_THE APOSTASIES OF AHAZ_
2 KINGS xvi. 1-18
"For when we in our wickedness grow hard,
Oh misery on't! the wise gods seal our eyes;
In our own filth drop our clear judgments; make us
Adore our errors; laugh at us while we strut
To our confusion."
Ahaz was indifferent to these prophecies because his heart was
otherwhere. It is clear from our authorities that this king had excited
an unusually deep antipathy in the hearts of those later writers who
judged religion not only from the earlier standpoint, but from the stern
and inexorable requirements of the Deuteronomic and the Priestly Codes.
The historian, adopting an unusual phrase, says that "he did not that
which was right in the sight of the Lord, but he walked in the ways of
the kings of Israel." He not only continued the high places, as the best
of his predecessors had done, but he increased their popularity and
importance by personally offering sacrifices and burning incense "on the
hills and under every green tree." It is probable, too, that he
introduced into Judah horses and chariots dedicated to the sun.[455] "He
made molten images for the Baalim," says the Chronicler, "and burnt
incense in the valley of the son of Himmon."
This last was his crowning atrocity: he actually sanctioned the
revolting worship of the abomination of the children of Ammon, which
Solomon had tolerated on the mount of offence. "He made his son to
pass through the fire." The Chronicler expresses it still more
dreadfully by saying that "he _burnt his children_ in the fire."[456]
In the Valley of Ben-Hinnom, or of the Benî-Hinnom, of which the name
is perpetuated in Gehenna, the place of torture for lost souls, there
stood a frightful image of the king--Moloch, Melek, Malcham. It
represented the sun-god, worshipped, not only as Baal under the
emblems of prolific nature, but, like the Egyptian Typhon, as the
emblem of the sun's scorching and blighting force. It was perhaps a
human figure with the head of an ox. The arms of the brazen image
sloped downwards over a cistern, which was filled with fuel; and when
a human sacrifice was to be offered to him, the child was probably
first killed, and then placed on these brazen arms as a gift to the
idol. It rolled down into the flaming tank, and was consumed amid the
strains of music. Recourse was only had to the most frightful form of
human sacrifice--the burning of grown-up victims--in extremities of
disaster, as when Mesha of Moab offered up his eldest son to Chemosh
on the wall of Kir-Hareseth in the sight of his people and of the
three invading armies. But the sacrifice of children was public, and
perhaps annual. Hence Milton, following the learned researches of
Selden in his Syntagma _De Dis Syriis_, writes:--
"First, Moloch, horrid king, besmeared with blood
Of human sacrifice, and parents' tears;
Though, for the noise of drums and timbrels loud,
Their children's cries unheard that pass'd through fire
To his grim idol. Him the Ammonite
Worshipp'd in Rabba and her watery plain,
In Argob and in Basan, to the stream
Of utmost Arnon. Nor content with such
Audacious neighbourhood, the wisest heart
Of Solomon he led by fraud to build
His temple right against the Temple of God
On that opprobrious hill, and made his grove
The pleasant Valley of Hinnom, Tophet thence
And black Gehenna call'd, the type of hell."[457]
But it may be doubted whether Ahaz, in spite of his frightful
position, or, in later days, the less excusable Manasseh, really
destroyed the lives of their young sons.[458] The ancients had a
notion that they could easily cheat their devil-deities. If a white ox
of Clitumnus became unfitted for a victim to Jupiter of the Capitol by
having on its body a few black spots, it was quite sufficient to make
it pass with the _Dî faciles_ by chalking the black spots over
it.[459] If human victims had to be thrown into the Tiber to Hercules,
Numa taught the people that little wickerwork images (_scirpea_) would
suit the purpose just as well.[460] Figures of dough were sometimes
offered instead of human beings on the altar of Artemis of Tauris.
