Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Kings 16:5
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].
5. came up to Jerusalem to war ] The plans which had been formed in the reign of Jotham (see 2Ki 15:37) were now put into execution. And from Isa 7:2 we can see into what agitation the people of Judah were brought by the advance of the allied enemies. ‘It was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim (i.e. Israel). And his heart was moved and the heart of his people as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind’.
they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him] i.e. They never took Jerusalem (cf. Isa 7:1). This is the security which Isaiah was instructed to promise to Ahaz. But it is evident from the narrative of the Chronicler that much damage was done in the land by the invasion. He says (2Ch 28:5) that Ahaz was delivered into the hand of the king of Syria, who smote him and carried away a great multitude of captives and brought them to Damascus, and he was also delivered into the hand of Pekah king of Israel, who slew in Judah a hundred and twenty thousand men in one day, and carried away captive two hundred thousand, women, sons and daughters, along with much spoil. We can understand the stir caused in Jerusalem by the approach of an army which had already inflicted such blows upon the land.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Rezin and Pekah, who had already begun their attacks upon Judaea in the reign of Jotham 2Ki 15:37, regarded the accession of a boy-king, only 16 years of age, as especially favorable to their projects, and proceeded without loss of time to carry them out. The earlier scenes of the war, omitted by the writer of Kings, are given at some length in 2Ch 28:5-15.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 5. But could not overcome him.] It is likely that this was the time when Isaiah was sent to console Ahaz; (see Isa 7:1😉 and predicted the death both of Rezin and Pekah, his enemies.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Because God of his own mere grace undertook their protection, as he promised to do, and disappointed the hopes and design of their enemies; of which see on Isa 7.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
5. Then Rezin king of Syria andPekah son of Remaliah king of Israel came up toJerusalemNotwithstanding their great efforts and militarypreparations, they failed to take it and, being disappointed, raisedthe siege and returned home (compare Isa7:1).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then Rezin king of Syria, and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel, came up to Jerusalem to war,…. To fight with Ahaz, moved to it by the Lord, to chastise Ahaz for his idolatry, 2Ki 15:37
but could not overcome him; so as to take Jerusalem, and set up another king there, as their scheme was, Isa 7:5 though they had both at other times got great advantages over him, and slew many of his people, and carried them captive, see 2Ch 28:5.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Of the war which the allied Syrians and Israelites waged upon Ahaz, only the principal fact is mentioned in 2Ki 16:5, namely, that the enemy marched to Jerusalem to war, but were not able to make war upon the city, i.e., to conquer it; and in 2Ki 16:6 we have a brief notice of the capture of the port of Elath by the Syrians. We find 2Ki 16:5 again, with very trifling alterations, in Isa 7:1 at the head of the prophecy, in which the prophet promises the king the help of God and predicts that the plans of his enemies will fail. According to this, the allied kings intended to take Judah, to dethrone Ahaz, and to install a vassal king, viz., the son of Tabeel. We learn still more concerning this war, which had already begun, according to 2Ki 15:37, in the closing years of Jotham, from 2Ch 28:5-15; namely, that the two kings inflicted great defeats upon Ahaz, and carried off many prisoners and a large amount of booty, but that the Israelites set their prisoners at liberty again, by the direction of the prophet Oded, and after feeding and clothing them, sent them back to their brethren. It is now generally admitted that these statements are not at variance with our account (as Ges., Winer, and others maintain), but can be easily reconciled with it, and simply serve to complete it.
(Note: Compare C. P. Caspari ‘ s article on the Syro-Ephraimitish war in the reigns of Jotham and Ahaz ( Univers. Progr. von Christiania, 1849), where the different views concerning the relation between the two accounts are fully discussed, and the objections to the credibility of the account given in the Chronicles most conclusively answered.)
