worst abominations of the old Canaanitish religions. He even went so far as to sacrifice his own son to Moloch in the valley of Hinnoma deed indicating a degree of fanaticism, a blunting of the moral sense, and a depth of superstition which could hardly have been believed possible in a King of Judah. It was, moreover, a daring defiance of the direct letter of God’s Law (Deu 12:31). Well might such a deed bring down wrath on Judah!
3. His extravagance in worship. It is further narrated that Ahaz sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree. Worship in this reign seemed to have run riot; yet there was no true religion in it. All this depraved religiosity was but a manifestation of self-will, of subjective caprice; it had its origin in superstition and an impure craving for excitement, not in the fear of God. Yet Ahaz, in his dilettante way of looking at things, may have thought that he was introducing improvements into Jewish religion. He may have flattered himself that he was robbing it of its narrowness, and giving it the philosophic breadth suitable to persons of taste and culture. He might argue that there was something good in all religions; that all were but diverse expressions, equally acceptable to God, of the fundamental instinct of worship; and that none, therefore, ought to be despised. We hear such arguments nowadays, and they may very well have been used then. Ahaz was but going in for a species of Jewish Broad-Churchism. But the Bible brands this so-called breadth of view as treason against the God who has definitely revealed his will to men, and taught them how they are, and how they are not, to worship him. The true lessons to be learned from this conduct of Ahaz is that religiositydelight in sensuous and impure religious servicesis far different from religion; that altars may be multiplied, yet multiplied only to sin (Hos 8:11); that the religious instinct, itself the noblest part of man, is capable of the most perverted developments; that only worship according to his own commandment is acceptable to God.
III. NOT ALONE IN SINNING. The lengths to which Ahaz could go, apparently without awakening any public opposition, show that the heart of the nation also had widely departed from God. This is borne out by the descriptions in Isaiah (cf. Isa 2:6-8; Isa 3:16-26; Isa 5:8-25). The king’s innovations were acceptable to a people wearied of the severer worship of Jehovah. They were glad to have the services adapted to their corrupt and dissolute tastes. “The carnal mind is enmity against God” (Rom 8:7).J.O.
2Ki 16:5-9
The-Syro-Israelitish war.
Again was the truth to be verified that national sins bring in their train national calamities. God is not mocked. He vindicates the reality of his moral government by visiting the transgressor with manifest strokes of his displeasure. In addition to the invasion of Pekah and Rezin spoken of below, we read of assaults of the Edomites and of the Philistines, by which Judah was brought very low (2Ch 28:17-19). The kingdom also was brought into a state of servitude to Assyria.
I. THE ATTACK OF PEKAH AND REZIN.
1. The Syro-Israelite conspiracy. Israel and Syria had been hereditary enemies. Now they make common cause, on the one side against Assyria, and on the other against Judah. Their object in invading Judah was probably not the simple one of plunder, but the political one of still further strengthening themselves against the King of Assyria. Pekah was a mere military adventurer, and would be restrained from attacking Judah by no scruples of brotherhood. He and Rezin had begun their attacks while Jotham was still alive, but now that Ahaz was on the throne, their plans took bolder shape. They conceived the project of removing Ahaz, and putting a certain “son of Tabeal” in his place (Isa 7:6). The news of their expedition terrified Ahaz and his people. Instead of putting their trust in God, their hearts were moved “as the trees of the wood are moved by the wind” (Isa 7:2). They had cause to fear, for they showed no desire to forsake their sins, and when a people forsake God, they have no reason to hope that God will protect them.
2. The assault on Jerusalem, and its discomfiture. The earlier part of the joint expedition was crowned with great success. We read in Chronicles of terrible battles that were fought, and severe defeats that were sustained by the army of Judah. Large numbers of captives, with their spoil, were taken to Samaria, and were only restored by the intercession of the Prophet Oded (2Ch 28:6-13). God permitted Judah to be thus far humbled. But when, elated with victory, the conquerors pressed on, and invested Jerusalem, he interposed to prevent their further progress. Not for the sake of Ahaz, but for his own Name’s sake, he saved Jerusalem, and hindered the invaders from accomplishing their purpose of overthrowing the house of David. Isaiah had predicted this deliverance (Isa 7:7), and, but for the unbelief of Ahaz, and his sinful recourse to the King of Assyria, it is unlikely that the adversaries would have been permitted to go so far even as they did. Wicked men often receive mercies of which they are wholly undeserving. God spares them, not because they have any claim upon his favor, but for the sake of some oath or promise of his own, or from regard to the righteous who remain, or in order to give the sinners yet another opportunity of repentance. Because God had sworn to David that his seed should sit upon the throne (2Sa 7:1-29.), he did not allow even the wicked Ahaz to be removed. In the ease of Pekah and Rezin, we see how entirely human movements are under the Divine control. It appeared as if these bold men would sweep all before them, but God had said, “Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further” (Job 38:11), and there their proud waves were stayed.
3. The loss of Elath. The war was not wholly without gain to the Syrians. They possessed themselves of the port of Elath, at the head of the Red Sea, and thus stripped Judah of another important dependency.
II. THE APPEAL TO ASSYRIA. In the distress to which the repeated attacks on his territory reduced him, Ahaz, instead of casting himself on Divine protection, foolishly betook himself to the King of Assyria.
1. Short-sighted policy. Israel had set the example of resort to the Assyrian, but the prophets had always denounced such insensate conduct (Hos 5:13; Hos 8:9, Hos 8:10; Hos 10:6). Even from the point of view of worldly policy, the action was foolish. As well might the lamb invoke the help of the lion against the wolf, as any lesser power invoke the help of the King of Assyria against an enemy. The conqueror, pleased with any pretext for interfering in another nation’s affairs, would not refuse his help, but only that the weaker power which had solicited the help might in the end be despoiled and devoured. Thus Ahaz found it. The King of Assyria was glad enough of the occasion to march against Israel and Damascus, but when once the conquest was effected, Ahaz found that he had derived no benefit, but only exchanged one oppressor for another.
2. Expensive help. To purchase the aid of Tiglath-pileser, Ahaz had
(1) to become a vassal of the King of Assyria; and
(2) to send him a large present of gold and silver.
This he could only obtain by emptying once more the often-ransacked treasuries of the temple and the palace. The accumulations of years of prosperity under Uzziah and Jotham were again dispersed, and the freedom of the country was sold to boot. God’s people passed formally under the yoke of a Gentile conqueror. To such straits was the kingdom brought by Ahaz’s godless policy.
3. The Assyrian a broken reed. The King of Assyria marched against Pekah and Rezin, and soon reduced them to his power. Damascus was severely dealt with. Its king was slain, and the people carried captive. Pekah was also chastised; his territory was ravaged, and considerable parts of the population were removed (2Ki 15:29). The instruments employed in punishing Ahaz were thus themselves punished. The fact that men are used as instruments in God’s providence does not exonerate them from guilt. Ahaz, however, as we learn from the parallel narrative, reaped no benefit, for “Tiglath-pileser King of Assyria came unto him, and distressed him, but strengthened him not” (2Ch 28:20). It was his own ends, not those of his foolish vassal that the King of Assyria was serving. Ahaz leaned on a bruised reed, and only got his hand pierced. Thus it usually is with those who put their trust in the help of man. They reap from their assiduous sowing but the gall and wormwood of chagrin and disappointment.J.O.
2Ki 16:10-20
Religious innovations.
The remaining events of the reign of Ahaz recorded in this chapter shed a strong light on the king’s frivolous and arbitrary character.
I. THE DAMASCUS ALTAR.
1. Ahaz at Damascus. We are now introduced to Tiglath-pileser holding court in Damascus, and Ahaz is there as one of the vassals and tributaries of the Assyrian king. He does not seem to feel the humiliation of his position, but is probably pleased to figure as part of so brilliant an assemblage. Thus the sinner, renouncing true freedom in God’s service, for a time positively hugs the chains which sin binds upon him. He counts them no dishonor, but delights to wear them. Yet in the end they shall eat into his very flesh.
2. The new altar. So lightly does his vassalage sit on Ahaz, that his mind is free to lose itself in admiration of the pattern and workmanship of an altar he chanced to behold in that city. It was, no doubt, an altar to some heathen deity, but that did not matter. He was charmed with its appearance, and nothing would serve him but to have the like of it set up in Jerusalem. What a measure of this man’s soulfrittering away his interest upon the shape and decorations of an altar, while his kingdom is sold into servitude; toying with trifles, while doing obeisance to a conqueror! Yet is the conduct of Ahaz any more strange than that of multitudes whose sole concern is for the vanities of time, while the realities of eternity stand unheeded? When men who are at variance with God, and bond slaves of sin, are found eagerly amusing themselves with worldly trifles, what are they doing but repeating the error of this frivolous monarch? There is the same lack of the sense of proportion in things; the same sacrifice of substance to shadow; the same indifference to supreme interests.
3. The pliant priest. Having obtained a pattern of the coveted altarits fashion and workmanshipAhaz sent the same to Urijah the priest, to get a similar one made for the temple at Jerusalem. This priest was of a different mould from that Azariah, who, with four score other priests, resisted King Uzziah in his presumptuous attempt to usurp sacerdotal functions (2Ch 26:17, 2Ch 26:18). Urijah was a courtier first, and a priest of the Lord afterwards, and he at once set about executing the orders he had received from the king. Facile priests of Urijah’s stamp have not been rare in history. The tendency of high dignitaries in many countries to follow court fashion, and put a king’s pleasure in room of every higher law, is notorious. Ecclesiastics cannot plead exemption, though in them the sin is greatest. When even ministers of the Lord cease to testify against evil, and willingly yield themselves as tools to the working out of a wicked king’s purposes, religion is in bad case. But here most probably the proverb held true, “Like people, like priest” (Hos 4:9)the general decay of religion reacted on the sacerdotal orders.
II. REVISED ORDINANCES. Like a child with a new toy, Ahaz, on his return home, pleased himself to the top of his bent with his new altar.
1. He offered his own sacrifices upon it. The event was made the occasion of a great display. Ahaz is thought by some to have mounted the altar, and himself performed the sacrifices; none of the priests, apparently, daring to remonstrate with him. He offered his burnt offering and his meat offering, and poured out his drink offering, and sprinkled the blood of his peace offerings upon the altar. An artistic altar, however, does not make acceptable sacrifices. This pompous ritual was but an empty form, ministering, not to God’s glory, but to a king’s vanity. The motive was wrong; the method was unauthorized; the multitude of sacrifices but added to the magnitude of the hypocrisy. It is such ritual observances the prophet denounces: “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord; I am full of the burnt offerings of rams,” etc. (Isa 1:11). The sacrifices of the wicked are an abomination to the Lord. The only acceptable worship is that which comes from the heart.
2. He changed the position of the altar. The altar which Solomon made for burnt offeringthe brazen altarwas not good enough for King Ahaz. It must be shifted aside, and his brand-new altar take its place. This was to arrogate a right of altering the arrangements of the temple which no king had yet assumed. Ahaz was governed by a love of novelty, and perhaps by a desire to introduce the artistic into worship. Art has its legitimate place in the worship of God, but it is not to be the governing consideration. When a service degenerates into a mere artistic performance, intended to gratify the tastes of those who have no relish for spiritual worship, it is hateful in God’s sight. The perfection of the art may conceal the utter absence of life. Most of all when central doctrines are removedsuch doctrines as the atonementto give place to rites and ceremonies which appeal to the carnal sense, is God mocked by the pretence of worship.
3. He improvised new sacrificial arrangements. The interference of Ahaz with the temple order did not yet cease. He altered the whole sacrificial usage, transferring the regular and occasional sacrifices to his new altarnow termed by him “the great altar”and relegating the brazen altar, which still stood in the court, to a secondary condition. This usurpation by the king of the right to dictate the order of the temple services was tamely submitted to by Urijah, who did faithfully all that he was told. One is reminded of Wolsey’s words, “Had! but served my God with half the zeal I served my king,” etc. Happy for the nation had Urijah been as faithful in serving God as he was in carrying out the behests of Ahaz.
III. MINOR CHANGES. The history tells of other alterations effected by Ahaz in the temple. He cut off the borders of the bases of the layers, and took down the sea from off the bronze oxen on which it had rested, substituting for the latter a pedestal of stone; he changed also the position of some other erections in the sacred courts. These changes are said to have been wrought “before,” or for fear of, “the King of Assyria”perhaps to hide any evidences of wealth. Other novelties introduced by Ahaz, such as “the altars which were on the top of the upper chamber of Ahaz” (2Ki 23:12), had for their motive imitation of Assyrian or Damascene idolatries. What a contemptible picture of the king is thus presented! On the one hand, cringing before the King of Assyria, and dismantling the temple to avoid exciting his cupidity; on the other, slavishly imitating the religion of the foreignersif indeed this also was not an attempt to court Assyrian favor. How total the loss of self-respect and of the spirit of independence! Other instances of the folly and sin of Ahaz are given in Chronicles; e.g; his worship of the gods of Damascus for the reason, “Because the gods of the kings of Syria help them, therefore will I sacrifice to them, that they may help me” (2Ch 28:23). One does not wonder after this to hear that Ahaz “shut up the doors of the house of the Lord,” while he “made him altars in every corner of Jerusalem” (2Ch 28:24). At length his sixteen years’ reign ended, and the people, by this time sick of his doings, marked their sense of his unworthiness by refusing him a sepulcher in the tombs of the kings (2Ch 28:27).J.O.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
B.The Reign of Ahaz in Judah
2Ki 16:1-20. (2 Chronicles 28)
1In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah, Ahaz the son of Jotham king of Judah began to reign [became king]. 2Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem, and did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord his God, like David his father. 3But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations 1of the heathen, whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel. 4And he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree.
5Then Rezin king of Syria, and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel, came up to Jerusalem to war: and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him 6[prevail]. 2 At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered [won] Elath to [for] Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians 3 came to Elath, and dwelt [dwell] there unto this day. 7So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser 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. 8And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the kings house, and sent it for a present to the king of Assyria. 9And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him: for [and] the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin.
10And king Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and saw an altar that was at Damascus: and king Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the fashion [pattern] of the altar, and the pattern [plan] of it, according to all the workmanship thereof. 4 11And Urijah the priest built an altar according to all that king Ahaz had sent from Damascus: so Urijah the priest made it against king Ahaz came from Damascus. 12And when the king was come from Damascus, the king saw the altar: and the king approached to the altar, and offered thereon [went up upon it]. 13And he burnt his burnt offering and his meat offering, and poured his drink offering, and sprinkled the blood of his peace offerings, upon the altar. 14And he brought also the brazen altar, which was before the Lord, from the forefront of the honse, from between the [new] altar and the house of the Lord, and put it on the north side of the altar. 15And king Ahaz commanded Urijah the priest, saying, Upon the great altar burn the morning burnt offering, and the evening meat offering, and the kings burnt sacrifice, and his meat offering, with the burnt offering of all the people of the land, and their meat offering, and their drink offerings; and sprinkle upon it all the blood of the burnt offering, and all the blood of the sacrifice: and [as for] the brazen altar shall be for me to inquire by [I will consider further]. 5 16Thus did Urijah the priest, according to all that king Ahaz commanded.
17And king Ahaz cut off the borders of the bases, and removed the laver from off them; and took down the sea from off the brazen oxen that were under it, 18and put it upon a pavement [structure] of stones. And [he altered] the covert [covered way] 6 for the sabbath that they had built in the house, and the kings entry without, turned he from [omit turned he from.Insert in] the house of the Lord [,] for [fear of] the king of Assyria.
19Now the rest of the acts of Ahaz which he did, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah? 20And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David: and Hezekiah his son reigned in his stead.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
2Ki 16:1. Ahaz became king, &c. On the year of Ahazs accession see the chronological discussion after chap. 17
2Ki 16:2. If Ahaz was 20 years old at his accession and reigned 16 years, so that he was 36 years old when he died, then he must have begotten his son Hezekiah in the tenth year of his age, for Hezekiah, according to 2Ki 18:2, ascended the throne in his 25th year. This would not be an impossibility, for even yet marriages occur in the East between boys of 10 and girls of 8 years (see the instances quoted by Keil in his Comment. on the verse). It is, however, very improbable, and there is no similar instance in Scripture. It is very likely, therefore, that the reading twenty-five instead of twenty, which is presented by some MSS., by the Vatican MS. of the Sept., as well as by the Syriac and Arabic translations on 2Ch 28:1, is the original and correct one (Ewald, Thenius, and Keil).
