=1‒4= (= 2 Kings xvi. 1‒4).
AHAZ SUCCEEDS AND PRACTISES IDOLATRY.
The reign of Ahaz is a specially interesting section of Chronicles,
showing in a remarkable degree the freedom with which the older
accounts in 2 Kings xvi. and Isaiah vii. 1 ff. have been handled.
A tale of a prophet is introduced (verses 9‒15). Otherwise only one
new point is added――viz. an Edomite and a Philistine invasion (verses
16‒18); but all the incidents of the older tradition are altered and
given new settings in such a way as may best serve what is plainly the
Chronicler’s main object, namely by heightening the disasters to show
the exceeding sinfulness of sin. For details of the changes, see the
notes on verses 5‒7, 16‒21, 23, 24.
¹Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign; and he
reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem: and he did not that which
was right in the eyes of the LORD, like David his father: ²but
he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, and made also
molten images for the Baalim.
=1.= _Ahaz_] The full form of the name is _Jehoahaz_, the “Ja-u-ḥa-zi”
of an inscription of Tiglath-pileser IV.
_twenty years old_] As he died sixteen years later leaving a son
of _twenty-five_ (Hezekiah, xxix. 1), Ahaz would have been only ten
years old when Hezekiah was born. The numeral here or in xxix. 1 must
therefore be incorrect. The Peshitṭa in this verse reads “twenty-five
years old,” which is more suitable and may be right, but the
coincidence would be strange if three kings in succession ascended
the throne at twenty-five years of age (compare xxvii. 1 and xxix. 1).
_he did not that which was right_] It is not said of Ahaz as of
Manasseh, the worst of all the Judean kings, that “he did that which
was evil” (xxxiii. 2).
³Moreover he burnt incense in the valley of the son of
Hinnom, and burnt his children in the fire, according to the
abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out before the
children of Israel.
=3.= _the valley of the son of Hinnom_] The name in Hebrew
_Gē-ben-hinnōm_ or _Gē-hinnōm_ is more familiar in the Greek form
_Gehenna_ (Matthew v. 22, Revised Version margin). The valley was south
and south-west of Jerusalem. The evil reputation of the place perhaps
was due originally to some connection with the worship of Molech
(Jeremiah vii. 31, 32). Later it appears that the refuse of Jerusalem
and the corpses of criminals were deposited in this valley, and as the
verse Isaiah lxvi. 24 “they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases
of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not
die, neither shall their fire be quenched ...” was associated with this
valley, the name _Gehenna_ was eventually used to signify the place of
eternal punishment (compare Mark ix. 43).
_burnt his children in the fire_] There is no doubt that actual
sacrifice of the child’s life by fire is implied in this formula
and in parallel phrases such as “made his son to pass through the
fire” (2 Kings xvi. 3). Unfortunately the gruesome evidence regarding
child-sacrifice among the ancients――Greeks and Romans as well as
Semites――is far too strong to allow the theory that always or even
generally branding or some symbolical dedication by fire was employed
(see Barnes on 1 Kings xi. 5). It seems that the horrible custom, which
was common with the early Canaanites and Phoenicians, was very rare
among the early Israelites and the kindred people of Moab (see Judges
xi. 31 and 39; 2 Kings iii. 27), and was called forth only by the
pressure of extreme need. Evidently in the break-up of the national
faith which attended the imminent downfall of the State of Judah the
evil authority of Ahaz and Manasseh made the practice common (see
xxxiii. 6; 2 Kings xxi. 6; Micah vi. 7; Jeremiah vii. 31; Psalms cvi.
37 f.). Genesis xxii. 1‒18 may be regarded as a magnificent repudiation
of the rite in the worship of Jehovah, and the practice is expressly
forbidden in the Law, Leviticus xviii. 21; Deuteronomy xviii. 10.
_his children_] In Kings, “his son” (singular), a better reading. It is
possible that the sacrifice was intended to avert the danger threatened
by the Syro-Ephraimite alliance.
⁴And he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on
the hills, and under every green tree.
=4.= _under every green tree_] The Hebrew word here used for “green”
(_ra‘anān_) means rather “flourishing,” the reference being not so
much to colour as to condition and size. Large fine trees (which are
rarer in the East than in the West) are important landmarks; compare
1 Chronicles x. 12; Genesis xii. 6, xxxv. 4. In different ways such
trees acquired a sacred or semi-sacred character (Genesis xviii. 1,
xxi. 33; Judges vi. 11); in some cases because they were associated
with theophanies, in others perhaps because the flourishing state of
the tree was regarded as the sign of the presence of some local deity.