Thus it became the custom, it is believed, merely to throw or to pass
children through or over the flames, and conventionally to _regard
them_ as having been sacrificed, though they might escape the ordeal
with little or no hurt. This was called _februatio_, or "lustration by
fire."[461] We may hope that this device was adopted by the two Judæan
kings, and, if so, they did not add to their horrible apostasy the
crime of infanticide. If, however, Ahaz was even to the smallest
extent implicated in such foul idolatries, it is not surprising that
he was in no mood to listen to Isaiah. What is profoundly surprising,
and is indeed a circumstance for which we cannot account, is that no
word of fierce indignation was addressed to him on this account by
Urijah, the high priest, whom Isaiah seems to describe as faithful, or
by Zechariah, the son of Jeberechiah, or by Micah, or by Isaiah, who
feared man so little and God so much.
The Assyrian party at the Court of Ahaz prevailed over the Egyptian.
Until the accession of the Ethiopian Sabaco[462] in 725, Egypt was
indeed in so weak, harassed, and divided a condition under feeble
native Pharaohs, that her help was obviously unavailable. The King of
Judah, seeing no extrication from his calamities except in the way of
worldly expediency, appealed to Tiglath-Pileser. In this he followed
the precedent of his ancestor Asa, who had diverted the attack of
Baasha by invoking the assistance of Syria. Ahaz sent to the Assyrian
potentate the humble message, "I am thy servant and thy son: come up
and save me from the Kings of Syria and Israel." If he had not faith
to accept Isaiah's promises, what else could he do, when Syria,
Israel, the Philistines, Edom, and Moab were all arrayed against him?
The ambassadors probably made their way, not without peril, along the
east of Jordan, or else by sea from Joppa, and so inland. Whether they
took with them the enormous bribe without which the appeal of the
helpless king might have been in vain, or whether this was sent
subsequently under Assyrian escort, we do not know. It was
euphemistically described as "a present" or "a blessing," but must be
regarded either as a tribute or a bribe.
Tiglath-Pileser II. saw his opportunity, and at once invaded Damascus.
In B.C. 733 he failed, but the next year he entirely subjugated the
kingdom, and put an end to the dynasty. Rezin was probably put to death
with the horrible barbarities which were normal among the brutal
Ninevites; and as the Assyrians had no conception of colonisation or the
wise government of dependencies, the Syrian population was deported _en
masse_ to Elam and an unknown Kir.[463] For a time Damascus was made "a
ruinous heap," and the cities of Aroer were the desolated lairs of
pasturing flocks. Israel, as we have seen, was next overwhelmed by the
same irremediable catastrophe, none of her people being left except such
as might be compared to the mere gleanings of a vintage, and the few
berries on the topmost boughs of the olive tree.[464]
Tiglath-Pileser meant to make Ahaz feel his yoke. He summoned him to
do homage at Damascus, and there Ahaz once more displayed his
cosmopolitan æstheticism at the expense of every pure tradition of the
religion of his fathers.
His visit to Damascus was no doubt compulsory. His worldly policy,
which looked so expedient, and which--apart from the defiance which it
involved to the voice of God by His prophets--seemed to be so
pardonable, had for the time succeeded. Isaiah's promises had been
fulfilled to the letter. There was nothing more to fear either from
Rezin or from Remaliah's son. Their kingdoms were a desolation. In his
own annals Tiglath-Pileser[465] does not exaggerate his
achievements.[466] He wrote as follows:--
"Rezin's warriors I captured, and with the sword I destroyed.
Of his charioteers and [his horsemen] the arms I broke:
Their bow-bearing warriors, [their footmen] armed with spear and
shield,
With my hand I captured them, and those that fought in their
battle-line.
He to save his life fled away alone;
Like a deer [he ran], and entered into the great gate of his city.
His generals, whom I had taken alive, on crosses I hung;
His country I subdued;
Damascus, his city, I subdued, and like a caged bird I shut him in.
I cut down the unnumbered trees of his forest; I left not one.
Hadara, the palace of the father of Rezin of Syria, [I burnt].
