Chapter Sixteen

The reign of Ahaz, the 12th king of Judah (see 2 Chr 28). 1-4. The general (pagan) character of Ahaz’s reign. 5-9. The invasion of the kingdoms of Syria and Israel into Judea and Ahaz’s subjection to the king of Assyria. 10-14. A new altar in the Jerusalem temple, built by Ahaz after the pattern of the Damascus altar. 15-18. Other changes introduced by Ahaz in the Jerusalem temple and worship in deference to the king of Assyria. 19-20. The death of Ahaz and the accession of Hezekiah.

2 Kings 16:1. In the seventeenth year of Pekah, son of Remaliah, Ahaz, son of Jotham, king of Judah, began to reign. 2 Kings 16:2. Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. And he did not do what was right in the eyes of the Lord his God, like David his father. 2 Kings 16:3. But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, and even passed his son through the fire, imitating the abominations of the nations whom the Lord had driven out before the children of Israel. 2 Kings 16:4. And he offered sacrifices and burned incense on the high places and on the hills and under every green tree. The chronological data regarding Ahaz’s age—twenty years old at his accession and a sixteen-year reign, and thus death at age thirty-six (v. 2)—presents the difficulty that Ahaz’s son Hezekiah ascended the throne at twenty-five years of age (2 Kgs 18:2), and therefore was born when Ahaz was only ten or eleven years old. This inconsistency can be resolved by accepting the reading of certain Greek manuscripts, as well as the Syrian and Arabic translations, according to which Ahaz began to reign at twenty-five (not twenty) years of age. Ahaz’s imitation of the kings of Israel (v. 3)—or Jeroboam, son of Nebat, king of Israel (Greek manuscripts in Hildesheim: 11, 44, 52, 55, 56, 74, 92, 106, 119, 120, 121, 134, 144, 158, 236, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246; cf. Slavonic translation)—did not consist in introducing the worship of calves in Judah, of which nothing is known and which seems utterly improbable given the hostile relations of that time (2 Kgs 15:37 and following) between the two Hebrew kingdoms, but in the same violation as those kings committed of the fundamental theocratic law of absolute faithfulness to the Lord, and in involvement, like, for instance, the kings of the house of Ahab (1 Kgs 16:32; 2 Kgs 3:2), in pure paganism, such as the worship of Baal (2 Chr 28:2) and Molech (v. 3, 2 Chr 28:3). Although the present passage in the Fourth Book of Kings does not directly mention the latter, the parallel passage (2 Chr 28:3) clearly states that Ahaz burned his son, certainly in honor of Molech (cf. 2 Kgs 23:10; Lev 18:21; Jer 32:35 and others; cf. Josephus, “Jewish Antiquities” 9:12, 1), and not as a simple purification by fire (cf. Num 31:23)—a custom that was very widespread in ancient times in Western Asia, India, Africa and America, as well as among the Greeks (blessed Theodoret, question 47), and in Russia, for instance, on the night of Ivan Kupala: to see in this either this symbolic act or simply a superstitious custom (as blessed Theodoret, Grotius, Spencer, professor Gulyaev and others do) is not permitted by the general sense of the passage (characterization of Ahaz’s impiety) and the biblical parallels mentioned (see Commentated Bible, vol. I, pp. 207-209; compare M. Palmov, “Idolatry Among the Ancient Hebrews,” pp. 257 ff.). The custom of the Semites to offer human sacrifices to the gods, especially of children, in the most critical moments (cf. 2 Kgs 3:27), could among the Hebrews be particularly sustained under the influence of the harsh circumstances of the time, when ordinary means of service and the appeasement of God seemed insufficient to placate Him (Mic 6:7).

