2 Kings · Chapter 16

REIGN OF AHAZ, KING OF JUDAH, 1-20.

“The reign of Ahaz was the most disastrous of any through which Judah had yet passed. The kingdom sank so low, both internally and externally, religiously and politically, that it was on the verge of ruin. Such an incapable ruler had never before ascended the throne. The predominant feature in his character was weakness — weakness of spirit and weakness of intellect. History records nothing about him worthy of respect.” — Bahr.

1. Seventeenth year of Pekah — As Jotham began to reign in Pekah’s second year, and reigned sixteen years, (2 Kings 15:32, 33,) it would seem that the beginning of the reign of Ahaz should synchronize with Pekah’s eighteenth or nineteenth year. But this apparent discrepancy is explained by supposing the first and last years of Jotham’s reign to have been only parts of years. See note on 2 Kings 14:1.

Verse 2. Twenty years old was Ahaz] Here is another considerable difficulty in the chronology. Ahaz was but twenty years old when he began to reign, and he died after he had reigned sixteen years; consequently his whole age amounted only to thirty-six years. But Hezekiah his son was twenty-five years old when he began to reign; and if this were so, then Ahaz must have been the father of Hezekiah when he was but eleven years of age! Some think that the twenty years mentioned here respect the beginning of the reign of Jotham, father of Ahaz; so that the passage should be thus translated: Ahaz was twenty years of age when his father began to reign; and consequently he was fifty-two years old when he died, seeing Jotham reigned sixteen years: and therefore Hezekiah was born when his father was twenty-seven years of age. This however is a violent solution, and worthy of little credit. It is better to return to the text as it stands, and allow that Ahaz might be only eleven or twelve years old when he had Hezekiah: this is not at all impossible; as we know that the youth of both sexes in the eastern countries are marriageable at ten or twelve years of age, and are frequently betrothed when they are but nine. I know a woman, an East Indian, who had the second of her two first children when she was only fourteen years of age, and must have had the first when between eleven and twelve. I hold it therefore quite a possible case that Ahaz might have had a son born to him when he was but eleven or twelve years old.

Verse 2. Ahaz did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord — Contrary to what might have been expected, considering the good education which, doubtless, Jotham, his pious father, gave him, and the excellent example he set him. Like David his father — Or progenitor. It was his honour that he was of the house and lineage of David, and it was owing to God’s ancient covenant with David, that he was now upon the throne: but he had none of that concern and affection for the instituted worship and service of God, for which David was so remarkable. He had no love for the temple, made no conscience of his duty to God, nor had any regard to his law, and therefore was a reproach to that honourable name and family, to which he was under such great obligations, and which, of consequence, was really a reproach to him, showing his wickedness in a more aggravated point of view.

2. Twenty years old… sixteen years — So his whole age was thirty-six years. But he was immediately succeeded by his son Hezekiah, who was at the time twenty-five years old. 2 Kings 18. 2. Accordingly Ahaz must have begotten his son Hezekiah when he was only eleven years old. To meet this difficulty some copies of the Septuagint, and the Syriac and Arabic versions at the parallel place in Chronicles (28:1,) read twenty-five instead of twenty years. But most interpreters accept the common reading, and argue that it was nowise impossible for Ahaz to beget a son in his eleventh or twelfth year. Compare note on 2 Kings 18:2.

V. 3. Pass-By way of oblation, so as to be consumed for a burnt-offering, which was the practice of Heathens, and of some Israelites, in imitation of them.

Verse 3. Made his son to pass through the fire] On this passage I beg leave to refer the reader to my notes on Leviticus 18:21; 20:2, 14, where the subject is considered at large.

Verse 3. He walked in the way of the kings of Israel — Who all worshipped the calves, and were therefore idolaters. He was not joined in any affinity with them, as Jehoram and Ahaziah were with the house of Ahab, but of his own accord and voluntary motion, and, without any instigation, he walked in their way. The kings of Israel pleaded policy and reasons of state for their idolatry; but Ahaz had no such pretence: in him it was the most unreasonable and impolitic conduct that could be. They were his enemies, and had manifested that they were enemies to themselves too by their idolatry; yet he walked in their way. And made his son to pass through the fire — By way of oblation, so as to be consumed for a burnt-offering, which was the practice of heathen, and of some Israelites in imitation of them. Thus 2 Chronicles 28:3, it is said, He burned his children in the fire, that is, some of them, first one, as is here mentioned, and afterward others, as is there observed. See on Leviticus 18:21, and Deuteronomy 18:10. According to the abominations of the heathen, whom the Lord cast out — It was an instance of his great folly that, in his religion, he would be guided by and imitate those whom he saw fallen into the ditch before his eyes; and of his great impiety, that he would conform to those usages which God had declared to be abominable to him.

