Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Kings 16:2
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.
2. and did [R.V. he did ] not that which was right ] This negative form of statement has not occurred in the account of any previous king of Judah. The offences of Ahaz were exceptional.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 2. Twenty years old was Ahaz] Here is another considerable difficulty in the chronology. Ahaz was but twenty years old when he began to reign, and he died after he had reigned sixteen years; consequently his whole age amounted only to thirty-six years. But Hezekiah his son was twenty-five years old when he began to reign; and if this were so, then Ahaz must have been the father of Hezekiah when he was but eleven years of age! Some think that the twenty years mentioned here respect the beginning of the reign of Jotham, father of Ahaz; so that the passage should be thus translated: Ahaz was twenty years of age when his father began to reign; and consequently he was fifty-two years old when he died, seeing Jotham reigned sixteen years: and therefore Hezekiah was born when his father was twenty-seven years of age. This however is a violent solution, and worthy of little credit. It is better to return to the text as it stands, and allow that Ahaz might be only eleven or twelve years old when he had Hezekiah: this is not at all impossible; as we know that the youth of both sexes in the eastern countries are marriageable at ten or twelve years of age, and are frequently betrothed when they are but nine. I know a woman, an East Indian, who had the second of her two first children when she was only fourteen years of age, and must have had the first when between eleven and twelve. I hold it therefore quite a possible case that Ahaz might have had a son born to him when he was but eleven or twelve years old.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign: of the difficulty hence arising, See Poole “2Ki 18:2“, to which it more properly belongs.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem,…. The same number of years his father did:
and did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord God, like David his father; his more remote progenitor, nor even like his more immediate father, from whom he received such good instructions, and of whom he had so good an example; but grace is neither propagated by blood, nor obtained through the force of education.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
XVI.
THE REIGN OF AHAZ.
(Comp. 2 Chronicles 28)
(2) Twenty years old.The number should probably be twenty -and- five, according to the LXX., Syriac, and Arabic of 2Ch. 28:1. Otherwise, Ahaz was begotten when his father was ten (or, eleven) years olda thing perhaps not impossible in the East, where both sexes reach maturity earlier than among Western races.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2. Twenty years old sixteen years So his whole age was thirty-six years. But he was immediately succeeded by his son Hezekiah, who was at the time twenty-five years old. 2Ki 18:2. Accordingly Ahaz must have begotten his son Hezekiah when he was only eleven years old. To meet this difficulty some copies of the Septuagint, and the Syriac and Arabic versions at the parallel place in Chronicles (2Ch 28:1,) read twenty-five instead of twenty years. But most interpreters accept the common reading, and argue that it was nowise impossible for Ahaz to beget a son in his eleventh or twelfth year. Compare note on 2Ki 18:2.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Ki 16:2 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.
Ver. 2. When he began to reign, ] i.e., Himself alone after his father’s death; in whose lifetime he had been designed to the kingdom, and then he was but twenty years old. Or, When he, that is, Jotham, began to reign. See the like, 2Ch 36:9 .
And reigned sixteen years.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Twenty years old . . . sixteen. There is no reason for concluding that “there must be an error in one of the passages” (viz. 2Ki 16:2 and 2Ki 18:2), for Ahaz begins in 622 and reigns till 616. As he was twenty when he began, he was born in 652, and died when thirty-six. Hezekiah begins in 617, and reigns twenty-nine years, till 588. As he was twenty-five when he began he was therefore born in 642, and died when he was fifty-four, From this it is clear that Ahaz was between ten and eleven when his son Hezekiah was born. This sounds improbable only to Western ears. But, to Eastern ears and physiological phenomena, there is nothing unusual, and nothing to justify a conclusion that the text is corrupt the usual excuse for ignorance of the facts.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
did not: 2Ki 14:3, 2Ki 15:3, 2Ki 15:34, 2Ki 18:3, 2Ki 22:2, 1Ki 3:14, 1Ki 9:4, 1Ki 11:4-8, 1Ki 15:3, 2Ch 17:3, 2Ch 29:2, 2Ch 34:2, 2Ch 34:3
Reciprocal: 2Ki 17:7 – the Lord 2Ki 21:2 – And he did 2Ch 28:1 – Ahaz
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2Ki 16:2. Ahaz did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord Contrary to what might have been expected, considering the good education which, doubtless, Jotham, his pious father, gave him, and the excellent example he set him. Like David his father Or progenitor. It was his honour that he was of the house and lineage of David, and it was owing to Gods ancient covenant with David, that he was now upon the throne: but he had none of that concern and affection for the instituted worship and service of God, for which David was so remarkable. He had no love for the temple, made no conscience of his duty to God, nor had any regard to his law, and therefore was a reproach to that honourable name and family, to which he was under such great obligations, and which, of consequence, was really a reproach to him, showing his wickedness in a more aggravated point of view.