2 Kings 16:5. Then Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, son of Remaliah, king of Israel, came up to wage war against Jerusalem, and they besieged Ahaz, but could not defeat him. 2 Kings 16:6. At that time Rezin, king of Syria, recovered Elath for Syria and drove the Jews from Elath. And the Edomites came to Elath, and have dwelt there to this day. 2 Kings 16:7. And Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria, saying: I am your servant and your son. Come and save me from the hand of the king of Syria and from the hand of the king of Israel, who are rising up against me. 2 Kings 16:8. And Ahaz took the silver and gold that were found in the house of the Lord and in the treasuries of the royal house, and sent it as a tribute to the king of Assyria. 2 Kings 16:9. And the king of Assyria listened to him. The king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried its inhabitants captive to Kir, and put Rezin to death. The hostile relations between the kings Rezin of Syria (LXX: ῾Ραασσών; Slavonic: “Raassan,” which is closer than the Hebrew form to the reading in inscriptions: “Razunnu”) and Pekah of Israel (2 Kgs 15:37), which had begun already under Jotham, now, under Ahaz, expressed themselves in a campaign by the allies against Judah and the siege of Jerusalem (v. 5, (2 Chr 28:5) and others; (Isa 7:1) and others), with the aim of conquering Judah, overthrowing the reigning house of David and setting up as king of Judah some son of Tabeal (Isa 7:6), perhaps one of the Syrian military commanders. Concerning the conquests and devastations of the allies within the boundaries of the Judean kingdom, the transition of Ahaz into a state of vassalage to the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III, and the devastations made by the latter within the boundaries of the Israelite and Syrian kingdoms, see the remark on (2 Kgs 15:29). In Assyrian inscriptions Ahaz appears under the name Iahuhazi. Here in v. 6 is mentioned the loss to Judah, as a consequence of the Syrian-Israelite war, of Edom, which had been seized and fortified by the Judeans under Amaziah and Uzziah (2 Kgs 14:7). Judah lost Elath, taken by Rezin of Syria—an important and the only commercial port (cf. 1 Kgs 9:26; 2 Kgs 14:22). Having driven the Jews from here, Rezin assigned Elath to its original masters—the Edomites (in the received Hebrew text v. 6 it literally reads: Arameans, Hebrew eromim, but in manuscripts: 1, 4, 89, 112, 128, 149, 150, 160, 174, 176, 182, 187, 195, 206, 210, 224, 225, 227, 253, 297, 319, 335, 337, 342, 356, 366, 403, 423, 428, 431, 434, 451, 459, 471, 475, 477, 490, 505, 514, 526, 531, 540, 543, 559, 562, 587, 590, 596, 598, 601, 606, 612, 614, 616, 636, 648 in Kennicott’s recension: Edomites, i.e., Edomites—thus also in general in the context of this verse (LXX: ῾Ιδουμαῖοι, Vulg.: Idumaei)—the Edomites, taking advantage of Judah’s difficulties, sought in every way to harm the Jews (2 Chr 20:17), probably in alliance with the Syrians; at the same time the Philistines, who had been subdued by Uzziah (2 Chr 26:6), recovered their freedom and carried out raids on Judean cities (2 Chr 28:18). According to Josephus (“Jewish Antiquities” 9:12, 1), the Syrian king, “having destroyed the Hebrew garrisons in the border (on the route from Elath) fortresses and in the surrounding regions and having seized enormous plunder, then returned with his army to Damascus.” At the same time the siege of Jerusalem must have ceased, and Ahaz had the opportunity to send an embassy for help to the Assyrian king (vv. 7-8). To this moment belongs the famous prophecy of the prophet Isaiah concerning the birth of Immanuel from a virgin (Isa 7:14): against all dangers from both external and internal enemies the prophet pointed Ahaz to the heavenly help and miraculous protection of the house of David (Isa 7:4), but for seeking help from the Assyrian king threatened Ahaz with grave calamities (Isa 7:17-25). However, the wicked and fainthearted Ahaz disregarded the prophetic admonitions and sent an embassy to the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III with a humiliating declaration of vassalic submission (“I am your servant and your son,” v. 7) along with a rich tribute (“gift,” Hebrew shohad, literally: “bribe”), for the composition of which he had to seize the treasures of the temple and his own palace (v. 