Verse 3. Ahaz made his son pass through the fire. It appears from the poets that the heathens did commonly dedicate a child to a god by lustrations; that is, by causing him to pass between two fires, as described by Virgil, Æn. 6. Ovid. Fast. 4. But here Ahaz “burnt his children in the fire.” 2 Chronicles 28:3. Thus also Isaiah 1:15, “Your hands are full of blood.” See note on Leviticus 18:21.

3. Walked in the way of the kings of Israel — By running into all sorts of idolatry, and forming leagues with the heathen. His reign was a period of enormous wickedness, and to Judah one of numerous disasters. Made his son to pass through the fire — This expression, more fully written in 2 Kings 23:10, to pass through the fire to Molech, is interpreted by the rabbies to mean merely the passing between two burning pyres as a purificatory rite. But this is refuted by the parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 28:3: He burnt his children in the fire, and also by the unequivocal statements of the following texts: Psalm 106:37, 38; Jeremiah 7:31; 19:4, 5; Ezekiel 16:20, 21; 23:37. A comparison of all these passages will show that the victims were slain before they were burned. The laws of Moses warned the Israelites against this very abomination, Compare Leviticus 18:21; 20:2-4; Deuteronomy 18:10. The rabbinical theory evidently sprung from a desire to escape the charge of the atrocious idolatries of the ancient Jews. Abominations of the heathen — Several of the Canaanitish nations, as well as the Ammonites and Moabites, appear to have practised this horrible rite. According to Movers, “the burning of the children was regarded as a passing through, by which they attained to purification with the deity after the dissolution of the earthly, impure dross of the body.”

Verse 4. He sacrificed, &c., in the high places — If his father had but had zeal enough to take them away, it might have prevented the corrupting of his sons. They that connive at sin, know not what dangerous snares they lay for those that come after them.

4. High places… hills… every green tree — Compare Hosea 4:13. To all this Chronicles adds that he “made molten images for Baalim.”

V. 5. Could not overcome-Because God of his own mere grace, undertook his protection, and disappointed the hopes of his enemies.

Verse 5. But could not overcome him.] It is likely that this was the time when Isaiah was sent to console Ahaz; (see Isaiah 7:1;) and predicted the death both of Rezin and Pekah, his enemies.

Verses 5, 6. But could not overcome him — Because God, of his own mere grace, undertook the protection of Judah, as he promised to do, and disappointed the designs and hopes of their enemies, Isaiah 7:1-9. At that time Rezin recovered Elath — Took it from the Jews, who had not long been in possession of it, having but lately recovered it, with the rest of Edom: see on 2 Kings 14:22. So that, though the confederate kings of Syria and Israel failed, through the interference of Divine Providence, in their attempts on Jerusalem, the former made himself master of this considerable and very commodious port on the Red sea.

Ver. 5. Rezin, uniting his forces with Remaliah king of Israel, slaughtered a hundred and twenty thousand men of Judah, and burnt all the cities except Jerusalem. They saw that Ahaz was weak and wicked, and formed a league to divide the kingdom of Judah between them, as in the seventh of Isaiah.

5. Rezin… and Pekah… came up — In the days of Jotham they had formed an alliance and commenced operations against the kingdom of Judah, but for some reason they seem not to have come up to Jerusalem until the beginning of Ahaz’s reign. Perhaps Jotham’s soldier-like power and valour were more than a match for the allied armies. Besieged Ahaz — His weakness and wickedness emboldened his foes. Could not overcome — The army of Jerusalem seems to have been inspirited by Isaiah’s words, who came forward at this season of alarm, and uttered the oracle of doom against “the two tails of these smoking firebrands, Rezin and the son of Remaliah.” Compare Isaiah 7:1-9. But though unable to capture Jerusalem, they did immense injury to the kingdom of Judah. According to 2 Chronicles 28:5-15, they either slew or carried into exile hundreds of thousands of the people, and also took much spoil. The Israelites, however, at the expostulation of the prophet Obed, released their captives and sent them back to Jericho.

Verse 6. Recovered Elath to Syria] See Clarke’s note on “2 Kings 14:22”.

Verses 5, 6. But could not overcome him — Because God, of his own mere grace, undertook the protection of Judah, as he promised to do, and disappointed the designs and hopes of their enemies, Isaiah 7:1-9. At that time Rezin recovered Elath — Took it from the Jews, who had not long been in possession of it, having but lately recovered it, with the rest of Edom: see on 2 Kings 14:22. So that, though the confederate kings of Syria and Israel failed, through the interference of Divine Providence, in their attempts on Jerusalem, the former made himself master of this considerable and very commodious port on the Red sea.