The only questions in dispute are, whether the two accounts refer to two different campaigns, or merely to two different events in the same campaign, and whether the battles to which the Chronicles allude are to be placed before or after the siege of Jerusalem mentioned in our text. The first question cannot be absolutely decided, since there are no decisive arguments to be found in favour of either the one supposition or the other; and even “the one strong argument” which Caspari finds in Isa 7:6 against the idea of two campaigns is not conclusive. For if the design which the prophet there attributes to the allied kings, “we will make a breach in Judah,” i.e., storm his fortresses and his passes and conquer them, does obviously presuppose, that at the time when the enemy spake or thought in this manner, Judah was still standing uninjured and unconquered, and therefore the battles mentioned in 2Ch 28:5-6 cannot yet have been fought; it by no means follows from the connection between Isa 7:6 and Isa 7:1 (of the same chapter) that Isa 7:6 refers to plans which the enemy had only just formed at the time when Isaiah spoke (2Ki 7:4.). On the contrary, Isaiah is simply describing the plans which the enemy devised and pursued, and which they had no doubt formed from the very commencement of the war, and now that they were marching against Jerusalem, hoped to attain by the conquest of the capital. All that we can assume as certain is, that the war lasted longer than a year, since the invasion of Judah by these foes had already commenced before the death of Jotham, and that the greater battles (2Ch 28:5-6) were not fought till the time of Ahaz, and it was not till his reign that the enemy advanced to the siege of Jerusalem. – With regard to the second question, it cannot be at all doubtful that the battles mentioned preceded the advance of the enemy to the front of Jerusalem, and therefore our account merely mentions the last and principal event of the war, and that the enemy was compelled to retreat from Jerusalem by the fact that the king of Assyria, Tiglath-pileser, whom Ahaz had called to his help, marched against Syria and compelled Rezin to hurry back to the defence of his kingdom. – It is more difficult to arrange in the account of the capture of Elath by the Syrians (2Ki 16:6) among the events of this war. The expression merely assigns it in a perfectly general manner to the period of the war. The supposition of Thenius, that it did not take place till after the siege of Jerusalem had been relinquished, and that Rezin, after the failure of his attempt to take Jerusalem, that he might not have come altogether in vain, marched away from Jerusalem round the southern point of the Dead Sea and conquered Elath, is impossible, because he would never have left his own kingdom in such a defenceless state to the advancing Assyrians. We must therefore place the taking of Elath by Rezin before his march against Jerusalem, though we still leave it undecided how Rezin conducted the war against Ahaz: whether by advancing along the country to the east of the Jordan, defeating the Judaeans there (2Ch 28:5), and then pressing forward to Elath and conquering that city, while Pekah made a simultaneous incursion into Judah from the north and smote Ahaz, so that it was not till after the conquest of Elath that Rezin entered the land from the south, and there joined Pekah for a common attack upon Jerusalem, as Caspari supposes; or whether by advancing into Judah along with Pekah at the very outset, and after he had defeated the army of Ahaz in a great battle, sending a detachment of his own army to Idumaea, to wrest that land from Judah and conquer Elath, while he marched with the rest of his forces in combination with Pekah against Jerusalem.
“Rezin brought Elath to Aram and drove the Jews out of Elath, and Aramaeans came to Elath and dwelt therein to this day.” does not mean “to lead back” here, but literally to turn, to bring to a person; for Elath had never belonged to Aram before this, but was an Edomitish city, so that even if we were to read for , could not mean to bring back. But there is no ground whatever for altering into (Cler., Mich., Ew., Then., and others), whereas the form is at variance with such an alteration through the assumption of an exchange of r and d, because is never written defective except in Eze 25:14. There are also no sufficient reasons for altering into ( Keri); is merely a Syriac form for with the dull Syriac u -sound, several examples of which form occur in this very chapter, – e.g., for 2Ki 16:7, for 2Ki 16:10, and for 2Ki 16:6, – whereas , with additions, is only written plene twice in the ancient books, and that in the Chronicles, where the scriptio plena is generally preferred (2Ch 25:14 and 2Ch 28:17), but is always written defective ( ). Moreover the statement that “ ( Edomites, not the Edomites) came thither,” etc., would be very inappropriate, since Edomites certainly lived in this Idumaean city in perfect security, even while it was under Judaean government. And there would be no sense in the expression “the Edomites dwelt there to this day,” since the Edomites remained in their own land to the time of the captivity. All this is applicable to Aramaeans alone. As soon as Rezin had conquered this important seaport town, it was a very natural thing to establish an Aramaean colony there, which obtained possession of the trade of the town, and remained there till the time when the annals of the kings were composed (for it is to this that the expression refers), even after the kingdom of Rezin had long been destroyed by the Assyrians, since Elath and the Aramaeans settled there were not affected by that blow.