8). “And Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria, came to him, but was a trouble to him instead of helping him” (2 Chr 28:20), and nonetheless the vassalic dependence of the Judean kingdom on Assyria became a fact. Concerning the conquests of the Assyrian king within the boundaries of the Israelite kingdom the biblical text of the present chapter does not repeat what was said in the previous one (2 Kgs 15:29) and speaks only of the Assyrian king’s action against the ally of the Israelite king—Rezin of Syria: the latter was put to death, and the population of Damascus, according to the usual Assyrian policy regarding conquered regions and peoples (cf. 2 Kgs 15:29), was resettled in the place of the original dwelling of the Syrians (Amos 9:7), the region of Kir. The location of this country, mentioned in the Bible almost only in connection with references to the Syrians, (2 Kgs 16:9; Amos 1:5; cf. Isa 22:6), is not entirely clear. The LXX and Slavonic completely omit this name; the Vulgate: Cirene, Eusebius: Κυρίνη, blessed Jerome: Cirene (Onomasticon, 623)—in all three cases Kir is completely mistakenly identified with Cyrenaica, the city in North Libya in Africa, very well-known in the post-exilic history of the Jews (1 Macc 15:23; Matt 27:32; Acts 2:11). Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 9:12, 3) places Kir in Upper Media, in favor of which the nearness of Kir to Elam in the prophet Isaiah’s words (Isa 22:6) may speak (Greek Susia). It is now identified with Gülistan or in general with the region along the Kura River (Κῦρις, Κύῥῤος). Professor Gulyaev says: “on the maps of the ancient East there are indicated two rivers with the name Kira. One is the present Kura, flowing from the Caucasus mountains and emptying into the Caspian Sea in the south of Russian Transcaucasian territories, in the region of Shirvan; the other is a small desert river to the south of Tehran, now indicated on maps under the name Kanch. Certainly, the latter is meant here, since, on the one hand, there is no basis for supposing too great a spread of the dominion of the Assyrians to the north from the central point where all the biblical events took place; on the other hand, near this location are found the other places mentioned in this story. This river is located, by approximate calculation, at about 1500 versts to the northeast of Damascus” (p. 341). In this resettlement of the inhabitants of Damascus to Kir the terrible prophecy of Amos (Amos 1:5) concerning Damascus and the people of Aram was literally fulfilled. Both the fall of Damascus and the fact of Ahaz’s submission and tribute to Tiglath-Pileser are confirmed by cuneiform inscriptions: according to them, the taking of Damascus occurred after a long siege, in 732 (B.C.) (Keilinschriftt. Bibl. II, 32 ft.); regarding the campaign of the Assyrian king it is said that it extended to the land of the Philistines, which may shed light on the passage cited above (2 Chr 28:20) and following, according to which the campaign of the Assyrian king and king of Assyria even to the kingdom of Judah, despite the tribute paid by Ahaz, brought many misfortunes instead of the protection sought by Ahaz.

2 Kings 16:10. And King Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria, and he saw the altar that was in Damascus, and King Ahaz sent to the priest Uriah a pattern of the altar and a model of its complete structure. 2 Kings 16:11. And the priest Uriah built an altar according to the pattern that King Ahaz had sent from Damascus; and the priest Uriah made it before the arrival of King Ahaz from Damascus. 2 Kings 16:12. And the king came from Damascus, and the king saw the altar, and the king drew near to the altar and offered a sacrifice on it; 2 Kings 16:13. and he burned his burnt offering and his grain offering, and poured out his drink offering, and sprinkled the blood of his peace offering on the altar. 2 Kings 16:14. But the bronze altar that was before the Lord he moved from the front of the house, from the place between the new altar and the house of the Lord, and put it on the north side of his altar. 2 Kings 16:15. And King Ahaz commanded the priest Uriah, saying: Upon the great altar offer the morning burnt offering and the evening grain offering, and the burnt offering of the king and his grain offering, and the burnt offering of all the people of the land and their grain offering, and their drink offerings; and sprinkle upon it all the blood of the burnt offerings and all the blood of the sacrifices; but the bronze altar shall remain for my inspection. 