2Ki 16:3. But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel. This cannot mean that he transplanted the Israelitish worship of the calves into Judah, for the relation between Judah and Israel had become hostile even in the last years of his father Jotham (2Ki 15:37). Moreover, there is not a hint of that form of worship in the history of Judah. The words only mean, generally, that Ahaz forsook the covenant of Israel as the Israelitish kings had done. The parallel passage 2Ch 28:2-3 adds directly the words: And made also molten images for Baalim. Moreover he burnt incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom. This sentence is evidently taken from the original authority (Thenius). Probably it was omitted by the author of the Book of Kings because it seemed to him to be implied in the statement already made that he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, for these had had images of Baal (1Ki 16:32; 2Ki 3:2; 2Ki 10:26 sq.). He desired to go on at once to the things which this king had done other than what had been done by the kings of Israel. We have not, therefore, to understand, by the images of Baalim, calf-images like those of Jeroboam (Keil), but idol-images. On the valley of Hinnom see notes on 2Ki 23:10.Yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, viz., . This must be supplied, as we see, from 2Ki 23:10; Lev 18:21; Jer 19:5. The meaning of the phrase is distinctly stated in Num 31:23. It has accordingly been supposed by some that, where or is the object, and not gold or silver, it refers to a literal passage through fire, and that it was an act of lustration or purification (Theodoret, Grotius, Spencer, and others). It is clear, however, from 2Ch 28:3, where stands for it, that it is not a simple passage through, but a burning up. The same is clear from 2Ki 17:31 : Deu 12:31; Jer 19:5; Eze 16:20 sq.; 2Ki 23:37. Josephus declares plainly of Ahaz: (Cf. Gesen. Thesaurus, II, p. 985). Another question arises, however, viz., whether we must understand that the children were burned alive, or that they were killed and then burned. The rabbis assert the former (see the passages quoted from Jarchi in Winers R.-W.-B. II., s. 101), but their authority is overturned by other and better testimony. In Eze 16:20 it is said: Thou tookest thy sons and thy daughters, which thou hadst borne to me, and slewest them () [as a sacrifice] to them [i.e., to the false gods] [i.e., to consume them]. Was thy whoredom too slight a thing that thou slowest () my sons, and gavest them away [i.e., in that thou causedst them to go through, or, to be burned up in, the fire]? Psa 106:37 sq. speaks only of the slaughter of children in sacrifice to idols, not of burning them: And they slew their sons and daughters in sacrifice () to false gods, and shed innocent bloodblood of their sons and daughters whom they sacrificed () to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by the shedding of blood (). Diodorus Siculus (2Ki 20:12) describes the brazen statue of Kronos (Moloch) with its outstretched arms, glowing hot from an internal fire, but he does not say that the children were laid living upon them. Eusebius (Prp. Evang. 2Ki 4:16) states in regard to the human sacrifices which were offered at Salamis that they were first killed by the priest with a spear and then burned upon the pile. Slaying, and cutting in pieces, and shedding blood, are essentials in sacrifice, so that , i.e., to slaughter, means, to sacrifice. We have certainly to understand, therefore, in the case of the child-sacrifices, that they were killed before they were burned (Hvernick, Comm. ber Ezech. s. 237 sq.). Such seems to have been the case also in the incident mentioned in 2Ki 3:27. The only remaining question is this: if the procedure was the same in the case of the child-sacrifices as in the ordinary burnt offerings, why do we find the expression used only of the former? The probable explanation is that the expression only referred originally to a passage through the fire without consumption, a sort of fire-baptism, as purifications by fire were practised by various peoples, and that it was not connected with human sacrifice. Not until a later time did this become corrupted into a real sacrifice and burning, but the original expression was retained and became general (see Keil on Lev 18:21). It may be, too, as Witsius (Miscell. p. 616) suggests, that the practice was not always and everywhere the same, but both living and dead children were burned, and this expression was used in both cases.
[This is the point in the history of the Israelites at which they became acquainted with the Assyrio-Chaldean idolatry. The gods Baal and Ashtaroth became known to them from the Phnicians by the marriage of Jezebel with Ahab. That that was the point of contact between the Jehovah-worship and the Baal-worship s proved by the fact that this pair (Baal and Ashtaroth) are the ones whom the Israelites worshipped, and that that was the couplet which was worshipped at Sidon (see note on 2Ki 17:17). Now, however, Pekah and Ahaz came into close intimacy with the Assyrians, and learned from them the astral conception of the same heathen religion. Ashtaroth always had sidereal character, but her worship, so far as it was introduced into Israel, seems to have been confined rather to its voluptuous rites. Ahaz introduced the astral worship into Judah. In order to understand the influence of these heathen religious conceptions on Judah, and the origin of the rite of passing through the fire, it is necessary to take a somewhat comprehensive view of these heathen religious conceptions. Here follows a description of the cultus. On the astral ideas see note on 2Ki 17:17. The religious conceptions of the nations of Western Asia were all closely related to each other. The deity was conceived of as one, simple, formless, and universal, but in a pantheistic sense. It has often been observed that behind the polytheism of these nations (and of Egypt also) there was an idea of one sole and original deity, and it has been inferred that there was a pure and true monotheistic idea at the root, and that the polytheism was only popular. In fact, however, the corruption of these heathen religions was rooted in the pantheistic conception of this original divine essence. Then his attributes were deified (hence the plural Baalim), and not only his good attributes but also his destructive and profane and base attributes. Hence, by a legitimate deduction, all the cruel and licentious rites of pretended religion. In different countries the chief and original God took different names according to the especial point of view from which he was regarded. The Assyrians called him Asshur, or, in a still more pantheistic conception, Ilu; and among the Canaanites he was called El as the Mighty One, the first and simplest conception of God as strength. He was also very widely named Baal (Babylonian Bel [Merodach]), as the Lord; also Yaoh (Hebr. Yahvah [Jehovah]), as the Eternal, the pure conception of being or existence. The Aramans named him Hadad or Hadar, The Only One; the Ammonites, Moloch, the King; the Moabites, Chemosh, the Governor. Then he received different names according to his attributes, and was worshipped by each nation under the name of the attribute which they kept most in mind. As the deity which presided over generation he was Thammuz or Adon (Hebr. Adonay; Greek, Adonis); as protector and preserver he was Chon; as destroyer he was Moloch; as presiding over the decomposition of those destroyed beings whence new life was again to spring, he was Zebub (Beelzebub). Hence, probably, Baal-zebub was the god of restoration to health from dangerous sickness. See 2Ki 1:2. In this last sense probably the main idea was that of resurrection or life from death. The flies on carrion seemed to spring to life out of it. The Egyptian beetle probably embodies the same idea. Moloch was therefore the supreme deity in his attribute of destroyer. Fire, lightning, war, pestilence, and so on, represented him. He was worshipped under this form when his appetite for devouring and destroying was being satiated. Hence his rites consisted in sacrifices of things cast into the fire. Those who robbed themselves of something which they cast into the fire appeased the god and averted the assaults which, were to be apprehended from him if his appetite for destruction was not satisfied. The parents who thus sacrificed their children might hope that this frightful sacrifice would save them from further or other losses. When the king of Moab found the fight going against him he offered his son to Chemosh, that the god, appeased by this, might not push on the destruction of war. No doubt he considered that this sacrifice was successful when the horrified Israelites desisted from the war (2 Kings 3). So far as we can judge, the children were cast alive into the flames.The religion of Israel differed from these heathen religions in that its supreme deity was personal, spiritual, and holy, and that the Israelites refrained from deifying his attributes as emanations or hypostases of himself.W. G. S.]
Instead of in 2Ki 16:3 and 2Ki 21:6, the Chronicler (2Ch 28:3 and 2Ch 33:6) has the plural . Thenius regards this as a contradiction, or, at least, as an exaggeration of the passage before us, but the plural stands here, as it often does (Mat 9:8; Mat 2:20; Gesen. Lehrgeb. s. 664 sq.), rhetorically, in order to say, in general, that Ahaz and Manasseh had incurred the guilt of child-sacrifice. The pure, abstract idea of child-sacrifice, apart from any idea of number, is expressed by the plural (Bertheau, Keil). In like manner, Cicero (De Prov. Cons. xiv. 35): jucundissimi liberi, although Csar had only a single daughter (cf. also Pro Lege Manil. 12). On 2Ki 16:4 cf. 1Ki 14:23. The sense is: The centralization of the worship of God, such as the law prescribed, came to an end; the very contrary came to pass. Thenius seizes upon the fact that we have before , instead of , which we find before , as a support for his interpretation of the former word as grove or sacred enclosure (see Exeg. on 1Ki 2:2-3). It stands here, as it often does, for , Ahaz offered incense in the sacred places on the tops of the mountains and on the hills, i.e., on heights where there was no but only an altar.
2Ki 16:5. Then Rezin, king of Syria. See on this and the following verse: Caspari, Ueber den Syrisch-ephraimitischen Krieg unter Jotham und Ahaz. Christiania, 1849. After the author has described the reign of Ahaz in its broad and general features (2Ki 16:1-4), the detailed account of the particular incidents begins in 2Ki 16:5. only means, therefore, after Ahaz had succeeded to the throne. The attacks began under Jotham (2Ki 15:31), but there had not yet been any formal and united expedition. [The first attempt was frustrated by the attack of Tiglath Pileser on Damascus and Samaria. See Supp. Note, p. 161.] No real attack was made until Ahaz was on the throne. The object was, according to Isa 7:6, to conquer Judah and to set upon the throne a person called the son of Tabeel, of whom we know nothing further. [Mention of this confederation occurs in the Assyrian inscriptions. We learn there that the name of this son of Tabeel was Ashariah.] Whether they hoped thereby to be able to oppose larger means and stronger force to the aggressions of the Assyrian empire (Thenius), is a matter for mere supposition. [This supposition is now very strongly confirmed.] They came as far as Jerusalem, which they besieged ( means besiege, as it does in 2Sa 20:15; Jer 21:4; Jer 39:1; Eze 4:3, and not merely: they pressed forward towards it), but were not able to take it, for the city had been strongly fortified on all sides by Uzziah and Jotham (2Ch 26:9; 2Ch 27:3), and, in the providence of God, it was otherwise decreed (Isa 7:7).
2Ki 16:6. At that time Rezin won Elath for Syria, &c. does not mean thereupon or afterwards, but designates in general the time of the Syriac-ephraimitic war against Judah. 2Ki 16:6 is a sort of parenthesis, so that 2Ki 16:7 is the real continuation of 2Ki 16:5. The author desires to record the danger which threatened Jerusalem, for this was the chief event in this war, and, besides this, to record the fact that Judah, during this reign, lost the city which was its most important seat of commerce, and one of the chief sources of the prosperity of the country (cf. on Elath, notes on 1Ki 9:26 and 2Ki 14:22). 2Ki 16:7 then joins on to 2Ki 16:5, for Ahaz sent to Tiglath Pileser, not on account of the loss of Elath, but on account of his endangered capital, with which the whole kingdom must stand or fall. Many expositors, both ancient and recent, have desired to change to , because Elath never belonged to Syria, and therefore could not be restored to it. But this conjecture is not supported by a single manuscript or ancient version, and, as Winer and Keil observe, does not necessarily imply the idea of back again. It means, in general, to turn away from something to something else (Isa 1:25, and Knobels note thereon; Psa 81:14; Amo 1:8; Dan 11:18). It means, therefore, that Rezin took away Elath from Judah, to which it had previously belonged, and joined it to Syria. The case is similar with the word , for which the keri offers , the Sept., , and the Vulg., Idumi, but evidently incorrectly. The Edomites did not need to come to Elath and to settle there; they had always lived in this city, which lay in their own country, and had remained there even when it was in the hands of the Jews. What is asserted, however, is, that Rezin expelled the Jews and brought thither Syrians, who settled there for purposes of trade, and remained there until this day, i. e., at the time that these books were written the Syrian commercial colony was yet in Elath. Yet one question further suggests itself here, viz., whether Rezin took Elath before or after the attack which he and Pekah made upon Jerusalem. The answer to this question depends upon another one: What is the relation between the record before us and that in the parallel passage in Chronicles? In the latter there is no mention of the expedition against Elath, nor of the siege of Jerusalem. On the other hand, it is recorded that Jehovah gave Ahaz into the hand of the king of Syria, who defeated him, and took away many captives to Damascus; likewise into the hand of the king of Israel, who, in a great battle, won a great victory over him (2Ki 16:5-6). This narrative the rationalistic school formerly regarded as an invention and unworthy of belief (Gesenius, De Wette, Gramberg), but that view has been abandoned even by this school. Thenius, amongst others, regards the narrative as unquestionably historical, and as a supplement to the record before us. Nevertheless there is some disagreement as to whether the campaign described in Chronicles is the same one which is described here. Caspari has examined this question very carefully in the work mentioned above; we, therefore, refer in general to that work and here add only what follows. Those, like Vitringa, Movers, Hvernick, and others, who adopt the hypothesis of two sucessive expeditions, appeal for their proof especially to Isa 7:1-9. At the commencement of the war against Judah, when it is made known to the house of David that the Syrians are already in Ephraim, the prophet announces to Ahaz the complete failure of the enterprise of the two kings. As, however, according to the account in Chronicles, Ahaz was defeated by each of these kings, it is inferred that that must have taken place in a different expedition from the one here referred to, and that it took place before the latter; furthermore, that the capture of Elath took place during the second expedition and after the siege of Jerusalem, since it is narrated in the history after that event (2Ki 16:6). It is certain that the two battles mentioned in 2Ch 28:5-6, must have taken place before the siege of Jerusalem, but it does not follow that they occurred in an earlier expedition. As it was the intention of Rezin and Pekah to put an end to the kingdom of Judah and to put the son of Tabeel (probably a Syrian general) upon the throne, it is not by any means to be supposed that they would have abandoned the attempt after gaining two victories over Ahaz, and then would have undertaken a new expedition in order to besiege Jerusalem. On the contrary, it is plain that they would try, after winning two victories, to complete their enterprise by taking Jerusalem. The words in Isa 7:2, do not mean, as they are often translated: The Aramans are encamped in Ephraim (Bunsen), nor: The Syrians stand [are under arms] in Ephraim (De Wette), so that it would follow, that Rezin first advanced into Ephraim at the outbreak of the war, in order to advance, in conjunction with Pekah, against Jerusalem. The phrase must be explained as it is in the Chaldee paraphrase: The king of Syria has joined himself (, societatem iniit) with () the king Israel. So the Sept. translate: . The verb with is never used of an army encamping, and it does not seem fitting to take as referring to the country, and as referring to the people (Hengstenberg). means, to lie down to rest, and it expresses, when it is used as it is here of a person who rests upon or over () another, a being with or by, a being in connection with him (cf. Num 11:25-26; Isa 11:2; Psa 125:3). [An examination of these passages will show that they do not justify any such rendering of as, to be in alliance with. They contain the spirit rests upon or some similar sense of , which is a different sense of rest and a different sense of upon from the one here to be proved. Hengstenbergs objection, that Aram is used of the people and Ephraim of the territory, has force, but the most fair rendering of the words is: Aram is encamped in Ephraim (Bunsen, Ewald). is not indeed the technical word for the encamping of an army, but it is used for special force. They have settled down, are stationed, are resting and recruiting, but when an army does this it encamps.W. G. S.] What made Ahaz and his people tremble, as the trees of the forest tremble before the wind, was, not the fact that Syria was in camp in Ephraim, but the fact that the kings of Syria and Israel had joined forces against Judah. The prophet promised that this enterprise should not succeed, and his promise was fulfilled. The supposition that Rezin began the war by taking up a position in the land of Ephraim is, therefore, totally unfounded. Moreover, it was not necessary for him, in order to make war upon Jerusalem, to go through Ephraim. He could just as well advance on the other side of the Jordan, and this he no doubt did. As for the capture of Elath, 2Ki 16:6 of the chapter before us does not force us to the assumption that it took place before the siege of Jerusalem, for, as we have said above, 2Ki 16:6 is a parenthesis and 2Ki 16:7 follows 2Ki 16:5. It is also difficult to believe that Rezin gave up the siege, because Jerusalem could not be taken (2Ki 16:5). and then, because he was unwilling that the expedition should have been made entirely in vain (Thenius), that he made a long march around the southern end of the Dead Sea in order to return home. After Ahaz had called upon Tiglath Pileser for aid, and the latter was actually advancing against Syria, it is impossible that Rezin can have undertaken this long march; he must have hastened home by the most direct route. In view of all this we come to the following conception of the course of the events. Rezin made an alliance with Pekah and advanced on the east side of the Jordan and won a great victory over Ahaz (2Ch 28:5). At the same time, on this side the Jordan, Pekah invaded Judah, and also inflicted a severe defeat on Ahaz (2Ch 28:6). As a consequence of his victory Rezin marched on southward to Edom, where he put an end to the hated supremacy of Judah over Edom, and captured Elath, an important source of commercial prosperity to Judah (2Ki 16:6). From thence he moved northwards on this side of the Dead Sea and made a junction with Pekah, who had in the mean time been devastating the country, in order, with him, to make a united attack upon Jerusalem, and so to come to the end of his entire undertaking, namely, to the overthrow of the kingdom of Judah and of the dynasty of David. [It may hardly be worth while to balance conjectures where the basis of testimony on which to build them is so slight. The above construction is open to considerable objection. If a king set out, in alliance with another, against Judah, would it not be strange that he should march through Edom to Elath and then up to Jerusalem before joining his ally? What is more, it is very remarkable that Isaiah, when he prophesies deliverance to Ahaz, makes no reference to two defeats which the king is supposed to have suffered already. We expect a sentence in this form: although thou hast been defeated, yet, &c. The king looks for aid to Assyria. The prophet rebukes this. He evidently expects that the physical form of the deliverance will be something else than Tiglath Pilesers advance. It is more consistent to suppose that the city was found too strong, that the two kings commenced to devastate the country, that Ahaz was twice defeated when he sallied out to try to restrain them, or before he was shut up in the city, and that Rezin pushed forward as far as Elath. Probably it was not until they had made some progress in plundering the country that they heard that Tiglath Pileser was advancing. The information derived from the Assyrian inscriptions strongly sustains this view. Rezin and Pekah revolted in 7343. Haste was necessary above all things. It was deemed necessary to conquer Judah and force it into the confederated revolt. Hence the news comes suddenly to Ahaz in this startling form: The Syrians are in Ephraim. Before the end of 731 the war was all over and Tiglath Pileser held his court in Damascus. (See Supp. Note at the end of this section.) The whole campaign in Judah was therefore very brief. There was no time for a siege. The two battles were fought in the open country, and the captives were taken thence, and the long expedition to Elath was undertaken in order to bring the strongest possible pressure to bear on Ahaz to force him to join the revolt, next to the capture of his capital.W. G. S.] As the Edomites and Philistines had also invaded Judah (2Ch 28:17 sq.), Ahaz, pressed on every side, turned to Assyria for help in spite of the warnings and promises of Isaiah (2Ki 7:1 sq.). This induced Rezin to desist from his advance and to hurry home. There he was defeated and slain by Tiglath Pileser.It is scarcely possible to combine the two narratives in any other than this simple and direct way. Keil also places the capture of Elath before the siege of Jerusalem, but leaves it undecided whether Rezin advanced northwards from Elath, against Jerusalem, or whether, after his victory over Ahaz (2Ch 28:5), he sent a portion of his army into Idumea to detach that country from Judah, while he, in conjunction with Pekah, led the rest of the army against Jerusalem. Against this view arises the objection that 2Ki 16:6 makes no mention of a detachment sent into Idumea, but says that Rezin himself marched thither and drove the Jews out of Elath.