(Note: If we only observe that has not the article, and therefore the words merely indicate the march of an Aramaean colony to Elath, it is evident that would be unsuitable; for when the had been driven from the city which the Syrians had conquered, it was certainly not some Edomites but the Edomites who took possession again. Hence Winer, Caspari, and others are quite right in deciding that is the only correct reading.)
As soon as the Edomites had been released by Rezin from the control of Judah, to which they had been brought back by Amaziah and Uzziah (2Ki 14:7, 2Ki 14:22), they began plundering Judah again (2Ch 28:17); and even the Philistines took possession of several cities in the lowland, to avenge themselves for the humiliation they had sustained at the hand of Uzziah (2Ch 28:18).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
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. 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 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, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin.
Here is, 1. The attempt of his confederate neighbours, the kings of Syria and Israel, upon him. They thought to make themselves masters of Jerusalem, and to set a king of their own in it, Isa. vii. 6. In this they fell short, but the king of Syria recovered Elath, a considerable port upon the Red Sea, which Amaziah had taken from the Syrians, ch. xiv. 22. What can those keep that have lost their religion? Let them expect, thenceforward, to be always on the losing hand. 2. His project to get clear of them. Having forsaken God, he had neither courage nor strength to make head against his enemies, nor could he, with any boldness, ask help of God; but he made his court to the king of Assyria, and got him to come in for his relief. Those whose hearts condemn them will go any where in a day of distress rather than to God. Was it because there was not a God in Israel that he sent to the Assyrian for help? Was the rock of ages removed out of its place, that he stayed himself on this broken reed? The sin itself was its own punishment; for, though it is true that he gained his point (the king of Assyria hearkened to him, and, to serve his own turn, made a descent upon Damascus, whereby he gave a powerful diversion to the king of Syria, v. 9, and obliged him to let fall his design against Ahaz, carrying the Syrians captive to Kir, as Amos had expressly foretold, ch. i. 5), yet, considering all, he made but a bad bargain; for, to compass this, (1.) He enslaved himself (v. 7): I am thy servant and thy son, that is, “I will be as dutiful and obedient to thee as to a master or father, if thou wilt but do me this good turn.” Had he thus humbled himself to God, and implored his favour, he might have been delivered upon easier terms; he might have saved his money, and needed only to have parted with his sins. But, if the prodigal forsake his father’s house, he soon becomes a slave to the worst of masters, Luke xv. 15. (2.) He impoverished himself; for he took the silver and gold that were laid up in the treasury both of the temple and of the kingdom, and sent it to the king of Assyria, v. 8. Both church and state must be squeezed and exhausted, to gratify this his new patron and guardian. I know not what authority he had thus to dispose of the public stock; but it is common for those that have brought themselves into straits by one sin to help themselves out by another; and those that have alienated themselves from God will make no difficulty of alienating any of his rights.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Judah Invaded Commentary on 2Ki 16:5-6 AND 2Ch 28:5 -I5
The Lord soon brought chastisement on King Ahaz Note that the Scriptures refer to “the Lord his God”, not that Ahaz was a worshipper of the Lord, for he was certainly not. He was God’s representative on the throne of David, as He promised by His oath in covenant (2Sa 1:16). In that sense the Lord was his God, as He was also Judah’s and Israel’s God, though they did not so acknowledge Him.
The punishment was overwhelming, falling on guilty king and guilty people alike. Two kings, Syria’s Rezin and Israel’s Pekah, brought their armies into Judah and besieged Jerusalem. It was a very trying and fearful time. It is described more fully in Isa 7:1-2. (The student should read all of Isaiah, chapter 7, with this chapter of the commentary.) Though these kings could not capture Jerusalem they did wreak great harm. On one day a hundred twenty thousand of the army of Judah was slain, hundreds of thousands of the people were made captive and carried away into bondage to Damascus. Rezin himself went all the way to the Red Sea port of Elath, which the kings of Judah had wrested from Edom and made it his.