2 Kings 16:16. And the priest Uriah did all as King Ahaz commanded. 2 Kings 16:17. And King Ahaz cut off the borders of the stands, and removed the basins from them, and took down the Sea from the bronze oxen that were under it, and set it on a stone pavement. 2 Kings 16:18. And he removed the covered Sabbath canopy which had been built at the temple, and removed the outer royal entrance to the house of the Lord, on account of the king of Assyria. And yet the fainthearted Ahaz, with his disbelief in the power of the Lord and his devotion to idolatry, considered it his duty to go personally to the Assyrian king to thank him for his help, to demonstrate his loyalty and to secure his favor (of course, by bringing new rich gifts for the future). This journey of Ahaz to Damascus, where the Assyrian king had his temporary residence, aside from being extremely humiliating to the previously independent Judean kingdom, had the consequence not only of simple cultural borrowing from foreigners—such as, for instance, sundials or the “steps of Ahaz” (2 Kgs 20:9-11; Isa 38:8)—a mechanism that was in any case based on the astronomical calculations of Assyro-Babylonia and was brought by Ahaz, perhaps from Damascus, to his Jerusalem palace. Ahaz became especially devoted to borrowing elements of religious worship from the victorious pagans—the Syrians and Assyrians. Above all, in Damascus itself “he offered sacrifices to the gods of Damascus, (thinking that) they were smiting him, and he said: Since the gods of the kings of Syria helped them, I will sacrifice to them that they may help me. But they were the ruin of him and of all Israel” (2 Chr 28:23). Not content with this personal apostasy (reminiscent of the action of Amaziah, 2 Chr 25:14), Ahaz decided to introduce elements of Syrian, or more precisely Assyrian, pagan worship into the public worship of the Jerusalem temple itself. Captivated by the structure of the pagan altar he saw in Damascus (was it the portable campaign altar of Tiglath-Pileser, as the historian Duncker thinks [Geschichte des Alterthums. Bd. II, 2. Leipzig, 1886. S. 318; cf. Kittel, Die Bucher der Konige, s. 270], or the main altar of Damascus and the king just put to death, as Stade supposes [Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 1, s. 598], is not stated in the biblical text; the supposition of Stade is supported by the cited passage (2 Chr 28:23)), and finding it superior to the burnt offering altar in the Jerusalem temple, Ahaz sends to Jerusalem to the high priest Uriah (probably identical with the one mentioned by the prophet Isaiah (Isa 8:2)) a drawing and model of the Damascus altar with an order to build a new altar exactly to the given scale. Although the altar of Solomon’s temple (the “bronze altar,” v. 14, cf. (2 Chr 4:1)) was built according to the pattern of the ancient altar of the tabernacle, created by direct command of God (Exod 27:1 and following), and consequently was not subject to arbitrary replacement with a new one, and a pagan type of altar at that, nevertheless the high priest Uriah, appearing in the prophet Isaiah as a “faithful witness” (Isa 8:2), in this case showed inexcusable complacency and deference to the king’s arbitrary will: perhaps to avert greater horrors from the king’s terror and even worse pagan innovations on the part of Ahaz. Uriah hastily, before the return of Ahaz from Damascus, built a new, “great” (v. 15) altar, on which Ahaz, upon his arrival, personally (like Jeroboam I of Israel, 1 Kgs 12:32-33) offered sacrifices: “drew near to the altar and went up on it” (v. 12): “this expression alone indicates a special form of the altar for which ascending it was necessary to offer sacrifices. Moreover, it is further directly called great, in comparison with the former, which was twenty cubits long and wide (about 15 yards) and ten cubits high (about 7 1/2 yards) (professor Gulyaev, p. 342). “Who commanded Ahaz to set up an altar in God’s temple?” asks blessed Theodoret (question 48) and answers: “I think that the altar was constructed not for God Almighty, but for a falsely-named god. The book of Chronicles gives us cause to suspect this... (2 Chr 28:22-24)... He brought out from the temple the bronze altar constructed by