Keil and Delitzsch Commentary - 2 King 16:15 - 16:15

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com

Keil and Delitzsch Commentary - 2 King 16:15 - 16:15


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

He also commanded that the daily morning and evening sacrifice, and the special offerings of the king and the people, should be presented upon the new altar, and thereby put a stop to the use of the Solomonian altar, “about which he would consider.” The Chethîb וַיְצַוַּהוּ is not to be altered; the pron. suff. stands before the noun, as is frequently the case in the more diffuse popular speech. The new altar is called “the great altar,” probably because it was somewhat larger than that of Solomon. הַקְטֵר: used for the burning of the sacrifices. הָעֶרֶב מִנְחַת is not merely the meat-offering offered in the evening, but the whole of the evening sacrifice, consisting of a burnt-offering and a meat-offering, as in 1Ki 18:29, 1Ki 18:36. לְבַקֵּר יִהְיֶה־לִי, the brazen altar “will be to me for deliberation,” i.e., I will reflect upon it, and then make further arrangements. On בִּקֵּר in this sense see Pro 20:25. In the opinion of Ahaz, the altar which had been built after the model of that of Damascus was not to be an idolatrous altar, but an altar of Jehovah. The reason for this arbitrary removal of the altar of Solomon, which had been sanctified by the Lord Himself at the dedication of the temple by fire from heaven, was, in all probability, chiefly that the Damascene altar pleased Ahaz better; and the innovation was a sin against Jehovah, inasmuch as God Himself had prescribed the form for His sanctuary (cf. Exo 25:40; Exo 26:30; 1Ch 28:19), so that any altar planned by man and built according to a heathen model was practically the same as an idolatrous altar. - The account of this altar is omitted from the Chronicles; but in v. 23 we have this statement instead: “Ahaz offered sacrifice to the gods of Damascus, who smote him, saying, The gods of the kings of Aram helped them; I will sacrifice to them that they may help me: and they were the ruin of him and of all Israel.” Thenius and Bertheau find in this account an alteration of our account of the copying of the Damascene altar introduced by the chronicler as favouring his design, namely, to give as glaring a description as possible of the ungodliness of Ahaz. But they are mistaken. For even if the notice in the Chronicles had really sprung from this alone, the chronicler would have been able from the standpoint of the Mosaic law to designate the offering of sacrifice upon the altar built after the model of an idolatrous Syrian altar as sacrificing to these gods. But it is a question whether the chronicler had in his mind merely the sacrifices offered upon that altar in the temple-court, and not rather sacrifices which Ahaz offered upon some bamah to the gods of Syria, when he was defeated and oppressed by the Syrians, for the purpose of procuring their assistance. As Ahaz offered his son in sacrifice to Moloch according to 2Ki 16:3, he might just as well have offered sacrifice to the gods of the Syrians.