The army of Israel captured several of the notable men of Ahaz’s court and put them to death, including the crown prince, Maaseiah, the governor of the king’s house, and his chief counsellor. A man named Zichri, an Ephraimite, did this great feat of war. Two hundred thousand men, women, and children were taken by the Israelite army who carried them back to Israel, intending to enslave them, even though they were Israelites like themselves.
The next incident related reveals that not all the people of the northern kingdom were devoid of godliness and righteous fear. As the army approached their homes with their many captives they were met by a brave prophet of the Lord, named Oded. Oded took them to task for their highhandedness against their brother nation, Judah. He told them they had been able to accomplish these things against Judah because they had provoked the Lord, who was angry with them, and who thus allowed them to be delivered to Israel and Syria. The ruthlessness with which they had slaughtered and devastated the land of Judah had not gone unnoticed by the Lord. Now they had added to their trespass by bringing back these many captives with intent of making them bondservants. They were themselves guilty of grave sins against the Lord and He would surely pour out His wrath on them. The prophet advised them to return the captives to their homes.
Four of the princes of Ephraim heard the message of Oded and were mindful of its truth. These refused to allow the entry of the captives into Israel, and they too berated the soldiers for taking their fellow Israelites captive. Surprisingly there were still God-fearing people in the northern kingdom and their admonition was heeded. The men left the captives there on the border, with the spoil. The princes took charge, supplied clothing and food from the spoil for the captives, provided transportation for those unable to return on foot and sent them to Jericho, in the tribe of Benjamin, to be returned to their homes.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(5) Then Rezin king of Syria . . . to war.This verse agrees almost word for word with Isa. 7:1. The time is soon after the accession of Ahaz. Jotham, the last of a series of strong and generally successful princes, had died at a critical moment, when Pekah and Rezin were maturing their plans against his kingdom. The opposing parties in northern Israel suspended their feuds to make common cause against Judah (Isa. 9:21), and the proud inhabitants of Samaria hoped by this policy to more than restore the prestige forfeited in previous years of calamity (Isa. 9:9-10). At the same time the Syrians began to operate in the eastern dependencies of Judah, their aim being to possess themselves of the harbour of Elath on the Red Sea, while the Philistines attacked the Judeans in the rear, and ravaged the fertile lowlands (Isa. 9:12, 2Ki. 16:6). A heavy and sudden disaster had already fallen on the Judean arms, a defeat in which head and tail, palm-branch and rush had been mown down in indiscriminate slaughter (Isa. 9:14). Ahaz was no fit leader in so critical a time; his character was petulant and childish, his policy was dictated in the harem (Isa. 3:12). Nor was the internal order of the state calculated to inspire confidence. Wealth, indeed, had greatly accumulated in the preceding time of prosperity, but its distribution had been such that it weakened rather than added strength to the nation. The rich nobles were steeped in sensual luxury, the court was full of gallantry, feminine extravagance and vanity gave the tone to aristocratic society (Isa. 5:11; Isa. 3:16; comp. Isa. 3:12; Isa. 4:4), which, like the noblesse of France on the eve of the Revolution, was absorbed in gaiety and pleasure, while the masses were ground down by oppression, and the cry of their distress filled the land (Isa. 3:15; Isa. 5:7).Prof. Robertson Smith.
They besieged Ahaz.The allies wanted to compel Judah to join them in their attempt to throw off the burdensome yoke of Assyria, imposed in 738 B.C. (2Ki. 15:19); and thought the best way to secure this was to dethrone the dynasty of David, and set up a creature of their ownthe son of Tabeal (Isa. 7:6).
Could not overcome him.Literally, they were not able to war, as in Isa. 7:2. The allies could not storm the city, which had been strongly fortified by Uzziah and Jotham (2Ch. 26:9; 2Ch. 27:3).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
5. Rezin and Pekah came up In the days of Jotham they had formed an alliance and commenced operations against the kingdom of Judah, but for some reason they seem not to have come up to Jerusalem until the beginning of Ahaz’s reign. Perhaps Jotham’s soldier-like power and valour were more than a match for the allied armies.
Besieged Ahaz His weakness and wickedness emboldened his foes.