“No one can imagine how many voices a tree has who has not come up
to it from the silence of the great desert,” G. A. Smith, _Historical
Geography of the Holy Land_, p. 88; compare the same writer’s _Early
Poetry of Israel_, pp. 32, 33.
=5‒7= (compare 2 Kings xvi. 5‒9; Isaiah vii. 1‒9).
THE SYRO-EPHRAIMITE WAR.
The Chronicler’s account of the war conveys a very different impression
from the corresponding narrative in 2 Kings. In Kings an invasion by
the united forces of Israel and Syria is related. Chronicles records
two separate invasions, each resulting in disaster for Ahaz. In Kings
the _failure_ of the allies to take Jerusalem is the chief feature in
the account, while in Chronicles the damage and loss inflicted on Judah
takes the first place, and the magnitude of the disaster is heightened
in characteristically midrashic fashion: see the notes below on verses
5, 6.
⁵Wherefore the LORD his God delivered him into the hand of the
king of Syria; and they smote him, and carried away of his a
great multitude of captives, and brought them to Damascus. And
he was also delivered into the hand of the king of Israel, who
smote him with a great slaughter.
=5.= _the king of Syria_] i.e. Rezin.
_smote him_] From 2 Kings it appears that the Syrian king, (1) helped
to shut up Ahaz in Jerusalem, (2) seized the port of Elath (Eloth) on
the Red Sea which had belonged to Judah. Some of the “captives” taken
to Damascus were presumably brought from Elath.
_carried away of his a great multitude of captives_] No doubt captives
were taken, some probably from Elath; but the “great multitude” is
midrashic exaggeration: compare the number of slain stated in verse 6.
_And he was also delivered into the hand of the king of Israel_] 2
Kings records but a _single_ invasion, the forces of Syria and Israel
being confederate. The Chronicler’s phrase implies that two separate
invasions and disasters befell Ahaz――“he was _also_ delivered.”
⁶For Pekah the son of Remaliah slew in Judah an hundred and
twenty thousand in one day, all of them valiant men; because
they had forsaken the LORD, the God of their fathers.
=6.= _an hundred and twenty thousand in one day_] i.e. more than a
third of the host as reckoned in xxvi. 13.
⁷And Zichri, a mighty man of Ephraim, slew Maaseiah the king’s
son, and Azrikam the ruler of the house, and Elkanah that was
next¹ to the king.
¹ Hebrew _second_.
=7.= _the ruler of the house_] Hebrew _nāgīd_. Probably the head of
the king’s household is meant, his “chancellor”; but compare Nehemiah
xi. 11, “the ruler (_nāgīd_) of the house of God.”
_next to the king_] compare 1 Samuel xxiii. 17.
=8‒15= (not in Kings).
ISRAEL SENDS BACK THE JEWISH CAPTIVES.
The tale of the intervention of Oded, his appeal, the response of the
people and the army to the call of conscience, with the consequent
outburst of pity for the unhappy captives, who are first tended and
then restored to their kinsfolk in Judah, is something far better than
literal history: it is the product of a moral and religious conviction
worthy of high admiration. We have, in fact, in these verses a most
clear instance of that inculcation of great religious principles which
was the primary object of the writer of Chronicles. A modern ethical
teacher, desirous of driving home the eternal verities, may clothe them
in a story which has no basis whatsoever in actual events but is the
pure product of the writer’s imagination. His ancient counterpart among
the Jews started with a nucleus of historical events, which however he
handled freely in whatever fashion might best serve to emphasise the
moral or religious lesson he desired to teach.
The deep ethical and spiritual value of this example of how to treat
the fallen foe hardly requires comment――Israel must forgive, if
it would be forgiven (verse 10); the captives are――not “the enemy”
but――“your brethren” (verse 11); and, when conscience is at last
awakened, how great is the revulsion, and how nobly do the generous
qualities of human nature appear, when the captives, laden not with
the chains of bondage (verse 10) but with clothing and with food, are
restored to their homes in peace.
It is very evident that the writer of this fine story had in mind the
no less effective and beautiful narrative of Elisha’s dealing with the
captured Syrian army (2 Kings vi. 21‒23).
⁸And the children of Israel carried away captive of their
brethren two hundred thousand, women, sons, and daughters, and
took also away much spoil from them, and brought the spoil to
Samaria.
