THE REIGN OF AHAZ.

(Comp. 2 Chronicles 28)

(2) Twenty years old.—The number should probably be twenty -and- five, according to the LXX., Syriac, and Arabic of 2Chronicles 28:1. Otherwise, Ahaz was begotten when his father was ten (or, eleven) years old—a thing perhaps not impossible in the East, where both sexes reach maturity earlier than among Western races.

Made his son to pass through the fire.—The chronicler rightly explains this as a sacrifice by fire. That such an appalling rite is really intended may be seen by reference to 2Kings 17:31; Jeremiah 19:5; Ezekiel 16:20; Ezekiel 23:37; Jeremiah 32:35. The expression, “To make-to pass through the fire to Moloch” (Leviticus 18:21) may have originated, as Movers suggests, in the idea that the burning was a kind of passage to union with the deity, after the dross of the flesh had been purged away; or it may be a mere euphemism. Ahaz appears to have been the first Israelite king who offered such a sacrifice. He, no doubt, regarded it as a last desperate resource against the oppression of his northern enemies. It is absurd to suppose that the king intended it in love to his child, as Thenius suggests. (See Judges 11:31.) Such dreadful sacrifices were only made in cases of dire extremity. (Comp. 2Kings 3:27.)

The heathen.—More particularly the Ammonites, who made such sacrifices to Molech or Milcom.

Under every green tree.—Comp. 1Kings 14:23; Hosea 14:8. Thenius says not so much a green as a thick-foliaged and shadow-yielding tree. “They burn incense . . . under oaks, and poplars, and teil trees, because the shadow thereof is good” (Hosea 4:13).

THE SYRO-EPHRAIMITIC WAR, AND THE INTERVENTION OF TIGLATH PILESER. (Comp. Isaiah 7:1 to Isaiah 9:7, “an epitome of the discourses delivered by the prophet at this great national crisis.”—Cheyne.)

They besieged Ahaz.—The allies wanted to compel Judah to join them in their attempt to throw off the burdensome yoke of Assyria, imposed in 738 B.C. (2Kings 15:19); and thought the best way to secure this was to dethrone the dynasty of David, and set up a creature of their own—“the son of Tabeal” (Isaiah 7:6).

Could not overcome him.—Literally, they were not able to war, as in Isaiah 7:2. The allies could not storm the city, which had been strongly fortified by Uzziah and Jotham (2Chronicles 26:9; 2Chronicles 27:3).

Recovered Elath to Syria . . . the Syrians.—The words for Syria and Edom, Syrians and Edomties, are very much alike in Hebrew writing, and the Hebrew margin, many MSS., the LXX. and Vulg. read Edomites for Syrians here. If this be correct, we must also restore Edom for Syria, as many critics propose. The meaning then becomes this: Rezin emancipated the Edomites from the yoke of Judah imposed on them by Uzziah (2Kings 14:22) in order to win their active co-operation against Judah. Bähr, however, prefers the readings of the ordinary text, and supposes that Rezin simply expelled the Jews from Elath, and established there a commercial colony of Syrians.

Which rise up against me.—Or, which are assailing me. “The vain confidence of the rulers of Judah, described by Isaiah in his first prophetic book, was rudely shaken by the progress of the war with Pekah and Rezin. Unreasoning confidence had given way to equally unreasoning panic. They saw only one way of escape—namely, to throw themselves upon the protection of Assyria.” (Robertson Smith.)

Carried the people of it captive to Kir.—(Comp. Amos 1:5; Amos 9:7.) The name Kir is not found in the fragmentary remains of the annals of Tiglath Pileser. Schrader (p. 261 seq.) gives a mutilated inscription, apparently relating to the fall of Damascus.

And slew Rezin.—Sir H. Rawlinson found this fact recorded on a tablet of Tiglath Pileser’s, since unfortunately lost. In the inscription just referred to Tiglath says: “I entered the gate of his city; his chief officers alive [I took, and] on stakes I caused to lift them up” (i.e., impaled them).

Kir was the aboriginal home of the Arameans, according to Amos 9:7. It is mentioned along with Elam in Isaiah 22:6. “It has been generally identified with the district by the river Cyrus (the modern Georgia). But, besides the linguistic objection pointed out by Delitzsch (Qir cannot be equivalent to Kúr), it appears that the Assyrian empire never extended to the Cyrus. We must, therefore, consider Kir to be a part of Mesopotamia.” (Cheyne.)

And saw an altar.—Rather, and he saw the altar, namely, that of the principal Temple. Upon the account which follows Prof. Robertson Smith well remarks that the frivolous character of Ahaz “was so-little capable of appreciating the dangers involved in his new obligations, that he returned to Jerusalem with his head full of the artistic and religious curiosities he had seen on his journey. In a national crisis of the first magnitude he found no more pressing concern than the erection of a new altar in the Temple on a pattern brought from Damascus. The sundial of Ahaz (2Kings 20:11), and an erection on the roof of the Temple, with altars apparently designed for the worship of the host of heaven (2Kings 23:12), were works equally characteristic of the trifling and superstitious virtuoso, who imagined that the introduction of a few foreign novelties gave lustre to a reign which had fooled away the independence of Judah, and sought a momentary deliverance by accepting a service the burden of which was fast becoming intolerable” (Proph. of Israel, p. 251).

Urijah the priest—i.e., the high priest, who appears to be identical with the “credible witness” of Isaiah 8:2. His high official position would secure Urijah’s credit as a witness.

Fashion . . . pattern . . . workmanship.—These terms indicate that the king’s interest in the matter was artistic rather than religious.

The morning burnt offering, and the evening meat offering.—Not that there was no meat offering in the morning, and no burnt offering in the evening. (See Exodus 29:38-42; Numbers 28:3-8.) The morning meat offering is implied in the mention of the burnt offering, because no burnt offering was offered without one (Numbers 7:87; Numbers 15:2-12). On the other hand, the evening meat offering was the only part of the evening sacrifice which the congregation could stay out, for the burnt offering had to burn all the night through (Leviticus 6:9).

The brasen altar.—The contrast seems to imply that the new altar was of a different material.

Shall be for me to enquire by—i.e., for consulting God. So Rashi. Others (as Keil): “I will think about what to do with it.” Perhaps it is simply, “It shall be for me to look at,” i.e., an ornamental duplicate of the other altar. (Comp. Psalm 27:4.) Grätz suggests “to draw near” (i.e., to sacrifice), transposing the last two letters of the verb, which does not suit the context; and Thenius would read, “to seek,” after the Syriac, which has “to ask” (i.e., to pray), as if the old altar of sacrifice were henceforth to be an altar of prayer. (?)

Borders of the bases.—See 1Kings 7:28. Thenius thinks Ahaz replaced them with unadorned plates, and set the laver up in a different fashion; but the text does not say so. (Comp., however, 2Kings 25:13; 2Kings 25:16; Jeremiah 52:17.)

The brasen oxen.—These were ultimately carried off by the Babylonians (Jeremiah 52:20).

A pavement of stones—i.e., a pedestal or foundation of stonework: ἐπὶ βάσιν λιθίνην (LXX.).

In the house—i.e., in the sacred precincts, probably in the inner forecourt.

The king’s entry without.—The outer entry of the king, i.e., the gate by which the king entered the inner court (Ezekiel 46:1-2).

Turned he from the house of the Lord.—Or, he altered in the house of the Lord, i.e., stripped them of their ornamental work.

For.—Or, from fear of . . .—But comp. Genesis 6:13, “through them.” Ahaz durst not appear before Tiglath without a present. It is possible also that he anticipated a visit from the great king.