2Ki 16:7. Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath Pileser. He did not take this step as soon as hostilities commenced, but, as has already been said, when he saw himself hard pressed. He did not heed the prophets warning and counsel Isa 7:4); on the contrary, by the words: thy servant and thy son, he placed himself in servitude to the king of Assyria as well as under his protection. He sent the presents of gold and silver (2Ki 16:8) after the allied armies had withdrawn from Jerusalem, and Damascus had been taken (2Ki 16:9). Tiglath Pileser took the captured inhabitants of Damascus to Kir. By this we have not to understand, as the ancient Expositors did, the Median city or , but the country around the river Kur (, ), which flows through the northern part of Iberia, the modern Tahoma, into the Caspian sea (Isa 22:6 [cf. also Amo 1:3-5]). Tiglath Pileser transferred the inhabitants of Damascus to the most remote portionin the extreme northof his dominions, and yet to the place from which their ancestors had originally migrated (Amo 9:7). (Thenius). After the subjugation of Syria, Tiglath Pileser advanced against Israel, and accomplished what is recorded in 2Ki 15:29. It may be that Pekah submitted at once to the approaching enemy and thereby averted from himself the fate of Rezin. [See Supp. Note, p. 161.]The statement 2Ch 28:20 sq., according to which Tiglath Pileser marched against Ahaz, and besieged him but did not overcome him, is discussed in detail by Caspari (work above cited, ss. 5660). He strives to reconcile it to the statements of the passage before us, but does not in all respects succeed. So much is certain; Ahaz, in spite of all his gifts to Tiglath Pileser, did not find in him a true helper and friend; on the contrary, he was harshly treated by him: It did him no good. [The meaning of 2Ch 28:20 seems to be more correctly given in the English translation: He came unto him (not against him), and distressed him (not necessarily besieged him), and strengthened him not.]
2Ki 16:10. And king Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath Pileser, i.e., in order to testify to his gratitude towards him for his deliverance, and at the same time to secure the continued favor of the king of Assyria. The latter must, therefore, have remained at Damascus for some time. Perhaps Ahaz himself brought the presents which are mentioned in 2Ki 16:8. While he was at Damascus he saw an altar which pleased him so much that he sent orders to Urijah the priest to make one like it. This Urijah can hardly be the same one who is mentioned in Isa 8:2. [We should unhesitatingly infer that these two were the same individual, if it were not for the improbability that a man, who would build and introduce into the temple a new altar built on a heathen model, should be called by a prophet a faithful witness. The solution may be that the prophet took the priest as a faithful witness on account of his official position solely. The priest seemed the most fit and proper witness, however much the prophet may have had to find fault with (as to which he tells us nothing one way or the other) in his administration of his office.W. G. S.] It was undoubtedly an altar consecrated to an Assyrian deity which Ahaz saw, but he desired to have one like it for the service of Jehovah (2Ki 16:15). has a general signification: shape, image; designated more particularly the model; and the sort of workmanship, decoration, &c.In 2Ki 16:12, is not to be translated: and he sacrificed upon it (Luther, De Wette, and others), but: and he ascended upon it. See 1Ki 12:32-33. It does not follow from this, however, that Ahaz was not willing to give up the royal prerogative of exercising the high-priestly office upon occasion (Thenius). The words mean simply that this was his sacrifice, namely, the one which he offered for his fortunate return from Damascus. He led the way by his own example. We have not to understand that he usurped any priestly functions. It is no more intended to assert in 2Ki 16:13 that he himself sprinkled the sacrificial blood, than it is in 2Ki 16:14, that he, with his own hand, removed the altar. [The translation: He went up upon it, is justly preferred by Bhr, but it does not remove the difficulty about the kings share in the sacrifice. Why did he go up upon the altar, if not to perform the rites himself? There is no other evidence at all that any one but the person officiating at the sacrifice went up upon the altar. Furthermore, 2Ki 16:13 is not a case of the ultimate agent being said to do what others do by his command. The fact that the king could sacrifice unrebuked by the priest is not any more astonishing than that the priest should make an altar on a heathen pattern, and put it in the place of the one built by Solomon. Both incidents belong to the picture of this reign.W. G. S.] The thank-offering was the chief thing (2Ki 16:13), but it was preceded by a burnt-offering as usual (Symbol, d. Mos. Kult. II. s. 362, 423, 435). 2Ch 28:23 does not contradict the passage before us. It does not refer to the new altar and the sacrifice which was offered upon it, but to the sacrifices which Ahaz offered elsewhere (cf. 2Ki 16:4).
2Ki 16:14-15. And he brought also the brazen altar, &c. cannot mean: he removed, Er that weg (Luther), nor: he moved away; Er rckte hinweg, but: he brought nearer, he moved closer up to. [The sense of away from is, of course, in . The first meaning of is certainly: he brought nearer, but as it is not clear what it was brought nearer to, the word seems to have lost this force and to mean simply, he moved. Bhr translates: But the brazen altar (i.e., the altar of burnt-offering), which was before Jehovah (i.e., which was immediately before the house of Jehovah), he moved nearer, away from (the place) before the house (i.e., away from the point) between the (new) altar and the house of Jehovah, and he put it by the side of the new altar towards the north. It is not clear what it was nearer to.W. G. S.] The altar of burnt-offering was called the brazen altar, in contradistinction from the golden altar of incense in the interior of the temple. It stood in the middle of the court of the priests in front of the temple-building. Urijah had placed the new altar in front of this, but Ahaz ordered the brazen altar to be moved away from its former position to the north side of the new one. This he did evidently because the position which was nearer to the dwelling-place of the divinity seemed to be more holy, and he did not wish that the old altar should be regarded as superior in honor or sacredness to the new one. As they were now upon the same line, they were, in so far, equal; while the new one, being in the middle, was, if anything, superior. In 2Ki 16:15 the new altar is called ; hardly because it was somewhat larger than Solomons altar (Keil), for the latter was very large, twenty cubits long and wide and ten cubits high (2Ch 4:1). It seems better, with Thenius, to understand it as in and to translate: the chief altar. According to Ahazs orders, all the offerings were now to be made upon the new altar; the regular morning and evening sacrifices, and the special ones of particular individuals, whether the king or others. He did not, therefore, forbid the worship of Jehovahhe did not dare to do thatbut nevertheless this worship was to be celebrated only upon an altar imitated from one which belonged to the heathen.The morning burnt-offering and the evening meat-offering. It might seem from this that there was no meat offering in the morning and no burnt-offering in the evening, which would be contradictory to Exo 29:38-42 and Num 28:3-8. But, as no burnt-offering was brought without a meat-offering (Num 7:87; Num 15:2-12), the latter is assumed as a matter of course in the morning offering; and, as the burnt-offering was to burn throughout the whole night (Lev 6:9), the meat-offering was the only part of the evening sacrifice at which the people could assist (Thenius). The final words: And as for the brazen altar , are translated by the Vulg.: erit paratum ad voluntatem meam; similarly Philippson: But to inquire at the brazen altar is my prerogative. This rendering is evidently incorrect, for means to investigate but not to seek out or inquire, much less to be at ones disposition (Lev 27:33). It has here the same meaning as in Pro 20:25, to consider, so that the phrase is to be translated: I will consider [farther] (Frst). Thenius, very unnecessarily, desires to read for , because , as he maintains, always means to serve a certain purpose. The meaning would then be shall be mine for prayer; i.e., that the old altar should be retained as a prayer-altar. is used here, however, as it is in Gen 15:12; 1Sa 4:9; Jos 2:5. No distinction between prayer-altars and altars of sacrifice was recognized in ancient times. Ahaz did not desire that the altar of Solomon, which had hitherto been held very sacred, should be removed at once, but he desired to wait and see how the people would regard the innovation. He therefore reserved his further commands for a time.
2Ki 16:17. And king Ahaz cut off, &c. Thenius maintains that this and the following verse are a continuation of the first half of verse 10, and that a more precise statement is here added to the re-report of Ahaz journey to Damascus which is there spoken of, viz., that it was impossible for him, after he had obtained the needed assistance, to appear before Tiglath Pileser with empty hands; that the treasury was empty (2Ki 16:8); that he was, therefore, compelled to take for this gift anything which could be made available; and that this is what is meant by the closing words of 2Ki 16:18 : for the king of Assyria. But 2Ki 16:17-18 clearly carry on the narrative of what occurred after the return of the king from Damascus (2Ki 16:12). They are therefore a direct continuation of 2Ki 16:10-16. Besides the removal of the brazen altar, Ahaz undertook still further changes in the sanctuary, namely those which are mentioned in 2Ki 16:17-18. As the brazen oxen are among the things which he removed, and as they were not carried away from Jerusalem until the Babylonians carried them off (Jer 52:20), it is not to be understood that they were carried as a gift to Damascus by Ahaz. As it was with the oxen, so it must have been also with the other decorations mentioned in 2Ki 16:17. Finally the words: for () the king of Assyria, cannot be understood in the sense of: In the service of the king of Assyria (Luther), or, In order to obtain (by abstracting the decorations mentioned) the necessary gifts for the king (Thenius); for means for in the sense of from fear of anybody (cf. Jdg 9:21; Gen 7:7; Isa 20:6; 2Ki 22:19; Hos 11:2, &c), but never for the sake of any one, or out of love to him. Ahaz removed all these valuable objects before the king of Assyria not in order to make him a present of them, but either because he thought that they would give him offence or because he feared that he might want them and demand them of him. [This last is the true explanation. He wanted to escape the cupidity of the Assyrians by hiding evidences of wealth.W. G. S.]On the of the bases and on and the brazen sea, see notes on 1Ki 7:27 sq. Ahaz did not set the last upon the stone pavement (Luther), but upon a foundation built of stone.The was unquestionably a covered place, a platform or hall, in the forecourt of the temple, set apart for the king when he visited the temple with his retinue on the Sabbaths or feast-days (Keil). This addition was built later than the rest of the temple. Its form cannot be definitely discovered, for it is only mentioned here. The Sept. have for it: , which does not throw any light upon it, as they evidently read , foundation, for . The kings entry without is perhaps the ascent mentioned in 1Ki 10:5. According to Thenius it was the entrance at the eastern gate of the inner court, which lay towards the outer fore-court through which the king alone entered (Eze 46:1-2), and it is mentioned in contrast to the platform of the king in the inner forecourt, which has just been mentioned. Keil translates , which applies to both the localities, he transferred into the house of Jehovah, but the platform (), which was in the inner court, cannot possibly have been transferred into the temple itself, still less the outer entrance. Moreover, why should this transfer have taken place before or for fear of the king of Assyria? means strictly: to make something turn about, to change a thing so that it is not what it was. Hence it often means to change ones name (2Ki 23:34; 2Ki 24:17), and it can only be understood here in the same sense. Thenius: He changed in the same way as he had changed or altered the bases, &c. This no doubt took place in this way, that he took off from them what was valuable. is the ordinary accusative of place, in the sanctuary.We see from 2Ki 23:12 that Ahaz was not contented with the arrangements for worship here made, but also erected altars on the roof of his upper chamber.In regard to the sepulture of king Ahaz (2Ki 16:20), 2Ch 28:27, says: They buried him in the city, in Jerusalem, but they brought him not into the sepulchres of the kings of Israel. It is not evident why this is an error, as Thenius asserts. It does not contradict the record before us, and the same thing occurred in regard to Uzziah, although not for the same reason (cf. 2Ki 15:7 and 2Ch 26:3).
[Supplementary Note on the references to contemporaneous history in chap. 16, incorporating the results of Assyrian investigations.As we saw above (p. 161), chap. 15 gives an account of the intervention of Assyria in the history of Israel. Chap. 16 gives the history of the intervention of Assyria in Judah. The first revolt of Pekah and Rezin against Assyria, and their conspiracy to attack Judah and force it to join in the attempt, in the last year of Jotham (742), was crushed before it gained any strength. In 734 they once more united in revolt, and renewed their policy of attacking Judah. Ahaz, hard pressed by them (see Exeg. on 2Ki 16:7), called to Tiglath Pileser for aid, and paid him tribute. The aid was promptly given, as Tiglath Pileser regarded Rezin and Pekah as rebels. Ahaz was thus relieved from this danger (732). Tiglath Pileser, after dealing with the rebels as described on p. 162, marched into Philistia and took Gaza and Ashdod, and also Dumah in Arabia, and came back to Damascus. It was probably on this march that he came to Ahaz, and distressed him; and it was probably at this time that Ahaz removed the furniture of the temple and took away its decorations, lest they might present an appearance of wealth to Tiglath Pileser, and excite his cupidity (see Exeg. on 2Ki 16:18). In 731, before leaving Damascus to return to Assyria, Tiglath Pileser held a court of his vassals at that city. Twenty-three such vassals came. Among them are mentioned Pekah of Israel and Ahaz of Judah (Lenormant I. 389 and 390). Continued in the Supp. Note after the Exeg. section on chap. 17W. G. S.]