=8.= _of their brethren_] Compare xi. 4, “ye shall not ... fight
_against your brethren_.”
⁹But a prophet of the Lord was there, whose name was Oded: and
he went out to meet the host that came to Samaria, and said unto
them, Behold, because the LORD, the God of your fathers, was
wroth with Judah, he hath delivered them into your hand, and ye
have slain them in a rage which hath reached up unto heaven.
=9.= _a prophet of the LORD was there_] Nothing further is known of
Oded. For similar instances of prophetic activity narrated only in
Chronicles see xv. 1 ff., xvi. 7 ff., xxiv. 20 f., and especially xxv.
7 ff.
_the LORD ... was wroth ... and ye have slain them in a rage which
hath reached up unto heaven_] Compare Zechariah i. 15, “I am very sore
displeased with the nations that are at ease; for I was but a little
displeased, and they helped forward the affliction.”
_heaven_] There is a tendency in some later books of the Bible to write
“heaven” for “God”; compare xxxii. 20, “prayed and cried to heaven,”
also Daniel iv. 23; and similarly in the New Testament, Luke xv. 18, 21;
John iii. 27: for further references see Grimm and Thayer, _Lexicon of
the N.T._, s.v. οὐρανός _ad fin._ From a like feeling of reverence the
Chronicler is sparing in his use of the name “Jehovah”; compare xvii. 4.
¹⁰And now ye purpose to keep under the children of Judah and
Jerusalem for bondmen and bondwomen unto you: _but_ are there
not even with you trespasses¹ of your own against the LORD your
God? ¹¹Now hear me therefore, and send back the captives, which
ye have taken captive of your brethren: for the fierce wrath
of the LORD is upon you. ¹²Then certain of the heads of the
children of Ephraim, Azariah the son of Johanan, Berechiah the
son of Meshillemoth, and Jehizkiah the son of Shallum, and Amasa
the son of Hadlai, stood up against them that came from the war,
¹³and said unto them, Ye shall not bring in the captives hither:
for ye purpose that which will bring upon us a trespass² against
the LORD, to add unto our sins and to our trespass²: for our
trespass² is great, and there is fierce wrath against Israel.
¹⁴So the armed men left the captives and the spoil before the
princes and all the congregation.
¹ Hebrew _guiltinesses_.
² Or, _guilt_.
=10.= _keep under_] In Nehemiah v. 5, the same Hebrew word is
translated, “bring into bondage”; compare Ryle’s note on Hebrew
slavery _in loco_. One Hebrew might hold another Hebrew as a slave for
a limited period, but in the present passage the case is of one part of
the people taking advantage of the fortune of war to reduce to slavery
thousands of their fellow-countrymen.
¹⁵And the men which have been expressed by name rose up, and
took the captives, and with the spoil clothed all that were
naked among them, and arrayed them, and shod them, and gave
them to eat and to drink, and anointed them, and carried all
the feeble of them upon asses, and brought them to Jericho, the
city of palm trees, unto their brethren: then they returned to
Samaria.
=15.= _have been expressed_] The phrase is characteristic of the
Chronicler; compare xxxi. 19; 1 Chronicles xii. 31, xvi. 41; Ezra
viii. 20.
_took the captives_] Render, =took hold of the captives=; i.e.
succoured them; LXX. ἀντελάβοντο, compare Hebrew ii. 16 ἐπιλαμβάνεται =
“he taketh hold of.”
_to eat and to drink_] Compare 2 Kings vi. 23.
_anointed them_] Part of the host’s duty; compare Luke vii. 44‒46.
_to Jericho_] Jericho perhaps belonged to the Northern Kingdom; compare
1 Kings xvi. 34; 2 Kings ii. 4. A road led to it from Mount Ephraim
past _‘Ain ed-Duk_. G. A. Smith, _Historical Geography of the Holy
Land_, pp. 266 ff.
_the city of palm trees_] Compare Deuteronomy xxxiv. 3. The phrase
is an alternative name of Jericho; compare Judges i. 16, iii. 13.
Date palms were common in Jericho down to the seventh century of the
Christian era. Bädeker, _Palestine_⁵, pp. 128 f.
=16‒21= (= 2 Kings xvi. 7‒9).
AHAZ INVOKES ASSYRIAN AID.
There is an important variation here between Chronicles and Kings.
