Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - 2 King 16:1 - 16:20
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
2Ki_16:1-20. (2 Chronicles 28)
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]. At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered [won] Elath to [for] Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians 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 king’s 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. 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 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 [as for] the brazen altar shall be for me to inquire by [I will consider further]. 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] for the sabbath that they had built in the house, and the king’s 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.
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., ìְîֹìֶêְ . This must be supplied, as we see, from 2Ki_23:10; Lev_18:21; Jer_19:5. The meaning of the phrase äֶòֱáִéø áָּàֵùׁ is distinctly stated in Num_31:23. It has accordingly been supposed by some that, where áֵּï or áָּðִéí 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 åַéַּáְòֵø 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: êáὶ ἴäéïí ὡëïêáýôùóå ðáῖäá (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 Winer’s 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 ( åַúִּæְáָּçִéí ) [as a sacrifice] to them [i.e., to the false gods] ìֶàֱëåֹì [i.e., to consume them]. Was thy whoredom too slight a thing that thou slowest ( åַúִּùְׁçֲèִé ) my sons, and gavest them away áְּäַòֲáִéø àåֹúָí ”—[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 ( åַéִּæְáְּçåּ ) to false gods, and shed innocent blood—blood of their sons and daughters whom they sacrificed ( æִáְּçåּ ) to the idols of Canaan, and the land was desecrated by the shedding of blood ( áַּãָּîִéí ).” 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 (Præp. 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 æáç , 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 (Hävernick, Comm. über 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 äòáéø áàùׁ 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 Phœnicians 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 Aramæans 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 áְּðåֹ in 2Ki_16:3 and 2Ki_21:6, the Chronicler (2Ch_28:3 and 2Ch_33:6) has the plural áָּðָéå . 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 Cæsar 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 áְּ before áָּîåֹú , instead of òִì , which we find before äַâְּáָòåֹú , 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 áֵּéú äַáָּîָä , 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 áּéú 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. àæ 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 ( åַéָּöֻøåּ 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. áָּòֵú äַäִéà 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 ìַàֲøָí to ìֶàֱãåֹí , 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, äֵùִׁéá 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 Knobel’s 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 åַàֲøåֹîִéí , for which the keri offers åàãåîéí , the Sept., ’ Éäïõìáῖïé , and the Vulg., Idumœi, 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, Hävernick, 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, òַìÎàֶôְøַéִí ðָçָä àֲøָí do not mean, as they are often translated: “The Aramæans 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 ( àúçáø , societatem iniit) with ( òí ) the king Israel.” So the Sept. translate: óõíåöþíçóåí ’ Áñὰì ðñὸò ôὸí ’ Åöñáßì . “The verb ðåä with òì is never used of an army encamping, and it does not seem fitting to take àôøéí as referring to the country, and àøí as referring to the people” (Hengstenberg). ðåç 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 ( òì ) 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 ðåç òì as, to be in alliance with. They contain “the spirit rests upon” or some similar sense of ðåç òì , which is a different sense of “rest” and a different sense of “upon” from the one here to be proved. Hengstenberg’s 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). ðåç 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 Pileser’s 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 734–3. 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 prophet’s 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 ÊïõñÞíá or Êáñßíç , but the country around the river Kur ( Êῦñïò , Êýῤῥïò ), which flows through the northern part of Iberia, the modern Georgia, into the Caspian sea (Isa_22:6 [cf. also Amo_1:3-5]). “Tiglath Pileser transferred the inhabitants of Damascus to the most remote portion—in the extreme north—of 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. 56–60). 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). ãְּîåּú has a general signification: shape, image; úַּáְðִéú designated more particularly the model; and îַòֲùֶׂä the sort of workmanship, decoration, &c.—In 2Ki_16:12, åַéַּòַì òָìָéå 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 Bähr, but it does not remove the difficulty about the king’s 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. åַéַּ÷ְøֵּá cannot mean: “he removed,” “Er that weg” (Luther), nor: he moved away; “Er rückte hinweg,” but: he brought nearer, he moved closer up to. [The sense of “away from” is, of course, in îֵàֵú . The first meaning of åַéַּ÷ְøֵá 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. Bähr 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 äַâָּøåֹì ; hardly because “it was somewhat larger than Solomon’s 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 ëֹּäֵï äַâָּãåֹì and to translate: ‘the chief altar.’ ” According to Ahaz’s 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 Jehovah—he did not dare to do that—but 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 éִäְéֶäÎìִּé ìְáַ÷ֵּø , 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 áִּ÷ֵּø means to investigate but not to seek out or inquire, much less to be at one’s 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]” (Fürst). Thenius, very unnecessarily, desires to read ìְáַ÷ֵּùׁ for ìְáַ÷ֵּø , because äָéָä ìְ , 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.” äָéָä ìְ 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 ( îִôְּðֵé ) 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 îִôְּðֵé 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 îִæְâְּøåֹú of the bases and on ëִּéֹּø 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 îֵéñָêְ 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: ôὸí èåìÝëéïí ôῆò êáõÝäñáò ôῶí äáââÜôùí , which does not throw any light upon it, as they evidently read îåּñָø , foundation, for îåּñָêְ . The king’s 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 äֵñֵá , which applies to both the localities, “he transferred into the house of Jehovah,” but the platform ( îåּñָêְ ), 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? äֵñֵá 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 one’s 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. áֵּéú éְäåָֹä 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).
—