HISTORICAL AND ETHICAL
1. The reign of king Ahaz was the most disastrous through which Judah had yet passed. The kingdom sank so low, both internally and externally, religiously and politically, that it was on the verge of ruin. Such an incapable ruler had never before ascended the throne. The predominant feature in his character was weakness, weakness of spirit and weakness of intellect. History records nothing about him which is worthy of respect. Although Judah and Israel had had many perverse, wicked, and godless rulers, yet these had been at least brave and energetic soldiers; but of Ahaz even this much cannot be said. When the enemy approached his heart was moved as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind (Isa 7:2). No word of prophetic promise or encouragement could deliver him from his despair. He was defeated; he did not win a single victory all the conquests of his two predecessors were lost; the land was devastated and robbed of all its sources of revenue. Finally he turns in his distress, in spite of every warning, to the threatening Assyrian power and purchases its help, not only by the treasures of the temple and the palace, but also with the independence and honor of his kingdom. As is usually the case with weak rulers, he cringes before the mighty, but is arrogant and domineering towards his subjects (cf. 2Ki 16:7-16). As for the main point, the attitude towards Jehovah, his apostasy was deeper than that of any other king of Judah or even of Israel. He not only tolerated idolatry, but practised it zealously himself, and even went so far in his error as the abomination of sacrificing his own son. The historical books, which only state the facts, do not tell how it came about that a king of Judah, a descendant and successor of David, fell so low, but the prophetical books give us an insight into the religious and moral status of the kingdom. The kingdom of Judah had attained to power and glory under Uzziah and Jotham, as Israel did under Jeroboam II. Flourishing trade and lively intercourse with foreign countries produced wealth, and with it also foreign manners and customs. Finally foreign divinities were introduced. The result was great luxury, effeminacy, debauchery, and excess which soon, especially in the upper classes, led to immorality and vice of every kind. The foreign forms of worship, which were, for the most part, brilliant and attractive, and connected with vice, pleased this degenerate generation better than the simple, severe, and earnest Jehovah worship, which indeed continued, but had degenerated into a mere external ceremonial. Uzziah and Jotham had indeed, as we have said above, done their utmost for the external prosperity of the kingdom. They also remained true to the worship of Jehovah, but they were not filled with warm zeal for it, and they did not oppose effective resistance to the invading corruption. Isaiah, who commenced his prophetical labor in the year in which Uzziah died (Isa 6:1), says, in the passage in which, according to the generally received opinion, he is speaking of the time of Jotham: Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people, the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the East [filled with Eastern rites and acts] and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the children of strangers. Their land also is full of silver and gold, neither is there any end of their treasures; their land is also full of horses, neither is there any end of their chariots; their land is also full of idols, they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made (Isa 2:6-8). In another passage, which, though it does not belong to the time of Jotham, yet fails in the beginning of the reign of Ahaz, the prophet describes the degeneracy of morals, the debauchery, licentiousness, pride, deceit, alienation from God, injustice, oppression, &c., of the time (Isa 5:8-25). In such circumstances the youthful Ahaz had grown up. Such was the atmosphere which he had breathed from his childhood up. He was emphatically a child of his time, a faithful representative of the majority of the nation, corrupted by foreign modes of thought and morals. By nature he was weak and vacillating. He allowed himself to be swept away by the stream, and sank deeper into a depraved character and career, so that even the heavy judgments which befell him did not avail to bring him into other courses.
2. The idolatry which was practised in Judah, in the time of Ahaz, by the side of the worship of Jehovah, was not of the form peculiar to any particular people, but was like that which Solomon allowed his wives to practise (see Exeg. on 1Ki 11:5 and Hist. 3 and 4 on 1Ki 11:1-13), a mixture of the different kinds of worship which predominated in western Asia. Since, as we saw from Isa 2:6-8, such a cultus had been established in Judah even in the time of Jotham, and Ahaz found it in existence when he ascended the throne, it follows that it cannot have been Assyrian in origin, for, in Jothams time, Judah had not come in contact with Assyria at all. In the book of Chronicles, as well as in the book of Kings, the sacrifice of children is presented as the extreme of apostasy. In its nature this form of sacrifice is the most utter contrast to the worship of Jehovah (see Pt. II., p. 36). As it is not mentioned as having been committed at all before the time of Ahaz, but, on the contrary, he was the first who went so far astray, it has been supposed that he was led to it by becoming acquainted with the Assyrian fire-gods, Adrammelech and Anammelech (2Ki 17:31) (cf. Movers, Phniz. I. s. 65; Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 101). The record, however, distinctly contradicts this notion by the words: According to the abominations of the heathen whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel. The Assyrians did not belong to this category and the words apply here, as they do wherever they occur (2Ki 17:8; 2Ki 17:11; cf. Num 33:51-55; Deu 4:38), to the Canaanitish nations, that is, the nations of western, not of upper, Asia. It is an unquestioned fact that among the former, especially among the Phnicians, child-sacrifices were common, and that Moloch, to whom they were offered, was worshipped in western Asia (cf. Lev 18:21; Lev 18:27 sq.; 2Ki 20:1-5). Moreover, it cannot be proved that Ahaz did not perform such sacrifices until after he became acquainted with the Assyrian cultus. It is mentioned in the most general terms as a sign of his apostasy. His sacrificing and offering incense under every green tree does not point to Assyrian star-worship, but to the Astarte and Aschere-worship of western Asia. Dunckers notion that Ahaz first offered child-sacrifice when Rezin and Pekah were before Jerusalem, and he was most hardly pressed on all sides (In vain the king offered sacrifices to the gods of Damascus in order to turn the fortunes of war; in vain he sacrificed his own son as a burnt-offering), is nothing but a pure construction on the basis of 2Ki 3:27. The biblical text does not offer the slightest hint of it. It is in fact very questionable whether child-sacrifices were common among the nations of Upper Asia, and especially among the Assyrians. It cannot, at any rate, be proved from 2Ki 17:31. It cannot, indeed, be denied that Ahaz, after he had met Tiglath Pileser in Damascus, became acquainted with the Assyrian cultus and transplanted at least some parts of it to Jerusalem. This is proved, not so much by the fact that he caused an altar to be built after the pattern of the one which he had seen in Damascus, as rather from 2Ki 23:12, where altars upon the upper-chamber of Ahaz are mentioned, evidently referring to Assyrio-Chaldean star-worship (see note below on the place mentioned). The chariots and horses of the sun which are there mentioned most probably belonged to the time of Manasseh. For the rest, Ahaz tolerated the Jehovah-worship after his return from Damascus; for the sacrifices which he commanded the high-priest Urijah to make (2Ki 16:15) upon the new altar were not offerings to idols but to Jehovah. The weak man had not the courage formally to abolish the Jehovah-worship, for a party which could not be despised still clung to it. He worshipped all possible gods according to his own tastes and notions. In his time there was in Judah complete religious anarchy and license. [See the bracketed note on 2Ki 16:3 under Exegetical. That note presents the facts in regard to the point discussed in this section according to the latest and best knowledge. It will be seen that it modifies and corrects some of the above statements.]
3. The war which the confederated kings of Israel and Syria undertook against Judah is one of the most notable and most important events in the Israelitish history (Caspari). It was the first time that one of the two sister-kingdoms formed an alliance, with the hereditary enemy against the other, in order to destroy it. This was a most unnatural alliance and was a sign of the process of dissolution which was commencing; for it showed that the consciousness of forming with Judah a common nationality based upon common blood and faith had been lost by Israel. The importance and the external prosperity, which had been won by Judah under Uzziah and Jotham (see above, 1), had perhaps reawakened Ephraims ancient, deep-rooted hate and envy of Judah (see 1 Kings 12; Hist. 1), and incited the faithless and ambitious Pekah to the alliance with Rezin. In addition to this was the fact that Israel had, under Menahem, fallen into a certain position of dependence upon, and subjection to, the growing and threatening Assyrian power, and that Syria had also, in this power, a dangerous neighbor. In order to recuperate Israel at the expense of Judah, and to find a protection on the side of Assyria in the intervening nation of Syria, Pekah formed an alliance with Rezin, who was also eager for conquest, and these two fire-brands (Isa 7:4) formed the plan of putting an end to the nation of Judah and the house of David. They made their first efforts in this direction in the last years of Jotham, but without success (2Ki 15:37). When, however, the weak and incapable Ahaz came to the throne, the right time for carrying out their plan seemed to them to have come. But the Lord said: Take counsel together and it shall come to naught; speak the word and it shall not stand (Isa 8:10). At the moment when they were close to their object they were obliged to give up their plan, and they ran to their own destruction. Rezin lost his kingdom and his life; Pekah was made subject to Tiglath Pileser, and a part of his people were led away into exile (2Ki 15:29). Ahaz also lost his kingdom and his people, and had to bow beneath the supremacy of Assyria. The whole war was a heavy judgment upon the three kingdoms. The kingdom of Syria-Damascus, which had, up to this time, been the instrument of the divine judgments against Israel, disappeared forever from the scene. Israel went on with hasty steps to its destruction, for Pekah was murdered by Hoshea in consequence of his subjection to the Assyrians, and Hoshea, as he refused to pay the tribute to Assyria, was taken captive by Shalmaneser. Thus the kingdom of Israel came to an end (2Ki 17:3 sq.). [See Supp. Note, p. 161.] As the hostility to Judah had given it its origin, so the same hostility brought about its destruction: born from this, it also perished by it (Caspari). Judah itself, finally, as a punishment for its apostasy from Jehovah, came into that contact with Assyria, from this time on, which had such a deep influence upon its history. From this time the conflicts with the small nationalities ceased and those with the great world-monarchies began. In so far this war was, for Judah also, the beginning of the end. It was a turning-point for both nations which had not heeded the chastisements nor the proofs of the goodness and long-suffering of God, but had hardened themselves more and more in their apostasy. It was in the highest degree providential that the great world-monarchies began to interfere in Israel just at the time when this hardening took place(Caspari). But this war between Judah and the allied kingdoms of Ephraim and Syria is still further especially remarkable for this fact, that the grandest prophecies were spoken in it, and that it forms the historical basis of a product of the Old-Testament prophecy which is of the very highest, or, in fact, of unique significance. This fact stands in connection with the position of this war at the turning-point of the Old-Testament history; in the middle of the Israelitish history, at the end of the first and beginning of the second period, in which latter the fortunes of the people of God under the world-monarchy, its period of suffering, falls. It stood, therefore, at the point where a prospect offered itself to the eye of the prophet which reached out over the whole future development of the kingdom of God (Caspari).
4. After his visit to Damascus, Ahaz caused certain changes to be made in the arrangements of the temple at Jerusalem which were of greater or less significance. The record mentions some of these very briefly, but speaks more at length of those which affected the altar of burnt-offering. because these were by far the most important, Since the entire cultus was concentrated in the sacrifice, and all sacrifices, those of the individual as well as those of the entire people, were to be offered on this one altar (Lev 17:8-9; Deu 12:13-14), it formed the centre of the sanctuary, which, without it, would have lost its significance. Its form and shape, its position in the sacred edifice, its entire construction, were, therefore, by no means indifferent matters, but they were strictly prescribed in accordance with its character and purpose, so that any alteration of it seemed to be a sort of denial or contradiction of the religious idea which it was constructed to serve. Merely to take away the four horns from its four corners was to desecrate and destroy it (Amo 3:14; Jdt 9:8. Symbol. d. Mosaisch. Cult. I. s. 473). Now when Ahaz caused this altar to be removed and another made on a pattern obtained from Damascus, this was nothing less than an indirect setting aside of the lawful Jehovah-worship, and it bore witness not only to an entire want of comprehension of that worship, but also to an unheard-of self-will. He ordained, indeed, that the priest should offer all the sacrifices which had hitherto been offeredthat is to say, all the sacrifices to Jehovahupon the new altar. He did not diminish the amount of worship to be paid to Jehovah; the crime and folly were that an- idol-altar was used for the worship of Jehovah. It appears that Ahaz intended to gradually transform the Jehovah-worship in this way. Certainly the ground for it was not merely that the form of the altar which he saw in a city where, according to all the indications which we possess, the fine arts were highly developed, pleased him better than that of the large brazen altar in the forecourt of the temple at Jerusalem (Ewald), so that he had rather an sthetic than a religious reason for the change (Thenius). For, aside from the fact that there is not an indication of any especial fondness for art in Ahaz, as, for instance, there was in Solomon, and that he was a weak and incapable man, we must notice that he removed even the works of art which were in the temple; he took away the brazen oxen and he destroyed the artistic bases upon which the laver rested. He desired that the new altar should be made exactly like the one he had seen at Damascus, and to this end he sent a model of it to Jerusalem. This shows that his object was not so much to have a beautiful work of art as it was to have an altar made on a pattern borrowed from Damascus; his interest in it was not artistic but political. When he perceived the zeal of the Assyrian rulers for the propagation of their national cultus, he commanded his priests to change the arrangements of the temple so as to conform to this desire (Duncker). His ordinance in this respect was simply a contemptible captatio benevolenti for the Assyrian king. The removal of the twelve oxen of the brazen sea, which he then placed upon a mere foundation of stone, was, if we consider the significance of this piece of the temple furniture as it is stated above (1 Kings 7, Hist. 6), a degradation of the Israelitish priesthood and a contradiction of the destiny of Israel as the chosen priest-people, as well as an assault upon the character of the Israelitish religion. The same is true in regard to the removal of the Misgeroth from the bases, for upon them were the characteristic emblems of the inner sanctuary, cherubim and palms (see above, 1 Kings 7, Hist. 7). Movers opinion (Relig. der Phn.), that Ahaz removed the oxen, &c., because the symbolism of animals was especially abominable to the Assyrians, who were addicted to star-worship, seems to us to be entirely erroneous. The changes, finally, which Ahaz made in the gallery and standing-place of the king are not more definitely specified. Possibly there were emblems upon them also which were peculiar to the Jehovah-worship. We hear nothing of any changes in the interior of the sanctuary. Those which were made affected only the objects which stood in the fore-court, so that they were prominently before the eye and might offend the Assyrians. The additional statement in Chronicles (2Ch 28:24), that Ahaz closed the doors of the temple, is often brought in question, and asserted to be an exaggeration (Thenius, Bertheau, and others). As it does not stand alone, however, but is supported by the assertion in 2Ch 29:3, that Hezekiah opened the doors again, which again is assumed in 2Ki 16:7; 2Ki 16:17, we have as little reason to reject this as any of the other additions to these books which are supplied by the Chronicles. The upper chambers with their altars, which, according to 2Ki 23:12, Ahaz caused to be made, are not mentioned in this place, although they were in existence. We must not forget that Ahaz did not do all at once, but went on from step to step in his apostasy. As it is certain that he did not begin with the sacrifice of his son in the valley of Hinnom, so it is certain also that he did not commence by closing the doors of the temple; on the contrary, these were the extremes to which he allowed himself to be driven under the influence of the heathen party. Fortunately, his reign was not a long one.
5. The conduct of the high-priest, Urijah, under the commands of the king, stands in glaring contrast with that of the high-priest Azariah and the eighty other priests when Uzziah attempted to usurp priestly functions (2Ch 26:17 sq.). Instead of resisting the commands of the weak and capricious Ahaz, he keeps silence, bows in acquiescence under his will, and does all that king Ahaz commanded him (2Ki 16:16). Neither did the other priests stir; they allowed everything to go on without opposition. We cannot believe that this was the same Urijah whom Isaiah designates as a faithful witness of Jehovah (Isa 8:2; Isa 8:16). [Cf. Exeget. note on 2Ki 16:10] We should have to suppose that he fell so low after a long interval. Nothing similar had ever been done before by any priest in Judah. It seems that he, like his companions in office, was only anxious for his revenues. At any rate, his conduct is a sign of the character and standing of the priests of that time. They were dumb dogs who could not bark; they all followed their own ways, every one his own gain (Isa 56:10 sq.). Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah stand over against them, grand and noble, speaking without fear, rebuking the sins both of high and low, and announcing the threatening judgments of God.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
2Ki 16:1-9. King Ahaz. a) The way in which he walked, 2Ki 16:1-4. (An apostate from the God of Israel even to the point of offering sacrifices to Moloch.) b) The distress into which he came, 2Ki 16:5-6 (2Ch 28:5. The land was devastated; Elath, the fountain of the national prosperity, was cut off; the throne was in danger. He trembled like the trees of the forest in the wind. Isa 7:2) c) The help which he sought, 2Ki 16:7-9. (Instead of seeking help from the living God, to whom the prophet pointed him, he seeks it from the king of Assyria. Psa 124:8; Jer 17:5; Jer 17:7. Instead of seeking it with prayer and supplication, he seeks it with silver and gold. Psa 1:1-5.)