According to Chronicles (verse 21) Ahaz gained nothing by his tribute
to the king of Assyria; according to Kings the Assyrian accepted the
offering and marched against Syria, capturing Damascus and slaying
Rezin. Further in Chronicles it is said that the help of Assyria was
invoked, not against the kings of Syria and Israel as in 2 Kings,
but against Edomites and Philistines. Some alteration was required in
consequence of the insertion in Chronicles of the midrashic narrative
of verses 8‒15, according to which Ahaz was delivered from his disaster
at the hands of Israel not by the king of Assyria (so Kings) but
simply through the awakening of Israel’s conscience and the consequent
release of the captives and the spoil. If therefore the Chronicler was
to introduce the story of Ahaz’ appeal to Assyria, he could only do
so by supplying new enemies for Ahaz to combat. These, however, were
appropriately found in the Philistines and Edomites, regarding whom the
Chronicler seems to have had various traditions (see notes on xxi. 8,
16, xxvi. 6).
¹⁶At that time did king Ahaz send unto the kings¹ of Assyria to
help him. ¹⁷For again the Edomites had come and smitten Judah,
and carried away captives².
¹ Many ancient authorities read, _king_.
² Hebrew _a captivity_.
=16.= _the kings_] LXX. “king” (singular). This monarch was
Tiglath-pileser IV; compare 1 Kings xvi. 7.
¹⁸The Philistines also had invaded the cities of the lowland,
and of the South of Judah, and had taken Beth-shemesh, and
Aijalon, and Gederoth, and Soco with the towns¹ thereof, and
Timnah with the towns¹ thereof, Gimzo also and the towns¹
thereof: and they dwelt there.
¹ Hebrew _daughters_.
=18.= _had invaded_] Rather, =raided=.
_the lowland_] Hebrew _Shephēlāh_. Compare i. 15 (note).
_Beth-shemesh_] compare 1 Chronicles vi. 59 [44, Hebrew], note.
_Aijalon_] compare xi. 10.
_Gederoth_] Joshua xv. 41.
_Soco_] compare xi. 7.
_Timnah_] Joshua xv. 10; Judges xiv. 1 ff.
_Gimzo_] The modern _Jimzu_ south-east of Lydda, Bädeker, _Palestine_⁵,
p. 18. The place is not mentioned elsewhere in the Old Testament.
¹⁹For the LORD brought Judah low because of Ahaz king of Israel;
for he had dealt wantonly¹ in Judah, and trespassed sore against
the LORD.
¹ Or, _cast away restraint_.
=19.= _king of Israel_] Compare xi. 3 (note).
_he had dealt wantonly_] margin “cast away restraint.” Compare Exodus
xxxii. 25 (Authorized Version and Revised Version) where the same
Hebrew verb is twice used.
²⁰And Tilgath-pilneser king of Assyria came unto¹ him, and
distressed him, but strengthened him not². ²¹For Ahaz took away
a portion out of the house of the LORD, and out of the house
of the king and of the princes, and gave it unto the king of
Assyria: but it helped him not.
¹ Or, _against_.
² Or, _prevailed not against him_.
=20.= _Tilgath-pilneser_] i.e. Tiglath-pileser IV. Compare 1 Chronicles
v. 6 (note).
_came ... him not_] Tiglath-pileser, invoked as an ally, is here
represented as having come as an unscrupulous oppressor, accepting
the bribe and not fulfilling the task for which he was paid by Ahaz
(verse 21). But neither 2 Kings nor the Assyrian records relate
that Tiglath-pileser thus came into Judah; and it must be remarked
that the Hebrew text in this verse does not inspire confidence. Any
interpretation is accordingly rendered uncertain.
=22‒25= (compare 2 Kings xvi. 10‒18).
APOSTASY OF AHAZ.
²²And in the time of his distress¹ did he trespass yet more
against the LORD, this same king Ahaz. ²³For he sacrificed unto
the gods of Damascus², which smote him: and he said, Because
the gods of the kings of Syria helped them, _therefore_ will I
sacrifice to them, that they may help me. But they were the ruin
of him, and of all Israel.
¹ Or, _that he distressed him_.
² Hebrew _Darmesek_.
=23.= _the gods of Damascus_] In 2 Kings the statement is merely
that Ahaz made a copy of an altar which he saw at Damascus, and
sacrificed upon it. The altar at Damascus was probably the one used
by Tiglath-pileser and therefore an Assyrian rather than a Damascene
altar. The use of such an altar was an act of apostasy from Jehovah,
for a foreign altar implied a foreign god; compare 2 Kings v. 17.