Solomon, and in its place put the desired new one.” Apparently, however, Ahaz at this time did not intend and did not dare to directly remove the worship of the true God from Solomon’s temple: he left this worship in force and in accordance with the law of Moses (v. 15), but only for the sake of his caprice commanded to move the altar (the “bronze” one), made under Solomon (2 Chr 4:1), to the north side (v. 14), and to place the new one, constructed after the Assyrian model, in the central place of the temple’s priestly courtyard previously occupied by it, and on it to perform all the offerings of the sacrificial worship. Ahaz apparently did not wish to appropriate to himself priestly functions entirely and permanently: perhaps from fear of the judgment that fell upon Uzziah for such sacrilege, having himself once offered sacrifices on the newly built altar (v. 13), he then gives a command to Uriah (and through him to the priesthood in general) to perform on this altar all sacrifices—constant or daily offerings, morning and evening (v. 15, cf. Exod 29:38-42; Num 28:3-8), and special private sacrifices, both from the people and from individual members of it, and from the king (cf. (Lev 4:22) and others; (Ezek 46:17) and others). This passage (v. 15, cf. 13) is important for the characterization of the sacrificial practice of that time (8th century B.C.) and, in particular, may be adduced as one of the historical proofs against the supposed origin of the complex sacrificial ritual only after the exile, as many Western biblical critics maintain, and of part of the Pentateuch (in the middle books of it, the so-called “priestly code”), containing the legislation about this ritual, are likewise supposed to have originated no earlier than the Babylonian exile. Against this, vv. 13 and 15 incontestably prove that 1) even under the wicked Ahaz in the Jerusalem temple regular morning and evening sacrifices were offered in exact accordance with the law (Exod 29:1; Num 28:1) and 2) that there were distinguished by fixed terms sacrifices: bloody (Hebrew ola, burnt offering; shlamim, peace offering) and bloodless (Hebrew mincha, gift—“grain offering”, nesekh—“drink offering”)—also in correspondence with the law of Moses (Num 15:2-12), and overall the whole sacrificial rite appears here as a matter of ancient historical, liturgical tradition (cf. Stade, Gesch. d. Volk, Jsr. I, s. 598: Kittel, Bucher d. Konige, s. 270–271). His hesitation in introducing a pagan element into the structure of Judean worship Ahaz demonstrated in the command that (v. 15) the “bronze (Solomon’s) altar” should “remain for my inspection” (Hebrew lebaqqer, Vulg. ad. volimtatem meam (erit paratum)). The LXX confused the Hebrew verb baqar with the noun boqer—“morning”: ‘ έσται μοι είς το πρωί, Slavonic: “shall be for me in the morning,” which makes no sense in this context: apparently Ahaz did not dare immediately and entirely to remove from the temple the ancient altar, certainly revered by the people, but wanted to wait and see what impression the innovation allowed by him in the temple would make on the people, and only then to make further departures from the purity of the Old Testament worship. But the path of religious syncretism, a mixing of revealed religion with paganism, which Ahaz, the first of the Judean kings, took, proved very seductive: Ahaz brought more and more elements of various pagan cults into worship: emblems, idols, altars, and high places for the worship of various pagan gods Ahaz spread in great numbers throughout Jerusalem and in other Judean cities (2 Chr 28:24-25). Besides native, Canaanite cults, such as, for instance, Molech (v. 3 of the chapter in question) and Baal (2 Chr 28:3), as well as Canaanite superstition—consulting the dead (Isa 8:19)—forbidden in the law (Lev 19:31; Deut 18:15), Ahaz with especial zeal practiced the Assyro-Babylonian worship of “all the host of heaven” and “the constellations” (signs of the Zodiac) with the dedication of altars to these luminaries on the rooftops of palaces, and to the sun special horses were dedicated, set up by Ahaz in the outer court of the temple (see 2 Kgs 23:5; Jer 19:13; Zeph 1:5). Thus, the reign of Ahaz, as in the civil and political life of the Judean kingdom it marks the beginning of the vassalic dependence of that kingdom on Assyria, so in the religious sphere represents a new degree of the fall of true