2Ki 16:1-3. Wrt. Summ.: Not all pious parents are blessed with pious children. It is, indeed, a great trial for parents when children do not turn out well, but when the parents have not failed in their discipline, then they can leave the rest to God, and have a good conscience that they have done their best.
2Ki 16:3-4 Starke: Men are so blind that they think they serve God most truly by those very actions by which they sin most grossly against him.The Moloch-sacrifice, or child-sacrifice, is a proof of the extravagance of error into which men can fall when they have not the knowledge of the living God and His revealed word, or when they have rejected the same (Rom 1:21-22). This abomination, which still continues among heathen nations, is the strongest and most direct call to all, who know the living God and who possess his word, to take part in the work of missions, and to help to bring it about that light may come to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, and that they may come to a knowledge of salvation (Luk 1:79; Luk 2:32).God commands us to give our dearest and best to Him, but not to Moloch. There are no longer any sacrifices to Moloch in Christendom, but it happens often enough, even now, that parents sacrifice their children to the idols of the world, which consume them so that they are lost eternally.Pfaff. Bib.: He who trains up his children to evil, sacrifices them to the Moloch of hell, that is, to the devil.Starke: As a corrupt atmosphere can taint a healthy body far more easily than a pure atmosphere can purify a tainted one, so also bad companions can lead good people astray more easily than good men can convert bad ones. Evil is more easily propagated than good.For two hundred years the people in Judah had kept themselves free from idolatry and heathen abominations, and yet Ahaz succeeded in a short time in filling the land with these (Isa 1:5-6). The higher a people stands, the lower it may fall. Judah sank even lower than Israel. There have been, and there are even yet, Christian nations which have sunk lower than the heathen. The fall of one who has been most highly blessed is often the heaviest and deepest. Therefore, Be sober! &c, 1Pe 5:8.
2Ki 16:4. Happy is he who, under every green tree and on every height, has learned, not to serve the world and its gods, but to praise the one holy, living, and gracious God.Wherever God has a Church, the devil builds a temple by the side of it.
2Ki 16:5-6. The War of Rezin and Pekah against Judah (see Histor. and Ethical, 3). The object, the result, and the significance of it (Isa 8:10; Isa 7:6-7).The unnatural alliance of the two enemies against Judah. Compare the alliance of Herod and Pilate. Psa 33:10 applies.The allies could not succeed in their enterprise, not on account of a vigorous resistance, but because it was otherwise ordained in the counsels of God. He who says to the turbulent sea: Hitherto shalt thou come and no further; and here shall thy proud waves be stayed (Job 38:11)He fixes limits and restraints for all human powers, however great and mighty, however victorious and proud they may be.
2Ki 16:7. Cramer: He who will not be Gods servant must be the servant of men, and must lose all his independence, his honor, and his dignity.I am thy servant and thy son, come and help me!Address this promise and this prayer in all your need and distress, not, as Ahaz did, to an earthly, human king, however great and mighty he may be, but to the King of all kings, in whom alone is our help (Hos 13:9), for It is better, &c. (Psa 118:9; Psa 146:3; Psa 146:5).The friendship and help which is bought with silver and gold has no duration and no value. So it is said of Ahaz here: He helped him not (2Ch 28:21). The great and mighty, when they listen to the prayer of the humble and the weak for aid, generally have no other object in view than their own advantage, and the increase of their own power.
2Ki 16:10-18. The Sacrilege upon the House of God. a) The kings self-willed assault upon the established institutions; b) the high-priests concession. Berleb. Bib.: See in this a clear picture of the lack of Christian spirit in the two highest ranks. The State desires to see everything arranged according to its whims: the Church yields for the sake of the temporal advantage.It is the fashion of depraved rulers that they think they can command in religious as well as in secular matters, and can control everything according to their own good pleasure.Those who tremble themselves and cringe before the great are almost always imperious and haughty to those who are below them.Ahaz sinful and insane arrangement of sacrificing and offering incense to the Lord upon an idol-altar, is one which may still be observed where the heart is addicted to sin and to love of the world, and is alienated from the living and true God, while yet homage is paid to him.Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the spirit of God dwelleth in you? (1Co 3:16 sq.; 2Ki 6:19 sq.) Whosoever destroyeth the temple of God, him will God destroy. In this temple also there may be only one altar; he who sets up another by the side of it destroys it.
2Ki 16:16. Neue Wrt. Summ.: There would not be so much harm done by wicked rulers if they did not find so many people who allow themselves to be used as instruments of their evil designs, and who approve of their undertakings in order to win their favor. Osiander: Ecclesiastics have always been found who esteemed the favor of great men more than the honor of Almighty God. Would that such men were no longer to be found in the Christendom of to-day!Wrt. Summ.: We have in this high-priest a specimen of those hypocrites and belly-servants who say: Whose bread I eat, his song I sing; who veer about with the wind and seek to be pleasant to all men; dumb dogs who cannot bark; who wish to hurt no ones feelings, but teach and say just what any one wants to hear. But Gods word alone, and not the favor of men, nor the goods and honors of the world, ought to be the rule and norm, from which we ought not to turn aside out of favor to any man, although it may involve risk of life or limb to speak the truth. For if any talk and teach according to the desires of their hearers, for the sake of their own comfort, their honor will come to shame and their end is condemnation (Php 3:19; Act 4:19).
2Ki 16:18. For fear of the king of Assyria. It is shameful to introduce changes in religious matters for political reasons.
Footnotes:
[1]2Ki 16:3.[Abominable rites or usages.
[2]2Ki 16:5.[Cf. Isa 7:1, where we find after , Was not able to make war against it, i. e. successfully.
[3]2Ki 16:6.[The chetib is to be retained. Cf. Exeg. Ewald, Thenius, Bttcher (Lehrb. 976), and others, who follow the keri, also change above, to . The entire conception of the incident is then changed. Resin does not conquer Elath for himself, but restores it to Edom, in order to strengthen the hereditary enemy of Judah and gain his alliance. Keil very justly objects that is written defectively only once in the O. T. (Ezek. 15:14). His explanation of the form is also simpler than the above change. He considers it a Syriac (Aramaic) form (u for a), and points to other similar forms in the same chapter, for (2Ki 16:7); for (2Ki 16:6); for (2Ki 16:10). Bttcher gives the euphonic and other grounds for these exceptional forms in 1132, 9, 1; 351, a.
[4]2Ki 16:10.[I. e. with full details how it was made.
[5]2Ki 16:15.[I will consider further what shall be done with that. Thenius defends the rendering given in the E. V. He denies that can have the sense which we give it, but he finds it necessary to change into .
[6]2Ki 16:18.[The keri is supported by the Vulg.: Musach. However, we find other instances of instead of in the first syllable of a word before or . See for Gen 24:33; for , Exo 30:32. See also Eze 12:8. (Bttcher, 460, b).The massorah requires that shall be accented milel, because it will not recognize a feminine in this adjective which agrees with . Cf. , 2Ki 15:29, Gramm. note.W. G. S.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
This chapter is wholly spent in recording the evil reign of Ahaz, king of Judah. The close of the chapter brings in a relief to the mind the introduction of his son Hezekiah, who succeeded him.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
What an awful account both the histories of Judah and Israel furnish! the succession of the kings, for the most part, is but a succession of evil. Idolatry, during the reign of Ahaz, seems to have been advanced to its height. The Reader will have a larger view of the impiety of Ahaz, if he consults and compares with what is related of him in the parallel history, in the 2Ch 28 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Lowering the Sea
2Ki 16:17
‘King Ahaz… took down the sea.’ The reference is to the enormous and superb laver which was situate in the temple, and was intended for the cleansing of the priests.
I. We have not lowered the sea! No. But we have Frustrated the Divine Plan. That plan we may not have spoiled utterly, thanks to restraining grace, but we have frustrated it in detail. True, Ahaz did not frustrate God’s plan as a whole. He ‘took down the sea from off the brazen oxen that were under it, and put it upon a pavement of stones’. He put it out of its right relations.
Have we not frustrated the Divine plan? Look at the material world. Is it today as God designed it? Commerce is not today as divinely instituted. We have dealt similarly with the home. A similar remark applies to the Church. And is not this conspicuously applicable to our individuality?
II. We have Maimed Good and Useful Things.
Ahaz did not destroy the sea. He, however, sadly interfered with its utility. If, as many think, the water flowed from the sea through the mouths of the brazen oxen, then by placing it on a pavement of stones Ahaz rendered it wellnigh ineffective. Man ever and again maims what is good and useful in its operation. Thus the Bible has often been treated. Its supernatural elements have been discounted. The Sabbath is subjected to a similar process. Its claims are slighted, if not ridiculed. Worship is maimed. Rather than an inspiration to service, it is too often a selfish luxury. Society is not exempted from spoliative influences. Worse than all else, many of us have maimed our souls. We have inflicted deadly injury on our characters; we have made havoc of our inmost self.
III. We have Undone the Religious Work of the Past. What skilled and arduous labour did that brazen sea represent! Consummate artistry it was. The men of the religious past laboured long and severely, with toil of heart and brain and hands. ‘And ye are entered into their labours,’ the Apostle adds. To undo the religious work of the past, in ourselves or in the community, is to cramp the religious work of the future.
IV. We have Treated Sacred Things Irreverently. Ahaz laid hands on the brazen sea of the temple as if it had been a thing of naught. Remember that golden saying in ‘Cymbeline,’ ‘Reverence is the angel of the world’.
V. We have Sinned Through Craven Fear. Those who have studied King Ahaz to our profit tell us that in all probability it was under the shadow of miserable fear he did this deed of wickedness. ‘He feared’ is the explanation of many a crime and many a sin.
VI. We have Preferred Self to God. The explanation of King Ahaz’s sacrilege which some give us is that he wantonly robbed God’s temple of this splendid sea, in order to place it in one of his idolhouses, or in order to make use of it in his palace. King Ahaz represents us all. We love self supremely unless Divine grace has changed our nature. ‘Self-will is the last enemy to be subdued,’ said Madame Guyon.
VII. We have Caused Others to Sin. Ahaz led a priest of God astray. ‘Urijah the priest’ was his trusty henchman. It is bad enough to sin alone, but to associate others in our ill-doing is criminal in degree.
VIII. We have Broken the Commandment of God. God had enjoined that the brazen sea be fashioned. And more God had given commandment that it be placed on the brazen oxen. All our failure and all our misery springs from our disobedience to God.
Dinsdale T. Young, The Crimson Book, p. 252.
References. XVII. 6-18. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture 2 Kings from chap. viii., p. 33. XVII. 15. C. Silvester Home, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxix. 1906, p. 235. XVII. 23-41. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. li. No. 2928. XVII. 25, 33, 34. Ibid. vol. li. No. 2929. XVII. 33. J. Addison Alexander, The Gospel of Jesus Christ, p. 395. H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, Sunday Sermonettes for a Year, p. 159. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture 2 Kings from chap. viii., etc., p. 40. XVII. 41. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxvii. No. 1622. XVIII. 1. H. P. Liddon, Penny Pulpit, No. 544.
Hezekiah and the Brazen Serpent
Ancient and Modern Idolatry
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
2Ki 16
1. In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah Ahaz the son of Jotham king of Judah began to reign,
2. Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem, and did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord his God, like David his father.
3. But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire [a sacrifice by fire. Such an appalling rite is really intended: chap. 2Ki 17:31 ; Jer 19:5 , Jer 32:35 ; Eze 16:20 , Eze 23:37 . It was not in love to his child ( Jdg 11:31 ). Such dreadful sacrifices were only made in cases of dire extremity (comp. chap. 2Ki 3:27 ], according to the abominations of the heathen [more particularly the Ammonites, who made such sacrifices to Molech or Milcom], whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel.
4. And he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree.
5. Then Rezin king of Syria and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to war: and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him [literally, they were not able to war].
6. At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day.
7. So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser 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 [are assailing] me.
8. And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house, and sent it for a present to the king of Assyria.
9. And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him: for the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it [Damascus stood a two years’ siege], and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin.
10. And king Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, and saw an altar [and he saw the altar] that was at Damascus: and king Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the fashion of the altar, and the pattern of it, according to all the workmanship thereof [the king’s interest was artistic rather than religious].
11. And Urijah the priest built an altar according to all that king Ahaz had sent from Damascus: so Urijah the priest made it against king Ahaz came from Damascus.
12. And when the king was come from Damascus, the king saw the altar: and the king approached to the altar [the king approached to the altar, and went up thereon (comp. 1Ki 12:32-33 ). It thus appears that Ahaz, like Uzziah, personally exercised the priestly function of sacrifice], and offered thereon.
13. And he burnt his burnt-offering and his meat-offering, and poured his drink-offering, and sprinkled the blood of his peace-offerings, upon the altar.
14. And he brought also the brasen altar, which was before the Lord, from the fore-front of the house, from between the altar and the house of the Lord, and put it on the north side of the altar.
15. And king Ahaz commanded Urijah the priest, saying, Upon the great altar [the high altar] burn the morning burnt-offering, and the evening meat-offering, and the king’s burnt-sacrifice, and his meat-offering, with the burnt-offering of all the people of the land, and their meat offering, and their drink-offerings; and sprinkle upon it all the blood of the burnt-offering, and all the blood of the sacrifice: and the brasen altar shall be for me to enquire by.
16. Thus did Urijah the priest, according to all that king Ahaz commanded.
17. And king Ahaz cut off the borders of the bases, and removed the laver from off them; and took down the sea from of the brasen oxen [these were ultimately carried off by the Babylonians ( Jer 52:20 )] that were under it, and put it upon a pavement of stones [a pedestal or foundation of stonework].
18. And the covert for the sabbath [an obscure expression. The best interpretation is “the covered hall (or stand) set apart for the use of the king and his attendants when he visited the Temple on holy days”] that they had built in the house, and the king’s entry without, turned he from the house of the Lord [stripped them of their ornamental work] for the king of Assyria.
19. Now the rest of the acts of Ahaz which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
20. And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David: and Hezekiah his son reigned in his stead.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XV
THE REIGNS OF UZZIAH, JOTHAM, AND THAZ (OF JUDAH) AND ZECHARIAH, SHALLUM, PEKAHIAH, AND PEKA (OF ISRAEL)
2Ki 15:1-16:20
In this chapter we begin with the brief reign of Zechariah who was the last king of the dynasty of Jehu. He was a weakling preceded by four strong men, but himself very inferior to his predecessors. Zechariah reigned only six months, and during that six months we have the same story of sin and corruption repeated as we have had in all the reigns previous to him. He was murdered by a usurper named Shallum, and thus ends the dynasty of Jehu as had been prophesied: that his children to the fourth generation only should sit upon the throne.
Then follows the brief reign of Shallum. The usurper succeeds in removing Zechariah and seizes the throne. His reign is short lived, but during that time we have an even more terrible picture of the condition of the people as described in the book of Hosea, Hosea 4-14. It is during this period and after, that Hosea gives us the bulk of his prophecy. In Hos 10:3 , referring to one of these revolutions when the dynasty was changed, we find this statement: “Surely now shall they say, We have no king; for we fear not the Lord; and the king, what can he do for us?” which indicates that the people felt themselves without a king. They cared not for God nor for the king. The kingdom was without a head) without a central government, the result of such condition of affairs is the anarchy which he describes. In Hos 4:1-2 we have a catalogue of the sins of the people: “Hear the word of the Lord, ye children of Israel; for the Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land; nought but swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery; they break out, and blood toucheth blood.” So frequent were the murders that the blood of one is not dried up before another one takes place and there is a continuous stream of blood.
Next comes the brief reign of Menahem, who seized the throne through murder, destroyed all the dynasty preceding him, and the brief statement made in regard to his character would indicate that he was a man, barbarous in his ferocity, a murderer and a relentless freebooter.
The record tells us that when Uzziah was exalted, his heart was lifted up with pride, and he assumed to perform the functions of the priesthood. He thrust himself into the Temple to offer the incense which the law placed in other hands. There the priest met him, bravely stood in the way of that offering, and while the spirit of persistence was upon him, God smote him with leprosy, and from the day that leprosy struck him he had to be isolated from the throne and the people and though he lived years afterward a regency was established by his son, Jotham. It is called Uzziah’s reign, but Jotham acted as king until his leprosy killed him.
