Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - 2 Chronicles 28:16 - 28:16
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The further chastisements inflicted upon King Ahaz and the kingdom of Judah. - 2Ch 28:16. At this time, when the kings Rezin and Pekah had so smitten Ahaz, the latter sent to the king of Assyria praying him for help. The time when Ahaz sought the help of the king of Assyria is neither exactly stated in 2Ki 16:7-9, nor can we conclude, as Bertheau thinks we can, from Isa. 7. that it happened soon after the invasion of Judah by the allied kings. The plural אַשּׁוּר מַלְכֵי is rhetorical, like the plur. בָּנָין, 2Ch 28:3. For, that Ahaz applied only to one king, in the opinion of the chronicler also, we learn from 2Ch 28:20, 2Ch 28:21. By the plural the thought is expressed that Ahaz, instead of seeking the help of Jahve his God, which the prophet had promised him (Isa 7:4.), turned to the kings of the world-power, so hostile to the kingdom of God, from whom he naturally could obtain no real help. Even here the thought which is expressed only in 2Ch 28:20, 2Ch 28:21, is present to the mind of the author of the Chronicle. For before he narrates the issue of the help thus sought from the Assyrian world-power in 2Ch 28:17-19, he ranges all the other afflictions which Judah suffered by its enemies, viz., the devastating inroads of the Edomites and Philistines, in a series of circumstantial clauses, as they preceded in time the oppression of Tiglath-pileser.
2Ch 28:17
2Ch 28:17 is to be translated, “And besides, the Edomites had come, and had inflicted a defeat upon Judah, and carried away captives.” עֹוד, yet besides, praeterea, as in Gen 43:6; Isa 1:5. The Edomites had been made subject to the kingdom of Judah only by Amaziah and Uzziah (2Ch 25:11., 2Ch 26:2); but freed by Rezin from this (cf. 2Ki 16:6), they immediately seized the opportunity to make an inroad upon Judah, and take vengeance on the inhabitants.
2Ch 28:18
And the Philistines whom Uzziah had subdued (2Ch 26:6) made use of the pressure of the Syrians and Ephraimites upon Judah, not only to shake off the yoke imposed upon them, but also to fall plundering upon the cities of the lowland and the south of Judah, and to extend their territory by the capture of several cities of Judah. They took Beth-shemesh, the present Ain Shems; and Ajalon, the present village Jâlo (see on 1Ch 6:44 and 1Ch 6:54); Gederoth in the lowland (Jos 15:41), not yet discovered, for there are not sufficient grounds for identifying it with Gedera (Jos 15:36), which v. de Velde has pointed out south-eastward from Jabneh (see on 1Ch 12:4); Shocho, the present Shuweike, which Rehoboam had fortified (2Ch 11:7); Timnah, on the frontier of the tribal domain of Judah, the present Tibneh, three-quarters of an hour to the west of Ain Shems (see on Jos 15:10); and Gimzo, now Jimsû, a large village about two miles south-east of Lydda (Lud) on the way to Jerusalem (Rob. sub voce). The three last-named cities, with their daughters, i.e., the small villages dependent upon them.
2Ch 28:19-21
Judah suffered this defeat, because God humbled them on account of Ahaz. Ahaz is called king of Israel, not because he walked in the ways of the kings of the kingdom of the ten tribes (2Ch 28:2), but ironically, because his government was the bitterest satire upon the name of the king of Israel, i.e., of the people of God (Casp.); so that Israel here, and in 2Ch 28:27, as in 2Ch 21:2; 2Ch 12:6, is used with reference to the pregnant signification of the word. הִפְרִיעַ כִּי, for (Ahaz) had acted wantonly in Judah; not: made Judah wanton, for הִפְרִיעַ is construed with b, not with accus. obj., as in Exo 5:4.
After this episode the narrator comes back upon the help which Ahaz sought of the Assyrians. The Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser (on the name, see on 1Ch 5:6) did indeed come, but עָלָיו, against him (Ahaz), and oppressed him, but strengthened him not. חֲזָקֹו וְלֹא לֹו וַיָּצַר Thenius and Bertheau translate: he oppressed him, that is, besieged him, yet did not overcome him; adducing in support of this, that חָזַק c. accus. cannot be shown to occur in the signification to strengthen one, and according to Jer 20:7; 1Ki 16:22, is to be translated, to overcome. But this translation does not at all suit the reason given in the following clause: “for Ahaz had plundered the house of Jahve, ... and given it to the king of Asshur; but it did not result in help to him.” The sending away of the temple and palace treasures to the Assyrian king, to obtain his help, cannot possibly be stated as the reason why Tiglath-pileser besieged Ahaz, but did not overcome him, but only as a reason why he did not give Ahaz the expected help, and so did not strengthen him. חֲזָקֹו וְלֹא corresponds to the לֹו לְעֶזְרָה וְלֹא, 2Ch 28:21, and both clauses refer back to לֹו לַעְזֹר, 2Ch 28:16. That which Ahaz wished to buy from Tiglath-pileser, by sending him the treasures of the palace and the temple, - namely, help against his enemies, - he did not thereby obtain, but the opposite, viz., that Tiglath-pileser came against him and oppressed him. When, on the contrary, Thenius takes the matter thus, that the subjection of Ahaz under Tiglath-pileser was indeed prevented by the treasures given, but the support desired was not purchased by them, he has ungrammatically taken חָזַק as imperfect, and violently torn away the לֹו לְעֶזְרָה לֹו וְלֹא from what precedes. If we connect these words, as the adversative וְלֹא requires, with וגו וַיִּתֵּן, then the expression, “Ahaz gave the Assyrian king the treasures of the temple, ... but it did not result in help to him,” gives no support to the idea that Tiglath-pileser besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him. The context therefore necessarily demands that חָזַק should have the active signification, to strengthen, notwithstanding