6. At that time — During the course of this Syro-Israelitish war. Rezin… recovered Elath to Syria — Rezin appears throughout all this war against Judah as more powerful than his Israelitish ally. Elath, on the Red Sea, had been taken from the Edomites and attached to the kingdom of Judah in the reign of Uzziah. See on 2 Kings 14:22. The word recovered [byvh] does not necessarily imply that Elath had formerly belonged to Syria, but here it simply means that it now changed hands, turned from one possessor to another. The Syrians came to Elath — The Hebrew is without the article, Syrians came — that is, a colony of Syrians. Rezin, having captured this ancient commercial town, at once settled a Syrian colony there, probably for purposes of commerce, and to open for himself a new source of revenue, and though Syria was soon afterwards conquered, and Rezin slain, this colony dwelt there unto this day, that is, at the time when our author wrote. For it is by no means improbable that a Syrian colony remained at Elath long after the home Government had been annihilated. The Keri, Septuagint, Vulgate, and many interpreters, read Edomites instead of Syrians, but that reading would seem to be unsuitable, for it would be strange to say that Edomites dwelt there unto this day, when the Edomites had always dwelt in that vicinity. Besides the losses which Ahaz sustained from the combined armies of Rezin and Pekah, Chronicles informs us that the Edomites and Philistines also invaded Judah on the south and west, occupied many cities, and carried off captives. 2 Chronicles 28:17, 18.

V. 7. Sent messengers, &c.-But was it because there was no God in Israel, that he sent to the Assyrian for help? The sin itself was its own punishment; for tho’ it served his present turn, yet he made but an ill bargain, seeing he not only impoverished himself, but enslaved both himself and his people.

Verse 7. I am thy servant and thy son] I will obey thee in all, and become tributary to thee; only help me against Syria and Israel.

Verse 7. So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser — Having forsaken God, he had neither courage nor strength to make head against his enemies, and therefore made his court to the king of Assyria, and endeavoured to prevail on him to come to his relief. But was it because there was not a God in Israel that he sent to the Assyrian for help? The truth is, he could not with any confidence ask help of God, being conscious he had abandoned his worship, and in the grossest manner violated his laws. Observe, reader, they whose hearts condemn them will go any whither for help, in a day of distress, rather than to God. Saying, I am thy servant and thy son: come up, and save me — I yield myself to thee as thy vassal, to serve and obey thee, and pay thee tribute, upon condition that thou wilt assist me against my enemies. Had he thus humbled himself to God, and implored his favour, he might have been delivered upon easier terms, might have saved his money, and needed only to have parted with his sins. Out of the hand of the king of Syria, &c. — For though they were now gone from Jerusalem, yet he justly concluded they would return again, and, from time to time, molest and vex him.

Ver. 7. Ahaz sent—to Tiglath. Judah was ruined before, and now Jerusalem was impoverished, yet the scheme succeeded in the ruin of Damascus and Samaria, and in the western aggrandizement of the Babylonian empire: a dark day to western Asia. Where now is the God of David? These are the fruits of seeking to idols, and to an arm of flesh, instead of seeking to the Lord.

7. Ahaz sent… to Tiglath-pileser — He placed no strong reliance on the word of the Lord by Isaiah that Rezin and Pekah were only like two smoking firebrands that would soon burn out and be harmless. He was probably led to apply to the Assyrian monarch because he had already greatly injured Israel. See note on 2 Kings 15:29. Thy servant and thy son — An acknowledgment of Judah’s dependency on Assyria. Compare note on 2 Kings 14:5.

Verse 8. And Ahaz took the silver, &c. — The treasures of the house of the Lord, and of the king’s house, had been sent some years before by Jehoash to the king of Syria, 2 Kings 12:18. It seems, however, they had been well replenished again by the piety of his successors, Amaziah, Azariah, and especially Jotham. But what authority had Ahaz to dispose thus of the public money, and exhaust the treasures of both church and state, to gratify his new patron and guardian? We can only answer, that it is common for those, who have brought themselves into straits by one sin, to endeavour to extricate themselves by another. And those that have alienated themselves from God, will make no difficulty in alienating from him any other of his rights. In this instance, the sin itself was its own punishment; for, though the king of Assyria hearkened unto Ahaz, and, for his own ends, made a descent on Damascus, and took it, thereby giving a powerful diversion to the king of Syria, and obliging him to forego his design against Jerusalem; yet Ahaz made but an ill bargain, seeing he not only robbed the temple, and expended his own treasures, but enslaved both himself and his people to the king of Assyria.

8. Ahaz took the silver and gold — He did to the king of Assyria what Jehoash had done for a like purpose to the king of Syria. See 2 Kings 12:18.