In 2Ki 15:19-20 and 1Ch 5:26 we find that Pul, king of Assyria, or the great Tiglath-Pileser, approaches the Northern Kingdom, and Menahem had to pay a large tribute in order to maintain his kingdom, a thousand talents of silver: “And Menahem exacted the money of Israel, even of all the mighty men of wealth, of each man fifty shekels of silver, to give to the king of Assyria, so the king of Assyria turned back, and stayed not there in the land.” Thus he was able to maintain his throne and kingdom by paying Tiglath-Pileser a heavy tribute. Then follows the reign of Pekahiah, the son of Menahem. He was a little improvement upon his father. In a short time he was himself butchered by Pekah who seized the throne and established another dynasty. His character was in line with the other kings of Israel in general: “He departed not from the sins of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat.”
About this time Uzziah died. It is notable that he was buried “in the field of burial with his fathers, for they said, He was a leper.” Just at this time, Isaiah, the greatest of Old Testament prophets, had his vision, and also the prophetic work of Amos and Hosea of Israel and Micah of Judah falls in this period. From these prophets we get a fine description of the customs and practices of this time.
Upon the death of Uzziah, his son Jotham, reigned in his stead. His mother’s name was Jerusha, the daughter of Zadok. His character was ahead of any other king in the period except Hezekiah. He didn’t put down the high places, but he didn’t commit particular sins to aggravate the condition of the people. He carried forward some important building enterprises. He built the upper gate of the Temple, the wall of Ophel, cities in the hill country of Judah and castles and towers in the forest. He was also successful in war with the Ammonites who paid him large tribute.
During the reign of Pekah several things happened. The kingdom was now nearing its end and we read that Pul, the great Assyrian king approached eastern Palestine, conquered it, deported the entire population “and brought them unto Halah, and Habor and Hara, and to the river of Gozan,” and there they remained. Tiglath-Pileser was the first of the great Assyrians that inaugurated the system of deporting a rebellious people, thus rendering them powerless to oppose him. He picked them up, and transported them to other countries, and brought in others to take their places, simply transferred whole nations. Thus all eastern Palestine had gone into exile.
We now come to Ahaz and the whole picture is black. He reigned sixteen years and he crowded into that time as much meanness, vileness, as a man can put into sixteen years. Let us glance at the record itself to see some of the things that he did. In the sketch of his character it is said, “He did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord his God, like David his father. But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel. And he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree.” There was a confederacy formed against him to which the prophets give particular notice. The king of Israel and the king of Syria entered into an alliance to destroy Judah. Here the prophet Oded comes in and the record says, “Behold, because the Lord, the God of your fathers, was wroth with Judah, he hath delivered them into your hand, and ye have slain them in a rage which hath reached up unto heaven. And now ye purpose to keep the children of Judah and Jerusalem for bondmen and bondwomen unto you: but are there not even with you trespasses of your own against the Lord your God?” You acted as the sword of God against Judah. Ought it not to put you to thinking that God would make some other nation the sword against you? ‘Spurgeon has a great sermon on that text: “Are there not even with you trespasses of your own against the Lord your God?” Spurgeon preached his sermon to those harsh censorious people who with an eye of a buzzard can detect anything fowl, or dead, or decaying in the character of other people, and he made this charge in the sermon: “You that condemn others, you who are so ready to pass a harsh and inexorable judgment upon them, are there not even with you some trespasses against the Lord your God?” Our Lord carried out the thought thus: “What judgment ye mete unto others shall be measured unto you.” Not only was Ahaz smitten by this confederacy from the north, but the Edomites on the south revolted against him; on every side the enemies came in and smote him.
Now we come to his next sin. Instead of turning to God with repentance and asking the Lord to help him he seeks an alliance with Tiglath-pileser, the king of Assyria, and invites him to smite Syria for a consideration: “Now I will foot the bills.” In order to foot the bills he strips the house of God of all of its precious ornaments and with that gold he buys the service of the Assyrian king to smite the Syrians and the Assyrian was ready enough to do the smiting. He had an eye in that direction already and he did smite, but he demanded that Ahaz should come up to Damascus and pay tribute to him.
So we come to the third great sin of Ahaz. When in Damascus he studied the form of the altar of burnt offerings that the idolaters had up there and was very much pleased with it; so before he leaves he sends a plan of it to a certain priest and instructs him to make one just like it, and when he gets home he moves God’s altar off to one side, and puts up this heathen altar that he had copied. He didn’t stop at that; he shut up the holy place, and closed up all the services of the worship of the true God. That gives some idea of his sins.
In 2Ki 15:29 we have the account of another terrible deportation by Tiglath-Pileser. He came “and took Ijon, and Abel-beth-maacah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all of the land of Naphtali, and he carried them captive to Assyria.” Thus we see that northern Israel was stripped of all of its land east of the Jordan and of all its land north of the plain of Esdraelon, and only the hill country of Ephraim was left, about one-tenth perhaps of the entire dominion. So the kingdom is going, falling, being stripped of its possessions gradually.
In 2Ki 15:30-31 , we have an account of the death of Pekah, which was the result of a conspiracy of Hoshea, the son of Remaliah. But between Pekah and Hoshea we find, according to good authority,” another interregnum of nine years which is determined by comparing 2Ki 15:27 ; 2Ki 15:30 and 2Ki 17:1 .
QUESTIONS
1. Who succeeded Jeroboam II, and what was his character?
2. How long did he reign, what was the manner of his death, and what promise of Jehovah was fulfilled in him?
3. Who succeeded Zechariah and what was the story of his reign and death?
4. Who succeeded Shallum and what was his character?
5. What was Uzziah’s sin, what was its punishment and what is meant by “several house”?
6. Who became king regent and what was his special work as such?
7. What invasion of Israel just here and what results?
8. Who succeeded Menahem, what was his character and what the manner of his death?
9. Who succeeded Pekahiah and what was his character?
10. What is notable in the death and burial of Uzziah, what great prophet had his vision in the year of Uzziah’s death, and what other prophets came in this period?
11. Who succeeded Uzziah, who his mother and what his character?
12. What was the spiritual condition of his people, what of his building enterprises and what of his conquest and result?
13. What deportation of Israel here, who took them and where, and what the market condition of Judah at this time?
14. Who succeeded Jotham, what was his character, and what horrible thing did he practice?
15. Recite the account of the war between Ahaz and Rezin and Pekah including the account of Isaiah and the work of Oded the prophet.
16. What invasion here of Judah, what was the result and what reason assigned?
17. What distressed condition of Ahaz at this time, to what source did he turn for relief and what result?
18. What second deportation of Israel, who took them and where?
19. Recite the story of Ahaz’s sacrilege and its lessons.
20. What of the interregnum between Pekah and Hoshea and how determined by the author?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
2Ki 16:1 In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah Ahaz the son of Jotham king of Judah began to reign.
Ver. 1. Ahaz the son of Jotham. ] Under this most wicked prince prophesied Isaiah, Hosea, Micah, and Nahum, but with little good success, so incorrigibly flagitious were now all sorts grown.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Ahaz. One of the four kings in whose reign Isaiah prophesied. Compare 2Ch 28:1. Isa 1:1.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 16
Now in the seventeenth year of Pekah, Remaliah or the son of Remaliah, Ahaz the son of Jotham king of Judah began to reign ( 2Ki 16:1 ).
Ahaz the son of Jotham. So you have now an Ahaz reigning. Used to have an Ahaz in the north tribes, now you have one in the southern tribes.
He was twenty years old he began to reign, he reigned for sixteen years in Jerusalem, [but he was one of the rare bad kings in Judah,] he did not walk after the LORD like David his father. But walked after the ways of the kings of Israel, in fact, he caused his own children to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, that the LORD had cast out of the land before the children of Israel had come in. He sacrificed and burned incense in the high places, on the hills, and under every green tree. Then Rezin the king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remaliah both attacked him ( 2Ki 16:2-5 ).
And so he sent to the king of Assyria and sent him money unto Tiglathpileser and asked for his help. And Tiglathpileser came down to Syria. He took Damascus, and Ahaz, of course, sort of bought him off. And the king of Assyria began to strike against Syria and against Israel. Of course, they called off their attack then on Ahaz.
And king Ahaz commanded Urijah the priest saying, “Upon the great altar… ” When he was up there in Damascus, the king of Assyria after taking Damascus, he invited him to come up and see Damascus. And when he got up there he saw an altar that attracted him. And so he drew it out, got the dimensions and then he went home and he said to the priest, “Now I want you to build an altar like this.” And so they built another altar. They took away the altar out of the temple and replaced it with this altar that was fashioned like unto the pagan altar that he had seen in Damascus.
Also this great brass laver that was set upon these twelve brass oxen out in front of the temple, he took it off and set it on the ground and just sort of desecrated the temple of God and sort of fashioned it after some of the pagan temples that he had seen there in Damascus. And his death is recorded in the last couple of verses here.
Now as we get into chapter seventeen next week, we’ll find the reasons why Israel fell. God lists to us the reasons why Israel went into captivity. For we come to the end of the nation Israel next week. All the reasons are listed. Their failure to follow God and worship God.
Now with knowledge comes responsibility. And the Bible says that “righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” ( Pro 14:34 ). And as we get into the reasons for the fall of Israel to their enemies, and as we sort of try to learn from history, the lessons that we are going to learn will be bitter lessons indeed as we look at the United States today and we see how godless a nation we are becoming. Now there are people who have a hard time understanding the ways of God. Habakkuk the prophet said to the Lord one day, “God, please don’t show me anything else because the nation is going downhill so fast. It’s so corrupt. The leaders are so corrupt and God, You’re not doing anything about it.” And God said to Habakkuk, “Habakkuk, I am doing something about it, but if I told you what I was doing, you wouldn’t believe Me.” Habakkuk said, “Well, try me, Lord.” And so the Lord said, “Alright, I’m going to bring Babylon against Judah and they’re going to take Judah captive.” “Why, Lord would you do that?” He said, “I told you you wouldn’t believe Me.” But he said, “Hey, we’re bad, that’s true, but they’re worse than we are. Why would You use a nation that is worse than we are to punish us?” And He said, “Because they don’t know. They’re not My people. But you are My people. And you have turned from Me. And because you have known Me, knowledge brings responsibility.” And the failure to act to the knowledge is the thing that brings the judgment of God.
So that if God should use Russia as an instrument to punish the United States, we’d have the same kind of mental problems that Habakkuk had. “Lord, they’re atheistic nation. Why would You use them to punish the United States?” It wouldn’t be the first time in history that God used a godless nation to punish a once godly nation because the godly nation had turned from their godliness and had turned after idols and turned away from the living God. I would not be surprised to see God judge our nation. I could surely not blame God for doing it. Because of the things that are going on in our nation today. Surely we must lead the world in pornography and in so many filthy things and in godlessness. And we look at how we have sought to rule God out of our national life. And how the courts are seeking to rule God out of our national life. And we cannot and should not complain if God brings His judgment against this nation. As we read the reasons why judgment was brought against Israel, you’ll see that God has every right to judge the United States. And I believe He is going to. And He’s going to judge it severely. But I think the judgment is going to fall after I’m gone.
When God was ready to judge Sodom and Gomorrah, you remember what Abraham said to the Lord. “Lord, shouldn’t God be fair? Would You judge the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous there?” God said, “I will spare it for the fifty righteous.” Hey, you should feel very honored tonight, because it is because of you that God is sparing the nation the judgment that is due it. And God did not bring His judgment against Sodom and Gomorrah until He had first removed that righteous man Lot. And then the judgment fell. I believe that God is going to remove His righteous church, but then judgment such as the nation deserves will surely come from God.
We’ll get into this more next week as we look at the fall of Israel, the judgment of God and the reasons for that judgment.
May the Lord bless you and keep you. And may He strengthen you through this week. As you have to go out and mix in that world I pray that God will give you divine insulation by His Holy Spirit that will just sort of ward off all of the evil influences that are pointed in your direction that surround you daily when you’re on the job or in your classroom or just dealing with this corrupt system. I pray that God will just help you to keep your mind and heart fixed upon Him. And that you’ll look above the corruption of this world. And that you’ll be strengthened as we look to Him, our only hope but Who is our strength and our defense.nter your comments here “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
2Ki 16:1
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Perhaps the sin of Judah had its most awful expression during the reign of Ahaz. The king first sought help from the Assyrians under Tiglathpileser in his time of difficulty, and this was by deliberately placing his neck under the yoke when he said, “I am thy servant and thy son.”
This was followed by the awful blasphemy of setting up a heathen altar in the actual courts of the Temple of God. It would seem as though the light of truth were absolutely extinguished. It was not so, however, for it is likely that throughout the whole reigns of Jotham and Ahaz, Isaiah was uttering his message, and that during the reign of Ahaz Micah also was delivering the word of God. So far as the nation or its kings were concerned, the testimony of truth was indeed lost, and the very name of God was being blasphemed among the heathen.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Seeking Help from Wrong Sources
2Ki 16:1-9
Ahaz was one of the most wicked kings of Judah. He not only passed his children through the lines of fire, but seems to have burned some of them, 2Ch 28:3. He filled Judah with the abominations of the heathen. The hills and woodlands of the Holy Land were contaminated by all the excesses of nature-worship. When therefore Syria and Israel confederated against him, Ahaz naturally turned to creature-aid. In spite of the remonstrances of Isaiah, he offered a bribe to the king of Assyria to do what God Almighty would have done, under happier conditions. This was the first step toward the utter undoing of Judah.
The first ten or twelve chapters of Isaiah cast a flood of light on the inner politics of this dark epoch. They give a glimpse also of Isaiahs profound emotions at the evils that threatened his fatherland. No servant of God can view the present state of civilization without grave concern, and we are bound to resist, so far as we can, the influences which are engaged in the work of moral disintegration. We are citizens of heaven, but also of earth, and must render to Caesar such things as naturally belong to him.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Jotham
(Jehovah-perfect)
(2Ki 15:32-38; 2Ch 27:1-4)
Contemporary Prophets: Isaiah; Micah; Hosea.
Mercy and truth preserve the king: and his throne is upholden by mercy.-Pro 20:28
Jotham was twenty and five years old when he I began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. His mothers name also was Jerushah, the daughter of Zadok. Jotham was regent over the kingdom after the judgment of God had fallen upon his father. And Jotham his son was over the kings house, judging the people of the land (2Ch 26:21). This would indicate that Uzziah was guilty of his impious trespass in the very latter part of his long reign, as Jotham was only a young man of twenty-five at his fathers death, and he could not have been judging the people of the land many years before this. His mothers name, Jerushah (possessed), daughter of Zadok (just), would seem to imply that she was really the Lords, and just before Him. She, like every true mother, would have considerable influence over her son, in the formation of his character. So we read, And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father Uzziah did: how beit he entered not into the temple of the Lord. He avoided the folly of his headstrong father, and did not rush in where angels fear to tread.
And the people did yet corruptly. The prophecies of Isaiah and Micah contain much detail of the manner of their wickedness, which was indeed great. It probably increased rapidly toward the close of Uzziahs reign, though from the beginning of his rule the high places were not taken away: as yet the people did sacrifice and burnt incense on the high places (2Ki 14:4). True, the sacrifices and incense were offered to Jehovah; but Jerusalem, Scripture said, was the place where men ought to worship; and this departure, though considered unimportant, probably, by many godly Israelites, only paved the way for greater and more serious violations of the law. Gods people are only safe as they adhere carefully and closely to the very letter of the word of God. The slightest digressions are often the prelude of wide and grave departures from obedience to Gods will as revealed in His Word. The beginning of sin is, like strife, as when one letteth out water.
And he built the high gate of the house of the Lord, and on the wall of Ophel he built much. The high gate led from the kings house to the temple (see 2Ch 23:20), and Jothams building it (rebuilding, or repairing) is very significant. He wished free access from his own house to that of the Lord. He would strengthen the link between the two houses- keep his line of communication open (to use a military figure) with the source of his supplies of strength and wisdom. This is one of the secrets of his prosperity and power.
Moreover he built cities in the mountains of Judah, and in the forests he built castles and towers. He built where most men would have thought it unnecessary, or too much trouble-in the mountains and forests. He neglected no part of his kingdom, but sought to strengthen and fortify it everywhere. And as a result, he prospered. He fought also with the king of the Ammonites, and prevailed against them. And the children of Ammon gave him the same year a hundred talents of silver, and ten thousand measures of wheat, and ten thousand of barley. So much did the children of Ammon pay unto him, both the second year and the third. So Jotham became mighty, because he prepared his ways before the Lord his God. That high gate between the palace and the temple was better than a Chinese wall around his kingdom. It is in communion with God that all real prosperity and power is found.
Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all his wars, and his ways, lo, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah. All his wars implies that during his sixteen years reign he was actively engaged in conflict with enemies, subduing some, like the Ammonites, and repelling the invasions of others (Rezin king of Syria, and Pekah king of Israel). His ways too were written. Gods saints are called to walk, as well as to war. I have fought a good fight, said one; I have finished my course, he also adds. This last was his ways. Ours, like king Jothams, are written in the book. May we say then, like another Hebrew king, I will take heed to my ways! (Psa 37:1). Jotham is the only one of all the Hebrew kings, from Saul down, against whom God has nothing to record. In this his character is in beautiful accord with his name, Jehovah-perfect. All the world, we know, is guilty before God. All have sinned, God says. But in his public life, Jotham, like Daniel, was perfect, or blameless. We-Daniels enemies say-shall not find anything against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God. Yet this same Daniel says, I was confessing my sin (Dan 6:5; 9:20). Man saw nothing to condemn: Daniel knew Gods eye saw much. And, like the honest man that he was, he puts it on record with his own hand that he had sins to be confessed to God.
And Jotham slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the city of David: and Ahaz his son reigned in his stead. Had Micah Jothams death in mind when he wrote, The godly [man] hath perished out of the land? (Mic 7:2, New Tr.) From what follows in the chapter, down to the 7th verse, it would appear so. The violence, fraud, bribery, treachery, and other forms of wickedness described here, is just what prevailed after Jotham, under Ahaz infamous rule. Jotham was indeed a godly man, and well might the righteous say on his death, Help, Lord, for the godly man ceaseth! or, is gone.
The record of his reign is brief, but full of brightness. His memory, like that of all the just, is blessed. He was the tenth of Judahs kings, and God always claims His tithe; and in Jotham, the Jehovah-perfect, it was found.
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
7. King Ahaz and Assyria
CHAPTER 16
1. King Ahaz and his reign (2Ki 16:1-4; 2 Chron. 28)
2. The invasion by the two kings (2Ki 16:5-6)
3. Ahaz appeals to Assyria (2Ki 16:7-8)
4. Ahaz in Damascus and the idolatrous altar (2Ki 16:9-18)
5. Death of Ahaz (2Ki 16:19-20; 2Ch 28:26-27)
Righteous Jotham had for his successor a wicked son. Ahaz walked in the way of the Kings of Israel, yea, and made his son pass through the fire according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel. (This refers to the horrible rite of child-sacrifice. Ahaz was the first among the kings who did this. As the apostasy increased this awful ceremony became more frequent. 2Ki 17:17; 2Ki 21:6; 2Ki 23:10; See Mic 6:7; Jer 7:31; Jer 19:5.) For additional wickedness he committed see 2Ch 28:2; 2Ch 28:21-25. He burnt incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom and burnt his children in the fire.
But this was to revive the old Canaanitish and Phoenician worship, with all its abominations and all its defilements. The valley of Gihon, which bounds Jerusalem on the west, descends at its southern extremity into that of Hinnom, which in turn joins at the ancient royal gardens the valley of Kidron, that runs along the eastern declivity of the Holy City. There, at the junction of the valleys of Hinnom and Kidron, in these gardens, was Topheth–the spitting out, or place of abomination–where an Ahaz, a Manasseh, and an Amon, sacrificed their sons and daughters to Baal-Moloch, and burnt incense to foul idols. Truly was Hinnom, moaning, and rightly was its name Gehinnom (valley of Hinnom–Geheena), adopted as that for the place of final suffering. And it is one of those strange coincidences that the hill which rises on the south side of this spot was that potters field, the field of blood, which Judas bought with the wages of his betrayal, and where with his own hands he executed judgment on himself. History is full of such coincidences, as men call them; nor can we forget in this connection that it was on the boundary-line between the reigns of Jotham and Ahaz that Rome was founded (in 752 B.C.), which was destined to execute final judgment on apostate Israel (A. Edersheim).
Isaiah, Micah, Hosea and Oded then exercised their prophetic offices. When Rezin, King of Syria, and Pekah, the son of Remaliah, King of Israel, came against Jerusalem and besieged Ahaz, he appealed to Tiglath-pileser to save him out of their hands, instead of crying to Jehovah for the deliverance He had promised to His people. The king also took the silver and gold from the LORDs house and presented it to Tiglath-pileser. Then after Ahaz had declared himself the vassal of Assyria (I am thy servant), Tiglath-pileser conquered Damascus. The inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser mention this fact. We refer again to Isaiah 7. The alliance with the Assyrian was opposed by Isaiah. He told Ahaz at the end of the conduit of the upper pool to ask a sign of any kind of the LORD God, to allay the fears of the king and give an evidence that the LORD would preserve the house of David. And furthermore Isaiah had taken with him his son Shear-jashub, which means the remnant shall return, prophetic also of the preservation of a remnant. When wicked Ahaz refused, the prophet uttered that great sign which was to take place over seven hundred years after, that the virgin should conceive and bring forth a son, even Immanuel. The house of David might be punished and chastised, but there could be no full end of the royal family, for the promised One had to come from David and receive in due time the promised kingdom. And Isaiah also predicted that the Assyrian, in whom Ahaz had put his trust, should come upon them (Isa 7:17). What Pekah did to Judah and Odeds testimony against Pekah we shall learn from the Chronicles.
The erection of a new altar in the Temple by Ahaz according to the pattern of the idol-altar, opened the door wide for the unlawful worship in the Temple of God. He found a willing helper in Urijah (the LORD is light), who conducted the worship according to all that King Ahaz commanded. And greater profanation followed. He even shut up the doors of the house of the Lord (2Ch 28:24), which probably meant a complete cessation of the services in the Holy Place. The gods of Damascus were worshipped by him in connection with this altar (2Ch 28:23). And in Christendom an even greater profanation of worship has come to pass. True Christian worship is in spirit and in truth. Roman Catholicism has erected altars patterned more or less after the ancient Babylonish worship.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
seventeenth: 2Ki 15:27-30, 2Ki 15:32, 2Ki 15:33
Ahaz: 2Ki 15:38, 2Ch 28:1-4, Isa 1:1, Isa 7:1, Hos 1:1, Mic 1:1
Reciprocal: 2Ki 15:30 – in the twentieth 1Ch 3:13 – Ahaz Mat 1:9 – Achaz
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2Ki 16:3. Ahaz made his son pass through the fire. It appears from the poets that the heathens did commonly dedicate a child to a god by lustrations; that is, by causing him to pass between two fires, as described by Virgil, n. 6. Ovid. Fast. 4. But here Ahaz burnt his children in the fire. 2Ch 28:3. Thus also Isa 1:15, Your hands are full of blood. See note on Lev 18:21.
2Ki 16:5. Rezin, uniting his forces with Remaliah king of Israel, slaughtered a hundred and twenty thousand men of Judah, and burnt all the cities except Jerusalem. They saw that Ahaz was weak and wicked, and formed a league to divide the kingdom of Judah between them, as in the seventh of Isaiah.
2Ki 16:7. Ahaz sentto Tiglath. Judah was ruined before, and now Jerusalem was impoverished, yet the scheme succeeded in the ruin of Damascus and Samaria, and in the western aggrandizement of the Babylonian empire: a dark day to western Asia. Where now is the God of David? These are the fruits of seeking to idols, and to an arm of flesh, instead of seeking to the Lord.
2Ki 16:10. Ahazsaw an altar at Damascus. The Lord had shown Moses the form of the altar on which he would have his sacrifices offered. Exo 27:1-2. It was therefore the highest degree of impiety to supersede the Lords altar. Solomon enlarged it, but changed not its figure; and the mean spirit of Urijah, in accommodating himself to the humour of the king, made him highly culpable: it was indeed exalting his master above God. If he could not dissuade him from his profane purpose, he ought to have retired and wept. God has indeed appointed the powers that be, but he has nowhere allowed them so to decree rites and ceremonies in religion, as to force the conscience of the subject. See the Reflections on 2 Chronicles 28. and Isaiah 7.
2Ki 16:11. Urijah the priest built an altar, after the model which Ahaz had sent from Damascus, decorated with emblems of idolatry, and substituted it for the holy altar of the Lord. By this act he became the priest of Ahaz, and ceased to be the priest of the Lord. If he acted right, then Zachariah and his brothers were massacred in vain.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2 Kings 16. Reign of Ahaz.This chapter is assigned to different sources, and deals mainly with the kings alteration of the Temple, though it alludes to his apostasy and his wars. The Temple record (2Ki 16:10-18) may be compared to similar passages in 2 K.e.g. 2 Kings 11, 2Ki 12:4 ff. The verdict on Ahaz is more unfavourable than on any king of Judah except Manasseh.
2Ki 16:1. Ahaz.The full name was Yehoahaz, and it appears in almost this form in an inscription of Tiglath-pileser. The king mentioned in 2Ki 23:31 is properly Jehoahaz II.
2Ki 16:3. Ahaz is the only Israelite king who is expressly said to have been guilty of sacrificing his son in this manner (2Ki 3:27*). Child sacrifice became dreadfully common in the last days of the monarchy. According to 2Ki 23:10, the place was Tophet (Jer 7:31*), in the Valley of Hinnom.
2Ki 16:5. For the invasion of Judah by Rezin and Pekah see pp. 70f., Isa 7:1 f., and the parallel passage 2Ch 28:1-15.
2Ki 16:6. Elath: 1Ki 9:26*; it could not have been recovered by the Syrians since, so far as we know, they had never owned it. Read the Edomites (mg.), who as the natural owners of the country came and occupied Elath after Rezin had dispossessed the Judans.
2Ki 16:7-9. Ahaz became an Assyrian vassal by sending a present, i.e. tribute, to Tiglath-pileser. Damascus was besieged by the Assyrians in 732 B.C. There is no other record of the Syrians being taken captive to Kir, nor is the place mentioned in the LXX. But see Amo 1:5*, Amo 9:8.
2Ki 16:10-16. Ahaz went to do homage to his master, Tiglath-pileser, at Damascus. There he saw an altar, the pattern of which took his fancy, and he had it copied for his Temple at Jerusalem. No blame is here suggested, though a sinister interpretation is given in 2Ch 28:16-27.Urijah is mentioned in Isa 8:2.
2Ki 16:17 f. Ahaz was compelled to diminish the splendour of the Temple in order to pay the Assyrian tribute. For the bases, sea, and oxen, see 1Ki 7:23; 1Ki 7:27. Brass was valued highly; when the Temple was finally destroyed, all the brazen vessels in it were broken up and carried to Babylon (Jer 52:17-24).
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
THE WICKEDNESS OF AHAZ
(vv.1-4).
Ahaz stands in startling contrast to his father. His mother’s name is not mentioned, perhaps because she was not worth mentioning. Ahaz was 20 years old when he began to reign and reigned 16 years, so that he died at the early age of 36. He seemed to revel in doing evil, not only following the ways of the kings of Israel, but adopting the wicked worship of the nations the Lord had dispossessed because of their evil, – even sacrificing his son to the flames of idolatrous worship. It is a mercy that he had another son, Hezekiah, who proved to be a godly man. Ahaz sacrificed and burned incense on the high places, the hills and under every green tree, but the house of the Lord (God’s centre), and the altar of the Lord meant nothing to him.
ATTACKS AGAINST AHAZ
(vv.5-9)
The Lord did not leave Ahaz without warning as to his evil actions, but sent Rezin king of Syria and Pekah king of Israel against Judah, to besiege Jerusalem. Yet they could not overcome Ahaz, for the Lord also was gracious to Judah (v.5). Ahaz ought to have realised that God was slow to destroy Judah because Of his Own promise and because Jotham father of Ahaz, had been a godly ruler.
However, Rezin captured Elath, a city of Judah, and drove tile people of Judah out of the city, allowing the Edomites to take possession of it (v.6). This spurred Ahaz to appeal, not to God, but to the king of Assyria, Tiglath Pileser, telling him that he (Ahaz) was his servant and asking his help against Syria and Israel. How foolish a move was this on the part of a king of Judah! It cost him something too. He stole from the Lord the silver and gold that was in the house of the Lord as well as taking silver and gold that were in the treasuries of the king’s house, to pay the king of Assyria for his protection (v.8).
Then the king of Assyria attacked Damascus, capital of Syria. defeating and killing Rezin king of Syria, taking the people into captivity. Thus Assyria was strengthening its kingdom to become a great empire.
AHAZ ATTRACTED BY A SYRIAN ALTAR
(vv.10-20)
Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath Pileser, likely to congratulate him for his victory. But while there Ahaz saw a Syrian altar that he evidently liked better than the altar of the Lord. He therefore sent the pattern of the altar to Urijah the priest at Jerusalem, instructing him to build one like it for the worship of Judah (v.10). Ahaz was therefore a religious man, but choosing wicked religion above the true worship of the Lord. Christendom has been guilty of the same evil in imitating the false worship of unbelievers. But why did Urijah not have the spiritual strength to resist this evil of the king? Instead of resisting, he fully concurred with this false worship and had built the altar by the time Ahaz returned (v.11).
Ahaz then, ignoring the altar of God, offered burnt offerings, meal offerings and drink offerings on the altar he liked, sprinkling the blood also on the altar (v.13). We are not told whether the priest was the intermediary for this or not, but Ahaz could boast of having some details correct, while being basically rebellious against God. The Lord Jesus spoke of the scribes and Pharisees teaching, “Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it” (Mat 23:18). But the Lord called these teachers “Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift?” (v.19). The gift speaks of Christ’s sacrifice, but the altar pictures Christ Himself the basis of the value of the sacrifice. Therefore, the altar of Ahaz signifies his introducing a false Christ. How dreadful is such an evil as this!
Not only did Ahaz introduce an idolatrous altar into the temple worship, but he displaced the copper altar that was in front of the temple and put it on the north side of his new altar (v.14). The Lord had the copper altar placed in front of the temple because it speaks of the only way of approach to God, which is Christ as the One whose sacrifice is indispensable, But how many today are like Ahaz, pushing Christ out of the way and despising the value of His perfect sacrifice.
Ahaz then gave orders to Urijah totally contrary to God’s Word, and the weak priest was ready to disobey God. All of the offerings were offered on the new altar of Ahaz. Ahaz knew something of the offerings and he wanted to keep up a show of religious zeal while refusing the very basis of all true worship, the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, while he put the copper altar out of the way, he told Urijah it could be used as a charm for him “to enquire by” (v.15). If there were hard problems or danger threatening, he could use the copper altar, just as men today consider Christ as One to be consulted if they are in trouble, but this only amounts to superstition with no faith whatever in Christ Himself. Thus they want Christ to be merely their servant, not their Lord.
The bold sacrilege of Ahaz was further seen in his treatment of the lavers (v.17) which were placed for the washing of the sacrifices, speaking of the perfect purity of the Lord Jesus. Ahaz removed the lavers from their bases. The basic fact of the purity of the Lord Jesus is also given up today by many who dare to dispute the sinless perfection of the Lord of glory. Some say that He had a nature that could have sinned, but that He did not give into that tendency. Such teaching is false, for the basic fact is that “in Him there is no sin” (1Jn 3:5). Being totally sinless, it was therefore impossible for Him to sin.
The copper sea also, that which was for the daily purification of the priests, Ahaz removed from the oxen that supported it and set it on a pavement of stones (v.17). The oxen, (animals for sacrifice) picture the fact that our own purity as priests is primarily based on the value of the sacrifice of Christ. The water in the sea speaks of the Word of God which purifies, but since we by nature are sinners, the oxen of sacrifice are basic to our purification in practical life. But the pavement of stones pictures mankind in their so-called “good works,” a useless (though proud) basis that ungodly men prefer. How sadly is this type of evil repeated in our own day! Mere natural religion always substitutes human merit for Christ!
Ahaz also removed the Sabbath pavilion which had been built in the temple, and he removed the outer entrances from the house of God (“on account of the king, of Assyria” v.18). Things God had ordained were removed so as not to offend the king of Assyria. Ahaz feared the king of Assyria, but had no fear of God before his eyes. Let us be careful not to allow the opinions of men to influence us against the clear Word of God.
More of the history of Ahaz is found in 2Ch 28:1-27, and though we are told in Kings that Ahaz was buried with his fathers, yet Chronicles tells us (v.27) that he was not brought into the tombs of the kings of Israel. His son Hezekiah took the throne of Judah (v.20).