that חָזַק in Kal is mainly used as intransitive. Moreover, לֹו וַיָּצַר also does not denote he besieged, as אֵלָיו וַיָּצַר or עָלָיו, 2Sa 20:15; 1Sa 23:8; but only, he oppressed him, and cannot here be translated otherwise than the לֹו חָצַר, 2Ch 28:22, which corresponds to it, where Bertheau also has decided in favour of the signification oppress. It is not stated wherein the oppression consisted; but without doubt it was that Tiglath-pileser, after he had both slain Rezin and conquered his kingdom, and also taken away many cities in Galilee and the land of Naphtali from Pekah, carrying away the inhabitants to Assyria (2Ki 16:9 and 2Ki 15:29), advanced against Ahaz himself, to make him a tributary. The verbs חָלַק and וַיִּתֵּן (2Ch 28:21) are pluperfects: “for Ahaz had plundered,” etc. Not when Tiglath-pileser oppressed him, but when he besought help of that king, Ahaz had sent him the treasures of the temple and the palace as שֹׁחַד, 2Ki 16:7-8. חָלַק denotes to plunder, like חֵלֶק, a share of booty, Num 31:36, and booty, Job 17:5. The selection of this word for the taking away of the treasures of silver and gold out of the temple and palace arises from the impassioned nature of the language. The taking away of these treasures was, in fact, a plundering of the temple and of the palace. Had Ahaz trusted in the Lord his God, he would not have required to lay violent hands on these treasures. וְהַשָּׂרִים is added to הַמֶּלֶךְ בֵּית, to signify that Ahaz laid hands upon the precious things belonging to the high officials who dwelt in the palace, and delivered them over to the Assyrian king (Berth.).
Although the author of the Chronicle makes the further remark, that the giving of these treasures over did not result in help to Ahaz, yet it cannot be at all doubtful that he had the fact recorded in 2Ki 16:7-9 before his eyes, and says nothing inconsistent with that account. According to 2Ki 16:9, Tiglath-pileser, in consequence of the present sent him, took the field, conquered and destroyed the kingdom of Rezin, and also took possession of the northern part of the kingdom of Israel, as is narrated in 2Ki 15:29. The author of the Chronicle has not mentioned these events, because Ahaz was not thereby really helped. Although the kings Rezin and Pekah were compelled to abandon their plan of capturing Jerusalem and subduing the kingdom of Judah, by the inroad of the Assyrians into their land, yet this help was to be regarded as nothing, seeing that Tiglath-pileser not only retained the conquered territories and cities for himself, but also undertook the whole campaign, not to strengthen Ahaz, but for the extension of his own (the Assyrian) power, and so made use of it, and, as we are told in 2Ch 28:20 of the Chronicle, oppressed Ahaz. This oppression is, it is true, not expressly mentioned in 2 Kings 16, but is hinted in 2Ki 16:18, and placed beyond doubt by 2Ki 18:7, 2Ki 18:14, 2Ki 18:20; cf. Isa 36:5. In 2Ki 16:18 it is recorded that Ahaz removed the covered sabbath portico which had been built to the house of God, and the external entrance of the king into the house of the Lord, because of (מִפְּנֵי) the king of Assyria. Manifestly Ahaz feared, as J. D. Mich. has already rightly concluded from this, that the king of Assyria, whom he had summoned to his assistance, might at some time desire to take possession of the city, and that in such a case this covered sabbath porch and an external entrance into the temple might be of use to him in the siege. This note, therefore, notwithstanding its obscurity, yet gives sufficiently clear testimony in favour of the statement in the Chronicle, that the king of Assyria, who had been called upon by Ahaz for help, oppressed him, upon which doubt has been cast by Gesen. Isa. i. S. 269, etc. Tiglath-pileser must have in some way shown a desire to possess Jerusalem, and Ahaz have consequently feared that he might wish to take it by force. But from 2Ki 18:7, 2Ki 18:14, 2Ki 18:20, cf. Isa 36:5, it is quite certain Ahaz had become tributary to the Assyrian king, and the kingdom dependent upon the Assyrians. It is true, indeed, that in these passages, strictly interpreted, this subjection of Judah is only said to exist immediately before the invasion of Sennacherib; but since Assyria made no war upon Judah between the campaign of Tiglath-pileser against Damascus and Samaria and Sennacherib's attack, the subjection of Judah to Assyria, which Hezekiah brought to an end, can only have dated from the time of Ahaz, and can only have commenced when Ahaz had called in Tiglath-pileser to aid him against his enemies. Certainly the exact means by which Tiglath-pileser compelled Ahaz to submit and to pay tribute cannot be recognised under, and ascertained from, the rhetorical mode of expression: Tiglath-pileser came against him, and oppressed him. Neither עָלָיו וַיָּבֹא nor לֹו וַיָּצַר require us to suppose that Tiglath-pileser advanced against Jerusalem with an army, although it is not impossible that Tiglath-pileser, after having conquered the Israelite cities in Galilee and the land of Naphtali, and carried away their inhabitants to Assyria (2Ki 15:29), may have made a further advance, and demanded of Ahaz tribute and submission, ordering a detachment of his troops to march into Judah to enforce his demand. But the words quoted do not necessarily mean more than that Tiglath made the demand on Ahaz for tribute from Galilee, with the threat that, if he should refuse it, he would march into and conquer Judah; and that Ahaz, feeling himself unable to cope successfully with so powerful a king, promised to pay the tribute without going to war. Even in this last case the author of the Chronicle might say that the king who had been summoned by Ahaz to his assistance came against him and oppressed him, and helped him not. Cf. also the elaborate defence of the account in the Chronicle, in Caspari, S. 56ff.