The city of Samaria I besieged, I captured; eight hundred of its
people and children I took;
Their oxen and their sheep I carried away.
I took five hundred and ninety-one cities;
Over sixteen districts of Syria like a flood I swept."
But the more complete destruction of Israel was due to Shalmaneser
IV., who says,--
"The city of Samaria I besieged, I took,
I carried away twenty-seven thousand two hundred of its inhabitants;
I seized fifty of their chariots.
I gave up to plunder the rest of their possessions.
I appointed officers over them;
I laid on them the tribute of the former king.
In their place I settled the men of conquered countries."
The immediate service to Judah looked immense. The Assyrian might safely
claim, and Ahaz might truthfully confess, that the intervention of
Tiglath-Pileser had rescued him from the apparent imminence of
destruction. But the Assyrian kings served no one for nothing. The price
which had to be paid for Tiglath-Pileser's intervention was vassalage
and tribute. Ahaz, or, as the Assyrians call him, Jehoahaz,[467] had
styled himself Tiglath-Pileser's "servant and his son," and the Assyrian
chose to have substantial proof of this parental suzerainty. The great
king therefore summoned the poor subject-potentate to Damascus, where he
was holding his victorious court.
So far Ahaz had no reason to complain of his "dreadful patron"; and if
he had returned when he paid his homage, no immediate harm would have
happened. But during his visit he saw "the altar" (_Heb._) at the
conquered city. Was it the altar of the defeated Syrian god Rimmon? or
did the Assyrian persuade his willing vassal to sacrifice at the
portable altar of his god Assur? We may, perhaps, infer the former
from 2 Chron. xxviii. 23, where Ahaz says: "Because the gods of the
kings of Syria help them, therefore will I sacrifice to them, that
they may help me." There is room to suspect some error here, because
Rezin had fallen, and Damascus was in ruins, and Rimmon had
conspicuously failed to help or to avenge his votaries.[468] Ahaz
admired the altar, to whatever god it had been erected; and unmindful,
or perhaps unconscious, that the altar of the Temple of Jerusalem was
declared in the Pentateuch to have been divinely ordained--a fact to
which the historian does not himself refer--he sent to the head priest
Urijah a pattern of the altar which had struck his fancy at Damascus.
The subservient priest, without a murmur or a remonstrance, undertook
to have a similar altar ready for Ahaz in the Temple by the time of
his return--a crime, if crime it were, which the Chronicler conceals.
"Never any prince was so foully idolatrous," says Bishop Hall, "as
that he wanted a priest to second him. A Urijah is fit to humour an
Ahaz.[469] Greatness could never command anything which some servile
wits were not ready both to applaud and justify." Certainly we should
have hoped for more fidelity to ancient tradition from a man who
earned the approving word of Isaiah; but it is only fair and just to
admit that Urijah, in the universal ignorance which prevailed about
the codes which were afterwards collected and published as the total
legislation of the wilderness, may have viewed his obedience to the
king's commands with very different eyes from those by which it was
regarded in the sixth and fifth centuries before Christ. He may have
been frankly unaware that he was guilty of an act which would
afterwards be denounced as an apostatising enormity.[470]
When Ahaz returned, he was so much pleased with his new plaything that
he at once acted as priest at his own new altar. Without the least
opposition from the priests--who had so sternly resisted Uzziah--he
offered burnt-offerings and meat-offerings and drink-offerings, and
sprinkled the blood of peace-offerings on his altar.[471] Not content
with this, he did not hesitate to order the removal of the huge brazen
altar from the position, in front of the Temple porch, which it had
held since the days of Solomon. He did this in order that his own
favourite altar might be in the line of vision from the court, and not
be overshadowed by the old one, which he shifted from the place of
honour to the north side. He proceeded to call his own altar "the
great altar," and ordered that the morning burnt-offering, and the
evening _minchah_, and all the principal sacrifices should henceforth
be offered upon it.[472] He did not wholly supersede the old brazen
altar, which, he said, "shall be for me to inquire by," or, as the
Hebrew may perhaps mean, "it should await"--_i.e._, "I will hereafter
consider what to do with it."