Verse 9. The king of Assyria hearkened unto him] It is said, 2 Chronicles 28:20, that Tilgath-pilneser distressed him, but strengthened him not. Though he came against the Syrians, and took Damascus, and slew Rezin, yet he did not help Ahaz against the Philistines, nor did he lend him any forces to assist against Israel; and he distressed him by taking the royal treasures, and the treasures of the temple, and did him little service for so great a sacrifice. He helped him a little, but distressed him on the whole.

It appears that, about this time, Pekah king of Israel nearly ruined Judea: it is said, 2 Chronicles 28:6, that he slew one hundred thousand valiant men in one day; and that he carried away captive to Samaria two hundred thousand women and children, and much spoil; but, at the instance of the prophet Oded, these were all sent back, fed and clothed, 2 Chronicles 28:8-16.

Verse 9. And carried the people of it captive to Kir — Not Kir of Moab, (Isaiah 15:1,) but a part of Media, which was then subject to the king of Assyria. It is remarkable, that this taking of Damascus, and carrying the inhabitants of it captive to this place, nay, and the slaying of Rezin the king, was expressly foretold by Amos some time before it happened. See the margin.

Verses 10. And King Ahaz went to meet Tiglath-pileser — To congratulate his victory, acknowledge his favour and help, and to beg the continuance of it. And saw an altar that was at Damascus — Of an excellent structure, as he supposed, upon which the Syrians used to offer to their idols, 1 Chronicles 28:23. Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the fashion of the altar — That a pattern of it might be taken immediately. He could not stay till he should return to Jerusalem himself, but sent it before him, in all haste, with orders to Urijah, to get one made exactly according to this model, and have it ready against he came home. The pattern God showed to Moses in the mount, or to David by the Spirit, was not comparable to this pattern sent from Damascus!

9. Went up against Damascus — Which was the “head,” or capital of Syria. See Isaiah 7:8. Took it — Captured the city. Kir — This place is mentioned again at Isaiah 22:6; Amos 1:5; 9:7; but it does not appear from any of these notices whether it was a city or a district, and its locality is unknown. Some think a trace of the name still lingers in the river Kur, which rises in the mountains of Caucasus and flows into the Caspian Sea. But this seems too far north, and it is doubtful whether that region ever belonged to Assyria. Slew Rezin — This defeat crushed for centuries the prosperity and independence of Damascus, and utterly destroyed the kingdom of Syria. A mutilated inscription now in the British Museum contains a notice of the defeat and death of this last of the Syrian kings; and among the sculptures lately discovered at Nineveh is one that is thought to be a representation of the final siege of Damascus and the captivity of its inhabitants.

Verse 10. Ahaz went to Damascus] He had received so much help on the defeat of Rezin, that he went to Damascus to meet the king of Assyria, and render him thanks.

Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the fashion of the altar] This was some idolatrous altar, the shape and workmanship of which pleased Ahaz so well that he determined to have one like it at Jerusalem. For this he had no Divine authority, and the compliance of Urijah was both mean and sinful. That Ahaz did this for an idolatrous purpose, is evident from 2 Chronicles 28:21-25: “For he sacrificed to the gods of Damascus;-and he said, Because the gods of the kings of Syria help them, I will sacrifice to them, that they may help me. And he made high places to burn incense to other gods in every city of Judah.”

Ver. 10. Ahaz—saw an altar at Damascus. The Lord had shown Moses the form of the altar on which he would have his sacrifices offered. Exodus 27:1, 2. It was therefore the highest degree of impiety to supersede the Lord’s altar. Solomon enlarged it, but changed not its figure; and the mean spirit of Urijah, in accommodating himself to the humour of the king, made him highly culpable: it was indeed exalting his master above God. If he could not dissuade him from his profane purpose, he ought to have retired and wept. God has indeed appointed the powers that be, but he has nowhere allowed them so to decree rites and ceremonies in religion, as to force the conscience of the subject. See the Reflections on 2 Chronicles 28. and Isaiah 7.

10. Went to Damascus — After its capture. To meet Tiglath-pileser — To pay him a visit of homage and submission. Saw an altar — Before going to Damascus, and before the fall of the Syrian kingdom, and while he was hard pressed by the forces of Rezin, “he sacrificed unto the gods of Damascus, which smote him: and he said, Because the gods of the kings of Syria help them, therefore will I sacrifice to them, that they may help me.” 2 Chronicles 28:23. Now, however, he proposes to worship the more triumphant gods of Assyria, whose altar, after the victory of Tiglath, had been set up at Damascus, “It has been generally supposed,” says Rawlinson, (Historical Evidences, p. 117,) “that this altar was Syrian; and its establishment has been connected with the passage in Chronicles, where Ahaz is said to have ‘sacrificed to the gods of Damascus, which smote him;’ but few things can be more improbable than the adoption of the gods of a foreign nation at the moment when they had been proved to be powerless. The strange altar of Ahaz was in all probability not Syrian, but Assyrian; and its erection was in accordance with an Assyrian custom, of which the inscriptions afford abundant evidence — the custom of requiring from the subject nations some formal acknowledgment of the gods and worship of the sovereign country.” It would seem that about this time the astral worship of Assyria was introduced into the kingdoms both of Judah and Israel. See on 2 Kings 17:16.

