---

Chapter XXVIII.

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.

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.

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, Palestine⁵, 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.

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.

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, Palestine⁵, 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.

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.

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.

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.