_the gods ... which smote him_] Early passages of the Old Testament
show that the Israelites for long believed the gods of other peoples
to be no less real than Jehovah. Later, when the teaching of the
great prophets had impressed on the people the sense of Jehovah’s
supreme majesty, the alien deities, though still conceived as real
Beings holding sway over the nations worshipping them, were felt to
be incomparable with Jehovah, hardly deserving therefore the title of
God. Still later, in certain circles, all reality whatever was denied
to the gods of the heathen; they were nothing at all (compare Isaiah
xl.‒xlviii., _passim_). Almost certainly the last opinion would be the
belief of the Chronicler and of _most_ orthodox Jews of his time; so
that it is unnecessary to suppose that the present phrase “which smote
him” is more than a convenient way of speaking. It does not indicate
that the Chronicler, or even his source in Kings, believed in the
existence of these gods of Damascus. On the other hand the Chronicler
(and his source) does imply in this verse that _Ahaz_ had a lively
belief in the efficacy and reality of the gods of his foes; and therein
no doubt he correctly represents the condition of thought in that
period.
_the gods of the kings of Syria helped them_] At this time the Syrians
of Damascus had been conquered by the Assyrians under Tiglath-pileser
(2 Kings xvi. 9), so that either we must suppose a confusion in the
Chronicler’s mind, or else the statement needs to be corrected by
reading “kings of _Assyria_ (Asshur)” for “kings of _Syria_ (Aram).”
The reading “Syria” might be due to some writer or scribe, who lived at
a time when one Empire extended from Babylon to the Mediterranean and
included both Syria and Assyria. Such was the case under the Persians
and under the successors of Alexander down to the time of the Maccabees.
The Romans similarly failed at first to distinguish the ancient empire
east of the Euphrates, i.e. Assyria (= Asshur), from the peoples west
of the Euphrates, the Arameans, whom they mistakenly called “Syrians”
(a shortened form of “Assyrians”), whose chief cities were Antioch,
Hamath, and Damascus. This use of “Syrian” has passed over into English,
but the more accurate designation is “Aramean”; compare Genesis xxviii.
5 (Revised Version).
_helped them_] Render “help them.”
²⁴And Ahaz gathered together the vessels of the house of God,
and cut in pieces the vessels of the house of God, and shut up
the doors of the house of the LORD; and he made him altars in
every corner of Jerusalem.
=24.= _cut in pieces the vessels_] Presumably in order to smelt them
and put the metal to other uses; compare 2 Kings xxiv. 13. According
to 2 Kings xvi. 17 Ahaz merely “cut off the borders (‘panels’ Revised
Version margin) of the bases and removed the laver from off them, and
took down the sea from off the brasen oxen that were under it, and put
it upon a pavement of stone.” In Chronicles something more than this is
intended, for “the vessels” would naturally mean such vessels as are
mentioned in 2 Kings xxiv. 13.
_shut up the doors_] The Chronicler possibly derives his statement from
the difficult passage 2 Kings xvi. 18 (_vide_ Authorized Version and
Revised Version). That passage, however, speaks merely of an alteration
carried out by Ahaz on one of the entrances to the Temple, but says
nothing of a complete closing of the Temple; indeed it may be gathered
from 2 Kings xvi. 14‒16 that the Temple was not closed and that the
daily service went on, _with the great change_ that the king’s new
altar was used instead of the brasen altar. The Chronicler, unwilling
to suppose so horrible a desecration of the Temple as the performance
of Ahaz’ idolatries within its precincts would involve, placed these
rites outside the area of the Temple and expressly asserts that the
Temple was closed.
²⁵And in every several city of Judah he made high places to burn
incense unto other gods, and provoked to anger the LORD, the God
of his fathers.
=25.= _in every several city_] Compare Jeremiah ii. 28.
=26, 27= (= 2 Kings xvi. 19, 20).
THE END OF AHAZ.
²⁶Now the rest of his acts, and all his ways, first and last,
behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Judah and
Israel. ²⁷And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and they buried him
in the city, even in Jerusalem; for they brought him not into
the sepulchres of the kings of Israel: and Hezekiah his son
reigned in his stead.
=27.= _they brought him not into the sepulchres of the kings of
Israel_] An alteration of 2 Kings which says that Ahaz “was buried
with his fathers.” Compare xxi. 20, xxiv. 25, xxvi. 23.