Verses 11, 12. And Urijah built an altar, &c. — He complied with the king’s command against his own conscience, and against the express command of that great God to whom the king and he both were subject. The priest made it against Ahaz came from Damascus — He made haste and delayed not to do it, to please the king, and advance himself. The king approached to the altar, and offered thereon — Namely, a sacrifice, and that not unto God, but unto the Syrian idols, (2 Chronicles 28:23, 24,) to whom that altar was appropriated. A wonderful blindness, to worship those gods, and expect help from them, who could not preserve their own country from ruin! Whether Ahaz offered this sacrifice himself, or by a priest, is not certain.

Ver. 11. Urijah the priest built an altar, after the model which Ahaz had sent from Damascus, decorated with emblems of idolatry, and substituted it for the holy altar of the Lord. By this act he became the priest of Ahaz, and ceased to be the priest of the Lord. If he acted right, then Zachariah and his brothers were massacred in vain.

REIGN OF AHAZ, KING OF JUDAH, 1-20.

“The reign of Ahaz was the most disastrous of any through which Judah had yet passed. The kingdom sank so low, both internally and externally, religiously and politically, that it was on the verge of ruin. Such an incapable ruler had never before ascended the throne. The predominant feature in his character was weakness — weakness of spirit and weakness of intellect. History records nothing about him worthy of respect.” — Bahr.

1. Seventeenth year of Pekah — As Jotham began to reign in Pekah’s second year, and reigned sixteen years, (2 Kings 15:32, 33,) it would seem that the beginning of the reign of Ahaz should synchronize with Pekah’s eighteenth or nineteenth year. But this apparent discrepancy is explained by supposing the first and last years of Jotham’s reign to have been only parts of years. See note on 2 Kings 14:1.

V. 12. Offered-A sacrifice, and that not to God, but to the Syrian idols, to whom that altar was appropriated.

Verses 11, 12. And Urijah built an altar, &c. — He complied with the king’s command against his own conscience, and against the express command of that great God to whom the king and he both were subject. The priest made it against Ahaz came from Damascus — He made haste and delayed not to do it, to please the king, and advance himself. The king approached to the altar, and offered thereon — Namely, a sacrifice, and that not unto God, but unto the Syrian idols, (2 Chronicles 28:23, 24,) to whom that altar was appropriated. A wonderful blindness, to worship those gods, and expect help from them, who could not preserve their own country from ruin! Whether Ahaz offered this sacrifice himself, or by a priest, is not certain.

12. Saw the altar — That is, the new altar which Urijah had just completed, according to the pattern sent him from Damascus, and had erected, apparently, near the entrance into the court. This new altar is called emphatically the altar in this verse and the following, and in verse 15, the great altar.

V. 13. Peace-offerings-For the Heathens; and Ahaz, in imitation of them, offered the same sorts of offerings to their false gods, which the Israelites did to the true.

Verses 13, 14. And he burned his burnt-offering, &c. — For the heathen, and Ahaz, in imitation of them, offered the same sorts of offerings to their false gods which the Israelites did to the true. He brought also the brazen altar — Namely, the altar of burnt-offerings made by Solomon, and placed there by God’s appointment; from before the Lord — That is, from before the Lord’s house, Leviticus 1:3. From between the altar, &c. — Urijah had placed Ahaz’s altar behind that of the Lord, namely, between it and the east gate of the court of the priests: but when Ahaz came, taking this for a disparagement to his altar, he impiously and audaciously removed the altar of the Lord to the north side of the court, and set his own in the place of it. A bolder stroke this, than the very worst of the kings had hitherto given to religion.

REIGN OF AHAZ, KING OF JUDAH, 1-20.

“The reign of Ahaz was the most disastrous of any through which Judah had yet passed. The kingdom sank so low, both internally and externally, religiously and politically, that it was on the verge of ruin. Such an incapable ruler had never before ascended the throne. The predominant feature in his character was weakness — weakness of spirit and weakness of intellect. History records nothing about him worthy of respect.” — Bahr.