Ahaz is charged with the additional crime of removing the ornamental
festoons of bronze pomegranates from the lavers, and the brazen oxen
from under the molten sea, which henceforth lay dishonoured, without its
proper and splendid supports, on the pavement of the court.[473] He
also took away the balustrade of the royal "ascent" from the palace to
the Temple, and made a new entrance of a less gorgeous character than
that which, in the days of Solomon, the Queen of Sheba had admired.[474]
No doubt these proceedings helped to heighten the unpopularity of
Ahaz. But what could he do? He could, indeed, if he had had sufficient
faith, have "trusted in Jehovah," as Isaiah bade him do. But he was
under the terrific pressure of hostile circumstances, and, being a
weak and timid man, felt himself unable to resist the influence of the
haughty politicians and worldly priests by whom he was surrounded--men
who openly made Isaiah their scoff. When he invited the interposition
of Tiglath-Pileser,[475] all the other consequences of humiliation
would naturally follow. He probably disliked as much as any one to see
the great molten laver taken off the backs of the oxen which showed
the skill of the ancient Hiram, and did not admire the despoiled
aspect of the shrine of his capital. But if the King of Assyria or his
emissaries had (as the historian implies) cast greedy eyes on these
splendid objects of antiquity, the poor vassal could not refuse them.
Better, he may have thought, that these material ornaments should go
to Nineveh than that he should be forced to exact yet heavier burdens
from an impoverished people. His expedient is mentioned among his
crimes, yet no one blamed the pious Hezekiah when, under similar
circumstances, he acted in precisely the same manner.[476]
The Chronicler gives a darker aspect to his misdoings by saying that
he cut to pieces the vessels of the house of God, and made him altars
in every corner of Jerusalem, and _bamoth_ to burn incense unto other
gods in every several city of Judah. He says, further, that he closed
the great gates of the Temple; put an end to the kindling of the
lamps, the burning of incense, and the daily offerings; and left the
whole Temple to fall into ruin and neglect.[477] We know no more of
him. He lived through an epoch marked by the final crisis in the
existence of the kingdom of Israel. Dark omens of every kind were
around him, and he seems to have been too frivolous to see them. If he
plumed himself on the removal of the two relentless invaders Rezin and
Pekah, he must have lived to feel that the terror of Assyria had come
appreciably nearer. Tiglath-Pileser had only helped Judah in
furtherance of his own designs, and his exactions came like a chronic
distress after the acuter crisis. Nor was there any improvement when
he died in 727. He was succeeded by Shalmaneser IV., and Shalmaneser
IV. by Sargon in 722, the year of the fall of Samaria. We know no more
of Ahaz. The historian says that he was buried with his fathers, and
the Chronicler adds, as in the case of Uzziah and other kings, that
he was not permitted to rest in the sepulchres of the kings.[478] He
had sown the wind; his son Hezekiah had to reap the whirlwind.[479]
FOOTNOTES:
[455] See 2 Kings xxiii. 11, which shows that this was not an innovation
of Manasseh's. They were common in Persia. See Q. Curtius, iii. 3.
[456] 2 Kings xvii. 31; Ezek. xvi. 21, xxiii. 37, xxxiii. 6; Deut.
xii. 31; Jer. xix. 5. See 2 Chron. xxviii. 3; for "his son," בְּנוֹ,
it uses בָּנָיו "his sons," but perhaps generically. Moloch-worship
may have been stimulated by accounts of the Assyrian fire-god
Adrammelech (Movers, _Phöniz._, ii. 101). On this sacrifice of
children to Moloch, which the Phœnicians referred back to the god El
or Il, once King of Byblos, who in a crisis of danger sacrificed his
eldest son Icond, see Plut., _De Superst._, § 13; Diod. Sic., xx.