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
16:1 In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah {a} Ahaz the son of Jotham king of Judah began to reign.
(a) This was a wicked son of a godly father, as of him again came godly Hezekiah, and of him wicked Manasseh, save that God in the end showed him mercy. Thus we see how uncertain it is to depend on the dignity of our fathers.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Ahaz’s assessment 16:1-4
Pekah’s seventeenth year (2Ki 16:1) was 735 B.C. Ahaz did not follow David’s example of godliness (2Ki 16:2). Rather he followed the kings of Israel and those of his pagan neighbors and went so far as offering at least one of his sons as a human sacrifice (Lev 18:21; Deu 12:31; cf. Deu 3:27). [Note: See Wiseman, pp. 260-61.] These sacrificial rites took place near the confluence of the Hinnom and Kidron valleys at a place called Topheth. This place developed a reputation for wickedness, and then filth, because it became a constantly burning garbage heap. Jesus compared it to the place of eternal punishment (Gehenna; cf. Mat 5:22; Mat 5:29-30; Mat 10:28; et al).
". . . desperate to solve his political problems, Judah’s king becomes a dedicated polytheist in hopes that some god may deliver him from his trouble." [Note: House, p. 336.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
THE APOSTASIES OF AHAZ
2Ki 16:1-18
“For when we in our wickedness grow hard,
Oh the misery ont! the wise gods seal our eyes;
In our own filth drop our clear judgments; make us
Adore our errors; laugh at us while we strut
To our confusion.”
AHAZ was indifferent to these prophecies because his heart was otherwhere. It is clear from our authorities that this king had excited an unusually deep antipathy in the hearts of those later writers who judged religion not only from the earlier standpoint, but from the stern and inexorable requirements of the Deuteronomic and the Priestly Codes. The historian, adopting an unusual phrase, says that “he did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord, but he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel.” He not only continued the high places, as the best of his predecessors had done, but he increased their popularity and importance by personally offering sacrifices and burning incense “on the hills and under every green tree.” It is probable, too, that he introduced into Judah horses and chariots dedicated to the sun. “He made molten images for the Baalim,” says the Chronicler, “and burnt incense in the valley of the son of Himmon.”
This last was his crowning atrocity: he actually sanctioned the revolting worship of the abomination of the children of Ammon, which Solomon had tolerated on the mount of offense.” He made his son to pass through the fire.” The Chronicler expresses it still more dreadfully by saying that “he burnt his children in the fire.”
In the Valley of Ben-Hinnom, or of the Beni-Hinnom, of which the name is perpetuated in Gehenna, the place of torture for lost souls, there stood a frightful image of the king-Moloch, Melek, Malcham. It represented the sun-god, worshipped, not only as Baal under the emblems of prolific nature, but, like the Egyptian Typhon, as the emblem of the suns scorching and blighting force. It was perhaps a human figure with the head of an ox. The arms of the brazen image sloped downwards over a cistern, which was filled with fuel; and when a human sacrifice was to be offered to him, the child was probably first killed, and then placed on these brazen arms as a gift to the idol. It rolled down into the flaming tank, and was consumed amid the strains of music. Recourse was only had to the most frightful form of human sacrifice-the burning of grown-up victims-in extremities of disaster, as when Mesha of Moab offered up his eldest son to Chemosh. on the wall of Kirhareseth in the sight of his people and of the three invading armies. But the sacrifice of children was public, and perhaps annual. Hence Milton, following the learned researches of Selden in his Syntagma “De Dis Syriis,” writes:-
“First, Moloch, horrid king, besmeared with blood
Of human sacrifice, and parents tears;
Though, for the noise of drums and timbrels loud,
Their childrens cries unheard that passd through fire
To his grim idol. Him the Ammonite
Worshippd in Rabba and her watery plain,
In Argob and in Basan, to the stream
Of utmost Arnon. Nor content with such
Audacious neighborhood, the wisest heart
Of Solomon he led by fraud to build
His temple right against the Temple of God
On that opprobrious hill, and made his grove
The pleasant Valley of Hinnom, Tophet thence
And black Gehenna calld, the type of hell.”
But it may be doubted whether Ahaz, in spite of his frightful position, or, in later days, the less excusable Manasseh, really destroyed the lives of their young sons. The ancients had a notion that they could easily cheat their devil-deities. If a white ox of Clitumnus became unfitted for a victim to Jupiter of the Capitol by having on its body a few black spots, it was quite sufficient to make it pass with the Di faciles by chalking the black spots over it. If human victims had to be thrown into the Tiber to Hercules, Numa taught the people that little wickerwork images (scirpea) would suit the purpose just as well. Figures of dough were sometimes offered instead of human beings on the altar of Artemis of Tauris. Thus it became the custom, it is believed, merely to throw or to pass children through or over the flames, and conventionally to regard them as having been sacrificed, though they might escape the ordeal with little or no hurt. This was called februatio, or “lustration by fire.” We may hope that this device was adopted by the two Judaean kings, and, if so, they did not add to their horrible apostasy the crime of infanticide. If, however, Ahaz was even to the smallest extent implicated in such foul idolatries, it is not surprising that he was in no mood to listen to Isaiah. What is profoundly surprising, and is indeed a circumstance for which we cannot account, is that no word of fierce indignation was addressed to him on this account by Urijah, the high priest, whom Isaiah seems to describe as faithful, or by Zechariah, the son of Jeberechiah, or by Micah, or by Isaiah, who feared man so little and God so much.
The Assyrian party at the Court of Ahaz prevailed over the Egyptian. Until the accession of the Ethiopian Sabaco in 725, Egypt was indeed in so weak, harassed, and divided a condition under feeble native Pharaohs, that her help was obviously unavailable. The King of Judah, seeing no extrication from his calamities except in the way of worldly expediency, appealed to Tiglah-Pileser. In this he followed the precedent of his ancestor Asa, who had diverted the attack of Baasha by invoking the assistance of Syria. Ahaz sent to the Assyrian potentate the humble message, “I am thy servant and thy son: come up and save me from the Kings of Syria and Israel.” If he had not faith to accept Isaiahs promises, what else could he do, when Syria, Israel, the Philistines, Edom, and Moab were all arrayed against him? The ambassadors probably made their way, not without peril, along the east of Jordan, or else by sea from Joppa, and so inland. Whether they took with them the enormous bribe without which the appeal of the helpless king might have been in vain, or whether this was sent subsequently under Assyrian escort we do not know. It was euphemistically described as “a present” or “a blessing,” but must be regarded either as a tribute or a bribe.
Tiglath-Pileser II saw his opportunity, and at once invaded Damascus. In B.C. 733 he failed, but the next year he entirely subjugated the kingdom, and put an end to the dynasty. Rezin was probably put to death with the horrible barbarites which were normal among the brutal Ninevites; and as the Assyrians had no conception of colonization or the wise government of dependencies, the Syrian population was deported en masse to Elam and an unknown Kir. For a time Damascus was made “a ruinous heap,” and the cities of Aroer were the desolated lairs of pasturing flocks. Israel, as we have seen, was next overwhelmed by the same irremediable catastrophe, none of her people being left except such as might be compared to the mere gleanings of a vintage, and the few berries on the topmost boughs of the olive tree. {Isa 16:1-11}
Tiglath-Pileser meant to make Ahaz feel his yoke. He summoned him to do homage at Damascus, and there Ahaz once more displayed his cosmopolitan: estheticism at the expense of every pure tradition of the religion of his fathers.
His visit to Damascus was no doubt compulsory. His worldly policy, which looked so expedient, and which-apart from the defiance which it involved to the voice of God by His prophets-seemed to be so pardonable, had for the time succeeded. Isaiahs promises had been fulfilled to the letter. There was nothing more to fear either from Rezin or from Remaliahs son. Their kingdoms were a desolation. In his own annals Tiglath-Pileser does not exaggerate his achievements. He wrote as follows:-
“Rezins warriors I captured, and with the sword I destroyed.
Of his charioteers and [his horsemen] the arms I broke:
Their bow-bearing warriors, [their footmen] armed with spear and shield,
With my hand I captured them, and those that fought in their battle-line.
He to save his life fled away alone;
Like a deer [he ran], and entered into the great gate of his city.”
“His generals, whom I had taken alive, on crosses hung;
His country I subdued;
Damascus, his city, I subdued, and like a caged bird I shut him in.
I cut down the unnumbered trees of his forest; I left not one.
Hadara, the palace of the father of Rezin of Syria, [I burnt].
The city of Samaria I besieged, I captured; eight hundred of its people and children I took;
Their oxen and their sheep I carried away.
I took five hundred and ninety-one cities;
Over sixteen districts of Syria like a flood I swept.”
But the more complete destruction of Israel was due to Shalmaneser IV, who says, –
“The city of Samaria I besieged, I took,
I carried away twenty-seven thousand two hundred of its inhabitants;
I seized fifty of their chariots.
I gave up to plunder the rest of their possessions.
I appointed officers over them;
I laid on them the tribute of the former king.
In their place I settled the men of conquered countries.”
The immediate service to Judah looked immense. The Assyrian might safely claim, and Ahaz might truthfully confess, that the intervention of Tiglath-Pileser had rescued him from the apparent imminence of destruction. But the Assyrian kings served no one for nothing. The price which had to be paid for Tiglath-Pilesers intervention was vassalage and tribute. Ahaz, or, as the Assyrians call him, Jehoahaz, had styled himself Tiglath-Pilesers “servant and his son,” and the Assyrian chose to have substantial proof of this parental suzerainty. The great king therefore summoned the poor subject-potentate to Damascus, where he was holding his victorious court.
So far Ahaz had no reason to complain of his “dreadful patron”; and if he had returned when he paid his homage, no immediate harm would have happened. But during his visit he saw “the altar” (Heb.) at the conquered city. Was it the altar of the defeated Syrian god Rimmon? or did the Assyrian persuade his willing vassal to sacrifice at the portable altar of his god Assur? We may, perhaps, infer the former from 2Ch 28:23, where Ahaz says: “Because the gods of the kings of Syria help them, therefore will I sacrifice to them, that they may help me.” There is room to suspect some error here, because Rezin had fallen, and Damascus was in ruins, and Rimmon had conspicuously failed to help or to avenge his votaries. Ahaz admired the altar, to whatever god it had been erected; and unmindful, or perhaps unconscious, that the altar of the Temple of Jerusalem was declared in the Pentateuch to have been divinely ordained-a fact to which the historian does not himself refer-he sent to the head priest Urijah a pattern of the altar which had struck his fancy at Damascus. The subservient priest, without a murmur or a remonstrance, undertook to have a similar altar ready for Ahaz in the Temple by the time of his return-a crime, if crime it were, which the Chronicler conceals. “Never any prince was so foully idolatrous,” says Bishop Hall, “as that he wanted a priest to second him. An Urijah is fit to humour an Ahaz. Greatness could never command anything which some servile wits were not ready both to applaud and justify.” Certainly we should have hoped for more fidelity to ancient tradition from a man who earned the approving word of Isaiah; but it is only fair and just to admit that Urijah, in the universal ignorance which prevailed about the codes which were afterwards collected and published as the total legislation of the wilderness, may have viewed his obedience to the kings commands with very different eyes from those by which it was regarded in the sixth and fifth centuries before Christ. He may have been frankly unaware that he was guilty of an act which would afterwards be denounced as an apostatising enormity.
When Ahaz returned, he was so much pleased with his new plaything that he at once acted as priest at his own new altar. Without the least opposition from the priests-who had so sternly resisted Uzziah-he offered burnt-offerings, and meat-offerings, and drink-offerings, and sprinkled the blood of peace-offerings on his altar. Not content with this, he did not hesitate to order the removal of the huge brazen altar from the position, in front of the Temple porch, which it had held since the days of Solomon. He did this in order that his own favorite altar might be in the line of vision from the court, and not be overshadowed by the old one, which he shifted from the place of honor to the north side. He proceeded to call his own altar “the great altar,” and ordered that the morning burnt-offering, and the evening minchah, and all the principal sacrifices should henceforth be offered upon it. He did not wholly supersede the old brazen altar, which, he said, “shall be for me to inquire by,” or, as the Hebrew may perhaps mean, “it should await”-i.e., “I will hereafter consider what to do with it.”
Ahaz is charged with the additional crime of removing the ornamental festoons of bronze pomegranates from the layers, and the brazen oxen from under the molten sea, which henceforth lay dishonored, without its proper and splendid supports, on the pavement of the court. {1Ki 7:23-39} He also took away the balustrade of the royal “ascent” from the palace to the Temple, and made a new entrance of a less gorgeous character than that which, in the days of Solomon, the Queen of Sheba had admired.
No doubt these proceedings helped to heighten the unpopularity of Ahaz. But what could he do? He could, indeed, if he had had sufficient faith, have “trusted in Jehovah,” as Isaiah bade him do. But he was under the terrific pressure of hostile circumstances, and, being a weak and timid man, felt himself unable to resist the influence of the haughty politicians and worldly priests by whom he was surrounded-men who openly made Isaiah their scoff. When he invited the interposition of Tiglath-Pileser, all the other consequences of humiliation would naturally follow. He probably disliked as much as any one to see the great molten laver taken off the backs of the oxen which showed the skill of the ancient Hiram, and did not admire the despoiled aspect of the shrine of his capital. But if the King of Assyria or his emissaries had (as the historian implies) cast greedy eyes on these splendid objects of antiquity, the poor vassal could not refuse them. Better, he may have thought, that these material ornaments should go to Nineveh than that he should be forced to exact yet heavier burdens from an impoverished people. His expedient is mentioned among his crimes, yet no one blamed the pious Hezekiah when, under similar circumstances, he acted in precisely the same manner. {2Ki 18:15-16}
The Chronicler gives a darker aspect to his misdoings by saying that he cut to pieces the vessels of the house of God, and made him altars in every corner of Jerusalem, and bamoth to burn incense unto other gods in every several city of Judah. He says, further, that he closed the great gates of the Temple; put an end to the kindling of the lamps, the burning of incense, and the daily offerings; and left the whole Temple to fall into rum and neglect. We know no more of him. He lived through an epoch marked by the final crisis in the existence of the kingdom of Israel. Dark omens of every kind were around him, and he seems to have been too frivolous to see them. If he plumed himself on the removal of the two relentless invaders Rezin and Pekah, he must have lived to feel that the terror of Assyria had come appreciably nearer. Tiglath-Pileser had only helped Judah in furtherance of his own designs, and his exactions came like a chronic distress after the acuter crisis. Nor was there any improvement when he died in 727. He was succeeded by Shalmaneser IV, and Shalmaneser IV by Sargon in 722, the year of the fall of Samaria. We know no more of Ahaz. The historian says that he was buried with his fathers, and the Chronicler adds, as in the case of Uzziah and other kings, that he was not permitted to rest in the sepulchers of the kings. He had sown the wind; his son Hezekiah had to reap the whirlwind.
PROBABLE DATES
B.C.
745 Accession of Tiglath-Pileser.
746 Death of Uzziah. Accession of Jotham. First vision of Isaiah. {Isa 6:1-13}
735 Accession of Ahaz. Syro-Ephraimitish war.
734-732 Siege and capture of Damascus, and ravage of Northern Israel by Tiglath-Pileser. Visit of Ahaz to Damascus.
727 Accession of Shalmaneser IV
722 Accession of Sargon. Capture of Samaria, and captivity of the Ten Tribes.
720 Defeat of Sabaco by Sargon at Raphia.
715(?) Accession of Hezekiah.
711 Sargon captures Ashdod.
707 Sargon defeats Merodach-Baladan, and captures Babylon.
705 Murder of Sargon, Accession of Sennacherib.
701 Sennacherib besieges Ekron. Defeats Egypt at Altaqu. Invades Judah, and spares Hezekiah. Invades Egypt, and sends the Rabshakeh to Jerusalem. Disaster of Assyrians at Pelusinm, and disappearance from before Jerusalem.
697 Death of Hezekiah. Accession of Manasseh.
681 Death of Sennacherib.
608 Battle of Megiddo. Death of Josiah.
607 Fall of Nineveh and Assyria. Triumph of Babylon.
605 Battle of Carchemish. Defeat of Pharaoh Necho by Nebuchadrezzar.
509 First deportation of Jews to Babylon by Nebuchadrezzar.
588 Destruction of Jerusalem. Second deportation.
538 Cyrus captures Babylon.
536 Decree of Cyrus. Return of Zerubbabel and the first Jewish exiles.
458 Return of Ezra.