1. Seventeenth year of Pekah — As Jotham began to reign in Pekah’s second year, and reigned sixteen years, (2 Kings 15:32, 33,) it would seem that the beginning of the reign of Ahaz should synchronize with Pekah’s eighteenth or nineteenth year. But this apparent discrepancy is explained by supposing the first and last years of Jotham’s reign to have been only parts of years. See note on 2 Kings 14:1.

V. 14. Brazen altar-Of burnt-offerings, made by Solomon, and placed there by God’s appointment. From between, &c.-His new altar was at first set below the brazen altar, and at a farther distance from the temple. This he took for a disparagement to his altar; and therefore impiously takes that away, and puts his in its place. And put, &c.-So he put God’s altar out of its place and use! A bolder stroke than the very worst of kings had hitherto given to religion.

Verse 14. Put it on the north side] He seems to have intended to conform every thing in the Lord’s house as much as possible to the idolatrous temples which he saw at Damascus, and to model the Divine worship in the same way: in a word to honour and worship the gods of Syria, and not the God of heaven. All the alterations specified here were in contempt of the true God. Thus he provoked to anger the Lord God of his fathers, 2 Chronicles 28:25.

Verses 13, 14. And he burned his burnt-offering, &c. — For the heathen, and Ahaz, in imitation of them, offered the same sorts of offerings to their false gods which the Israelites did to the true. He brought also the brazen altar — Namely, the altar of burnt-offerings made by Solomon, and placed there by God’s appointment; from before the Lord — That is, from before the Lord’s house, Leviticus 1:3. From between the altar, &c. — Urijah had placed Ahaz’s altar behind that of the Lord, namely, between it and the east gate of the court of the priests: but when Ahaz came, taking this for a disparagement to his altar, he impiously and audaciously removed the altar of the Lord to the north side of the court, and set his own in the place of it. A bolder stroke this, than the very worst of the kings had hitherto given to religion.

14. The brazen altar — This stood in the midst of the inner court, the court of the priests. See cut, page 68. It was, according to 2 Chronicles 4:1, twenty cubits square and ten cubits high. Its position is described as before the Lord, that is, in front of the holy place. Brought… from the forefront of the house — Moved from its old sacred place in front of the temple, and placed, as the sequel shows, nearer to the north side of the court, so as not to stand between the (new) altar and the house of the Lord. In the spot where Urijah had placed it, the new altar was not properly before the Lord, inasmuch as the brazen altar stood between it and the holy place. So the king changed the position of both altars, placing the new one nearer to the temple, and the brazen altar on the north side of it. He would not have the new altar occupy a secondary place. So, says Wordsworth, “the new altar became the principal central object, and the brazen altar was only an adjunct and appendage to it.”

V. 15. Great altar-This new altar; which was greater than Solomon’s. Sacrifice-Whatsoever is offered to the true God, either in my name (for possibly he did not yet utterly forsake God, but worshipped idols with him) or on the behalf of the people, shall be offered on this new altar. Enquire by-That shall be reserved for my proper use, to enquire by; at which I may seek God, or enquire of his will, by sacrifices joined with prayer, when I shall see fit. Having thrust it out from the use for which it was instituted, which was to sanctify the gifts offered upon it, he pretends to advance it above its institution, which it is common for superstitious people to do. But to overdo is to underdo. Our wisdom is, to do just what God has commanded.

Verse 15. Ahaz commanded, Upon the great altar burn the morning burnt-offering, &c. — He made a solemn injunction, that all the public sacrifices, of what sort soever they were, whether made by himself or by the people, should be constantly offered upon his altar, which he calls the great altar, because it was much larger, it is probable, than the altar of God. The command, probably, referred principally, if not only, to sacrifices to be offered to the true God, whose service, it seems, he had not yet utterly forsaken, but occasionally worshipped idols with him. The brazen altar shall be for me to inquire by — That shall be reserved for my proper use, at which I may seek God, or inquire his will, by sacrifices joined with prayer, when I shall see fit. He says only, rqbl, lebakker, to seek, or to inquire; not to seek the Lord, or to inquire of the Lord, as the phrase is more largely expressed elsewhere: for, says Poole, “he would not vouchsafe to mention the name of the Lord, whom he had so grossly forsaken and despised.” Thus, having thrust out the altar of God from the use for which it was instituted, which was to sanctify the gifts offered upon it, he pretends to advance it above its institution, a practice common with superstitious people. But to overdo is to under do. The altar was never designed for an oracle, but Ahaz will have it for that use. Some, indeed, put a different sense on Ahaz’s words, and understand him to mean, As for the brazen altar, I will consider what to do with it, and will give orders accordingly.”