12-14; 2 Kings iii. 27, xvi. 3, xxi. 6; Mic. vi. 7; Döllinger,
_Judenthum u. Heidenthum_ (E. T.), i. 427-429.
[457] This worship was to be punished by stoning (Lev. xviii. 21, xx.
2-5; Deut. xviii. 10). On the whole subject see Movers, _Phöniz._, 64;
Jarchi _on Jer. vii._ 31; Euseb., _Præp. Ev._, iv. 16.
[458] Josephus says that Ahaz made "a whole burnt-offering" of his
son; but his authority is very small (καὶ ἴδιον ὡλοκαύτωσεν παῖδα).
Comp. Psalm cvi. 37.
[459] Ignorant Romanists have often cherished the same notions about
the saints. For centuries in Spain the people bought the old gowns and
cowls of the monks, and buried their dead in them, to deceive St.
Peter into the notion that they were Dominicans or Franciscans!
[460] See Ovid, _Fasti_, v. 659: "Scripea pro domino Tiberi jactatur
imago." They were also called _Argei_, _id._ 621; Varro, _L. L._, vi. 3.
[461] Varro, _L. L._, v. 3.
[462] Herod., ii. 137. Egypt., _Sebek_; Heb., _So_ (2 Kings xvii. 4),
or perhaps _Seve_; Arab., _Shab'i_. Rawlinson, _Hist. of Anct. Egypt_,
ii. 433-450.
[463] Kir (see Amos ix. 7) is omitted in the LXX. Elam is added in Isa.
xxii. 6. Tiglath-Pileser calls the king Rasunnu Sarimirisu--_i.e._, of
Aram. See Smith, _Assyr. Discoveries_, p. 274; _Eponym Canon_, 68;
Schrader, _K. A. T._, 152 ff.
[464] Isa. xvii. 1-11.
[465] The name seems to be Tuklat-abal-isarra,--according to Oppert
worshipper of the son of the Zodiac--_i.e._, of Nin or Hercules.
According to Polyhistor, he was a usurper who had been a vine-dresser
in the royal gardens. He never mentions his ancestry. But see
Schrader, _K. A. T._, 217 ff., 240 ff., and in Riehm.
[466] _Eponym Canon_, p. 121, lines 1-15. On this fall of Damascus and
Samaria, see Isa. xvii.
[467] Jahuhazi (Schrader, _Keilinschr._, p. 263). He probably bore
both names; but, as in the case of Jeconiah, who is called Coniah, the
omission of the element "Jehovah" from his name may have been intended
as a mark of reprobation.
[468] The remark may refer to some earlier period in the reign of
Ahaz, before the capture of Damascus. It is more probable that the
altar was used for some Assyrian deity, and the adoption of it may
have flattered Tiglath-Pileser.
[469] 2 Kings xvi. 11, which records the zealous subservience of Urijah,
is wanting in some MSS. of the LXX. But that the altar was made, and
without his opposition, is clear from the narrative. Asa (2 Chron. xv.
8) had repaired Solomon's great altar; Hezekiah subsequently cleansed it
(_id._ xxix. 18); Manasseh rebuilt it (_Q'ri_). The brass of it
ultimately went to Babylon (Jer. lii. 17-20).
[470] Bähr says: "It seems that Urijah, like his companion, was only
anxious for his revenues. At any rate, his conduct is a sign of the
character and standing of the priests of that time. They were 'dumb
dogs who could not bark.' They all followed their own ways, every one
for his own gain" (Isa. lvi. 10, 11). "We have in this high priest,"
says the _Würtemberg Summary_, "a specimen of those hypocrites and
belly-servants who say, 'Whose bread I eat, his song I sing'; who veer
about with the wind, and seek to be pleasant to all men; who wish to
hurt no one's feelings, but teach just what any one wants to hear."