Could not overcome The army of Jerusalem seems to have been inspirited by Isaiah’s words, who came forward at this season of alarm, and uttered the oracle of doom against “the two tails of these smoking firebrands, Rezin and the son of Remaliah.” Compare Isa 7:1-9.
But though unable to capture Jerusalem, they did immense injury to the kingdom of Judah. According to 2Ch 28:5-15, they either slew or carried into exile hundreds of thousands of the people, and also took much spoil. The Israelites, however, at the expostulation of the prophet Obed, released their captives and sent them back to Jericho.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The prophet Isaiah, hath given us an account of this transaction in the 7th chapter of his prophecy. The Reader will do well, therefore, to consult the passage in Isaiah’s writings. But what I would more particularly request the Reader to observe in that chapter of the prophet is, the very gracious message which the Lord at this time sent to Ahaz. Notwithstanding the daring impiety of this man, yet, as a branch of the house of David, the Lord sends to him a sign of his mercy in the promise of the Messiah. How gracious was it in the Lord to treat any longer with such degenerate creatures! how increasingly gracious at such a time to point to the remedy for sin in the promise of a Redeemer! and how abundantly and astonishingly gracious thus to refresh the souls of the people with the outlines of Jesus’s person and character. Reader! I beseech you to turn to the account of it; Isa 7:10-16 . And when you have read of God’s grace, go on to read of his sure judgments to the despisers of his mercy; Isa 7:17 to the end.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2Ki 16:5 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].
Ver. 5. Then Rezin king of Syria and Pekah, &c. ] After a former invasion of the land, and great spoil made, 2Ch 28:5 these two confederate kings came up to Jerusalem, the chief city, which they had already devoured in their hopes, resolving to set up the son of Tabeal, some great man of Syria, for king. Isa 7:5-6
And besieged Ahaz.
But could not overcome him.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Rezin. Compare Isa 7. He and Pekah are the two firebrands of 2Ki 7:4. The events in verses: 2Ki 16:5-9 are said by some to contradict 2Ch 28:5-20; but the event recorded in 2 Chron. happened the year before, directly after (2Ch 28:5-20), in 631 (see App-50.) Rezin and Pekah both attacked directly after his accession (successfully). But they confederated unsuccessfully, came up. Pekah’s design to persuade Ahaz failed; and he tried to supersede him himself (“Tabeal” being a cipher for Remaliah). Compare Isa 7:6.
could not: because of the promise to David. Compare Isa 7:7, Isa 7:16.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
am 3262, bc 742
Rezin: 2Ki 15:37, 2Ch 28:5-15, Isa 7:1, Isa 7:2-9
but could not: 1Ki 11:36, 1Ki 15:4, Isa 7:4-6, Isa 7:14, Isa 8:6, Isa 8:9, Isa 8:10, Isa 9:6, Isa 9:7
Reciprocal: 2Ch 28:16 – did king Isa 8:12 – A confederacy Eze 16:57 – reproach
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2Ki 16:5-6. But could not overcome him Because God, of his own mere grace, undertook the protection of Judah, as he promised to do, and disappointed the designs and hopes of their enemies, Isa 7:1-9. At that time Rezin recovered Elath Took it from the Jews, who had not long been in possession of it, having but lately recovered it, with the rest of Edom: see on 2Ki 14:22. So that, though the confederate kings of Syria and Israel failed, through the interference of Divine Providence, in their attempts on Jerusalem, the former made himself master of this considerable and very commodious port on the Red sea.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
16:5 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 {c} [him].
(c) For the Lord preserved the city and his people for the sake of his promise made to David.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Ahaz’s folly 16:5-9
Aram had captured the town of Elath from Judah (2Ki 16:6; cf. 2Ki 14:22). When Aram and Israel threatened to invade Judah, Ahaz did not seek Yahweh but Tiglath-Pileser for deliverance. Rather than putting himself under Yahweh’s direction, he appealed to the king of Assyria as his "servant" and his "son" (2Ki 16:7). This reflects a failure to see his role under God and God’s role over Israel. Instead of making sacrifices to Yahweh, he sent them to Tiglath-Pileser (2Ki 16:8).