15. Upon the great altar — The new altar thus supplanted the ancient altar of Jehovah, and became the great altar, that is, the chief or principal altar, on which all the customary offerings of the temple were thenceforth to be offered as long as Ahaz ruled. The brazen altar shall be for me to inquire by — Better, with Gesenius, Keil, Furst, and Bahr, to take rqb here, not in the sense of inquiring or searching by, as an oracle, but, to consider, to weigh in one’s mired. Ahaz ordered the priest to offer all the offerings on the new altar, but reserved the disposal of the brazen altar for further consideration.

Verse 16. Thus did Urijah the priest, &c. — Having once begun to defile his conscience, he could not now make an honourable retreat, and therefore proceeds to execute all the king’s commands.

16. Thus did Urijah — And because of his sacrilegious obedience to Ahaz, some think his name was not allowed in the list of priests given at 1 Chronicles 6:3-15. What a contrast to the bold and faithful Azariah, who withstood the king when he attempted sacrilege. 2 Chronicles 26:17, 18.

Verse 17. Ahaz cut off the borders of the bases, and took down the sea from off the brazen oxen, &c. — Probably that he might dispose of them, or of the brass of them, in some other way; perhaps that he might turn them into money, either by casting them into such pieces as were current, or by selling them as they were.

17. Borders of the bases… laver… sea… brazen oxen — See notes and cuts at 1 Kings 7:23-39. On his object in removing these precious things, see next verse. A pavement of stones — A structure or pedestal made of stones; less costly and attractive than the brazen oxen.

V. 18. The covert-The form and use whereof is now unknown. It is generally understood of some building, either that where the priests after their weekly course was ended, abode until the next course came; which was done upon the sabbath-day: or that in which the guard of the temple kept their station; or that under which the king used to sit to hear God’s word, and see the sacrifices; which is called, the covert of the sabbath, because the chief times in which the king used it for those ends, was the weekly sabbath, and other solemn days of feasting, or fasting (which all come under the name of sabbaths in the Old Testament) upon which the king used more solemnly, to present himself before the Lord, than at other times. The entry-By which the king used to go from his palace to the temple.

Verse 18. And the covert for the Sabbath] There are a great number of conjectures concerning this covert, or, as it is in the Hebrew, the Ëswm musach, of the Sabbath. As the word, and others derived from the same root, signify covering or booths, it is very likely that this means either a sort of canopy which was erected on the Sabbath days for the accommodation of the people who came to worship, and which Ahaz took away to discourage them from that worship; or a canopy under which the king and his family reposed themselves, and which he transported to some other place to accommodate the king of Assyria when he visited him. Jarchi supposes that it was a sort of covert way that the kings of Judah had to the temple, and Ahaz had it removed lest the king of Assyria, going by that way, and seeing the sacred vessels, should covet them. If that way had been open, he might have gone by it into the temple, and have seen the sacred vessels, and so have asked them from a man who was in no condition to refuse them, however unwilling he might be to give them up. The removing of this, whatever it was, whether throne or canopy, or covered way, cut off the communication between the king’s house and the temple; and the king of Assyria would not attempt to go into that sacred place by that other passage to which the priests alone had access.

Verse 18. The covert for the sabbath, turned he from the house of the Lord — There is a great variety of opinions concerning this tbch Ëswm, musach hahsabbath, or covert of, or for the sabbath, here spoken of, and why it is so called. Mr. Locke says, It was something made for the purpose of covering the people from the injuries of the weather on the sabbath days, when more were wont to assemble at the temple than the porch could contain: and Houbigant supposes it was something of the same kind. It is, indeed, generally understood to have been some building, either where the priests, after their weekly course was ended, abode until the next course came, which they did upon the sabbath day; or in which the guard of the temple kept their station; or some canopy, or other covered place, under which the king used to sit to hear God’s word, and see the sacrifices, which might be called the covert of the sabbath, because the chief times in which the king used it for those ends was the weekly sabbath, and other solemn days of feasting or fasting, (which all come under the name of sabbaths, in the Old Testament,) upon which the king used more solemnly to present himself before the Lord than at other times. “And the reason,” says Dr. Dodd, “why the king ordered this to be taken away was, because he intended to trouble himself no more with coming to the temple, and by this action to express his hatred and contempt of the sabbath, as his removing the bases, the laver, and the brazen sea, was probably with a design to deface the service of God in the temple, and thence to bring it into public disesteem.” The king’s entry without — The passage by which he used to go from his palace to the temple, and which had been made for the convenience of the royal family; turned he — Another way, and for other uses, from the house of the Lord — To show that he did not intend to frequent the house of the Lord any longer. For the king of Assyria — To oblige him, who probably had returned his visit, and found fault with this entry, as inconvenient, and a disparagement to his palace. Thus, to ingratiate himself with this heathen king, he expresses his public contempt and rejection of that religion which had been the only partition wall between the kings of Judah and other kings.