[471] 1 Kings viii. 64; 2 Chron. iv. 1. In this and similar instances
commentators, biassed by _a priori_ considerations, have imagined that
Ahaz did not in person offer sacrifices. But this is what the text says,
and it was the custom of kings to regard themselves as invested with
Divine attributes. Ahaz may have had this lesson impressed on his mind
by his visit to Tiglath-Pileser. See Grätz, _Gesch. der Juden._, ii.
150. Layard, _Nin. and Bab._, 472 ff., gives us pictures of Assyrian
kings ministering at their altars, which are of various shapes.
[472] 2 Kings xvi. 15. Vulg., _paratum erit ad voluntatem meam_. The
LXX. followed another reading: ἔσται μοὶ εἰς τὸ πρωί. Grätz (ii. 150),
for לכקר, "to inquire," reads לקרב "to draw near to."
[473] 1 Kings vii. 23-39.
[474] 2 Kings xvi. 18. The allusions are obscure. R.V., "the covered
way"; A.V., "the covert for the Sabbath." See 2 Chron. ix. 4. Here the
Hebr. _Q'ri_ has _Mûsak_, and the Vulg. _Musach Sabbati_. The LXX.
evidently did not understand it (καὶ τὸν θεμέλιον τῆς καθέδρας
ᾠκοδόμησεν). For "covert for the Sabbath," Geiger suggests "molten
images for the Shame" (Bosheth-Baal, by transposition of _Shabbath_).
Comp. 2 Chron. xxviii. 2.
[475] 2 Chron. xxviii. 20: "Tiglath-Pileser came unto him, and
distressed him, but helped him not."
[476] 2 Kings xviii. 15, 16.
[477] In justice to Ahaz, we should observe that (1) in every instance
the later account multiplies and magnifies and gives a darker
colouring to his offences; (2) that neither Isaiah, Micah, nor any
other prophet has a word of reproach for such enormities in Ahaz.
[478] It is a Jewish tradition that Hezekiah would not bury his father
Ahaz in a sarcophagus, but on a bier (_Pesachin_, f. 56, 1;
_Sanhedrin_, f. 47, 1; Grätz, _Gesch. d. Juden._, ii, 224).
[479] His name, _Chizquîyyah_, is shortened from _Yechizquîyyahoo_
(Isa. i. 1; 2 Kings xx. 10; Hos. i. 1). It means "Jehovah's strength"
(_Gesen._), or "Yah is might" (_Fûrst_).
PROBABLE DATES.
B.C.
745. Accession of Tiglath-Pileser.
746. Death of Uzziah. Accession of Jotham. First vision of Isaiah
(Isa. vi.).
735. Accession of Ahaz. Syro-Ephraimitish war.
734-732. Siege and capture of Damascus, and ravage of Northern
Israel by Tiglath-Pileser. Visit of Ahaz to Damascus.
727. Accession of Shalmaneser IV.
722. Accession of Sargon. Capture of Samaria, and captivity of the
Ten Tribes.
720. Defeat of Sabaco by Sargon at Raphia.
715(?). Accession of Hezekiah.
711. Sargon captures Ashdod.
707. Sargon defeats Merodach-Baladan, and captures Babylon.
705. Murder of Sargon. Accession of Sennacherib.
701. Sennacherib besieges Ekron. Defeats Egypt at Altaqu. Invades
Judah, and spares Hezekiah. Invades Egypt, and sends the Rabshakeh
to Jerusalem. Disaster of Assyrians at Pelusium, and disappearance
from before Jerusalem.
697. Death of Hezekiah. Accession of Manasseh.
681. Death of Sennacherib.
608. Battle of Megiddo. Death of Josiah.
607. Fall of Nineveh and Assyria. Triumph of Babylon.
605. Battle of Carchemish. Defeat of Pharaoh Necho by
Nebuchadrezzar.
599. First deportation of Jews to Babylon by Nebuchadrezzar.
588. Destruction of Jerusalem. Second deportation.
538. Cyrus captures Babylon.
536. Decree of Cyrus. Return of Zerubbabel and the first Jewish
exiles.
458. Return of Ezra.