religion in the Judean kingdom, namely the invasion here of Assyro-Babylonian Sabeeism (Compare M. Palmov, “Idolatry Among the Ancient Hebrews,” pp. 513-517). Both dependencies on Assyria continued until the death of Ahaz. But if in the civil sphere Ahaz’s faithfulness to the obligations taken upon himself (v. 7) as a vassal of the Assyrian king could be necessary and beneficial for the weak Judean kingdom, then Ahaz’s attraction to the pagan worship of his conquerors could only lead to the destruction of his kingdom. Perhaps by imitation of the structure of Assyrian temples, and also to extract new values from Solomon’s temple to pay a new tribute to the Assyrian king, Ahaz broke off (v. 17) the decorations and other appurtenances of the washbasins set up by Solomon in the inner courtyard—and the bronze sea (cf. 1 Kgs 7:23-28), and also abolished the “covered passage (Hebrew musach, in the variant reading musakh) of the Sabbath” and “the outer royal passage to the house of the Lord” (v. 18). Both latter structures were probably erected already after Solomon: the character and purpose of these buildings is difficult to establish with precision given the considerable obscurity and perhaps corruption of the text of v. 18. By the covered entrance (Hebrew musach, Vulgate: musach) was commonly understood, following the rabbis, a special royal place in the front courtyard in which the king stood on the Sabbath (the LXX, apparently, read not musach, but musad—“foundation,” when they rendered: θεμέλιον τῆς καθεδρας (τῶν σαββάτων), Slavonic: “foundation of the seat (of the Sabbaths)”). By the “outer royal passage” is understood with greater basis in the biblical text (1 Kgs 14:27 and following; 2 Kgs 11:4; Ezek 46:1-2) a special covered passage, a colonnade gallery, from the royal palace on Zion to the temple on Moriah (cf. professor Gulyaev, pp. 343-344). All this Ahaz destroyed both out of neglect for the temple’s honor and from a desire to bring gifts to the Assyrian king (perhaps destroyed structures could, in Ahaz’s fear, arouse the wrath of the Assyrian king for some reason). The wickedness of Ahaz was finally completed by the closing of the doors of the temple of the Lord (2 Chr 28:24). According to Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 9:12, 3), Ahaz “reached such a contemptuous and bold attitude (toward the Lord God) that he finally ordered the temple to be completely shut, forbade bringing to the Eternal the established sacrifices and appropriated to himself all the sacrificial offerings.

2 Kings 16:19. Now 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? 2 Kings 16:20. And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David. And Hezekiah his son reigned in his stead. For his wickedness Ahaz, like Jehoram (2 Chr 21:19-20) and Joash (2 Chr 24:25), was denied the honor of burial in the royal necropolis (2 Chr 28:27). * * * Many scholars consider Tiglath-Pileser (2 Kgs 15:29) to be the same person as Pul (there, see v. 19). See, for instance, professor I. S. Yakimov, Attempts at Reconciling Biblical Evidence with the Testimony of Cuneiform Monuments (Christian Readings, 1884, vol. II, p. 21 et seq.; professor A. P. Lopukhin, Biblical History, vol. II. St. Petersburg, 1890, p. 548. “According to the present Hebrew text,” says professor M. Gulyaev, “one should translate “Arameans,” as some newer translations do; but even the Masoretes noticed that instead of “asheoyim” one should read: “ashoim”; this translates as Edomites. Finally, the composition of the words itself shows that not Arameans are meant, the name of which in Hebrew plural is written “ashoim” (p. 341). Professor Gulyaev (pp. 342-343) says: “The Seventy read: let it remain for me in the morning. Some of the newer ones, turning to the primary meaning (the root “baqar”) “to open,” translate: let it be for me for inquiring of the Lord (that is, for receiving from Him a revelation). But the first translation cannot be accepted after what was said above, that Ahaz ordered to bring all both morning and evening sacrifices on his great altar; the second is impossible both because of its contrivedness and because Ahaz, a stubborn pagan, not only himself did not express a desire to ask revelation from the Lord in times of need, but even when they offered him this, he refused (Isa 7:11-12). Meanwhile this same word is used in the sense of “to look attentively, to reflect.”