18. The covert for the sabbath — Keil renders, the covered sabbath-stand, and explains it with probable correctness as some “covered place, stand, or hall in the court of the temple, to be used by the king whenever he visited the temple with his retinue on the sabbath, or on feast days.” Such a covert would naturally be furnished and ornamented with many precious things, and would be an evidence of wealth. That they had built — A kind of impersonal expression, equivalent to which had been built. The king’s entry without — Probably the magnificent ascent from the palace to the temple, which, in the days of Solomon, had so overwhelmed the queen of Sheba. 1 Kings 10:5. Turned he from the house of the Lord — That is, he turned them aside from the purposes for which they were built; he changed them, perhaps to other uses. He changed them, as he did the bases, and the laver, and the brazen oxen, by removing them from sight, or else taking away all their costly adornings. For the king of Assyria — Rather, from the king of Assyria, or from fear of the king, as Bahr explains, referring for this use of the word ynpm to Genesis 7:7; Judges 9:21; Isaiah 20:6, and other passages. Some understand that Ahaz removed all these sacred things from the temple for the purpose of presenting them to the king of Assyria; but 2 Kings 25:16, and Jeremiah 52:20, show that some of them were in Jerusalem at the time of the Babylonian conquest. Ahaz removed them, not as a present for the king of Assyria, but to hide them from the king. He desired to hide from the covetous Assyrian monarch these evidences of wealth, and so removed them from their sacred places. Some are of opinion that under the reformation of Hezekiah or of Josiah they were restored to their places again.

This effort of King Ahaz to conceal his treasures from Tiglath-pileser only confirms the statement made, 2 Chronicles 28:20, that his alliance with the Assyrian king “strengthened him not” — was no permanent assistance, but rather a curse, for it “distressed him,” and left him a dishonoured vassal of a great heathen power.

REIGN OF AHAZ, KING OF JUDAH, 1-20.

“The reign of Ahaz was the most disastrous of any through which Judah had yet passed. The kingdom sank so low, both internally and externally, religiously and politically, that it was on the verge of ruin. Such an incapable ruler had never before ascended the throne. The predominant feature in his character was weakness — weakness of spirit and weakness of intellect. History records nothing about him worthy of respect.” — Bahr.

1. Seventeenth year of Pekah — As Jotham began to reign in Pekah’s second year, and reigned sixteen years, (2 Kings 15:32, 33,) it would seem that the beginning of the reign of Ahaz should synchronize with Pekah’s eighteenth or nineteenth year. But this apparent discrepancy is explained by supposing the first and last years of Jotham’s reign to have been only parts of years. See note on 2 Kings 14:1.

Verse 20. Was buried with his fathers in the city of David] But it is expressly declared, 2 Chronicles 28:27, that he was not buried in the sepulchres of the kings of Israel; and this was undoubtedly intended as a mark of degradation.

His reign was disastrous and impious; and it was disastrous because it was impious. He had been a scourge, not a blessing, to his people. He had not only made illegal alterations in the temple, and in the mode of worship prescribed by the true God, but he had polluted all the cities of Judah with idolatry, and brought ruin upon the nation. On the whole, a worse king than himself had not as yet sat on the Jewish throne; and yet he had many advantages: he had for counsellor one of the greatest men ever produced in the Jewish nation, ISAIAH the prophet; and God condescended to interpose especially for him when grievously straitened by the kings of Israel and Syria, both of whom were cut off according to the prediction of this prophet. But he would not lay it to heart, and therefore the wrath of God fell heavily upon him, and upon the stiff-necked and rebellious people whom he governed. He had sufficient warning and was without excuse. He would sin, and therefore he must suffer.

II KINGS

Verse 20. And Ahaz slept with his fathers — Resigning his life in the midst of his days, at thirty-six years of age, and leaving his kingdom to a better man, Hezekiah his son, who proved as much a friend to the temple as Ahaz had been an enemy to it.

REIGN OF AHAZ, KING OF JUDAH, 1-20.

“The reign of Ahaz was the most disastrous of any through which Judah had yet passed. The kingdom sank so low, both internally and externally, religiously and politically, that it was on the verge of ruin. Such an incapable ruler had never before ascended the throne. The predominant feature in his character was weakness — weakness of spirit and weakness of intellect. History records nothing about him worthy of respect.” — Bahr.

1. Seventeenth year of Pekah — As Jotham began to reign in Pekah’s second year, and reigned sixteen years, (2 Kings 15:32, 33,) it would seem that the beginning of the reign of Ahaz should synchronize with Pekah’s eighteenth or nineteenth year. But this apparent discrepancy is explained by supposing the first and last years of Jotham’s reign to have been only parts of years. See note on 2 Kings 14:1.