In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah, Ahaz the son of Jotham, king of Judah, began to reign.
Ahaz becomes king of Judah in the seventeenth year of Pekah, king of Israel, and the verse names his father, Jotham, whose record was good. Why did a good father produce such a son, and what does Scripture mean when it weighs a king as good or evil?
Ahaz knew better. One writer shows the pattern the kings before him had set, and that Ahaz turned from it with his eyes open.
Ahaz, king of Judah, came to the throne at a remarkable time in the history of God's earthly people. The three kings before him — Jotham, Azariah and Amaziah — reigned for about 130 years, and all of them had "done what was right in the sight of the Lord." Ahaz surely knew all this. So he understood what God expects of a king. He began to reign at 20 years of age. Sadly, the record says he "did not do what was right in the sight of the Lord," but acted "according to the abominations of the heathen."
One commentator notes how often such a reversal happens, and where the gap in a royal household may lie.
It seems strange that the best of men often have the worst of sons. Ahaz's mother is not mentioned, and it is possible that his father made an unhappy choice of a wife. A king carries the heavy weight of government every day. He can give little time to training his children, so that important duty must fall largely on the mother.
Commentators differ here. Another reads the silence about his mother as mercy: the record leaves out her name "as though God would spare bringing shame to his mother" (H. L. Rossier).
This verse dates Ahaz by another king's reign, and the numbers in 2 Kings do not line up easily. One writer works through them and points to an interregnum — a gap with no king on the throne.
In the history of the fall of Samaria and the Assyrian invasions, there are questions of chronology. Some come from the book itself, and some from comparing it with secular history. Some have resolved the interval by an interregnum. This is at any rate right in substance. The record says Hoshea reigned nine years. Yet he begins to reign in the twelfth year of Ahaz, and Pekah was killed in the third year of Ahaz. Ahaz began in the seventeenth year of Pekah, and Pekah reigned twenty years.
God's verdict on a king is not about his skill as a ruler. What counts is how he stands toward God, and by that measure admired kings can look very different.
Notice that this word "evil" is always used with reference to the Lord. Turning away from God does often hand the guilty one over to every kind of moral evil, to crime and impurity. But it is not always so. Jeroboam I, Joash of Israel, and Jeroboam II were remarkable kings in the eyes of men. Two of them were "saviours" of their nation. They helped build its reputation and win back its lands. But for God, the question is a different one.
God's first move toward this wicked king was not judgment but reassurance.
How touching is the patient grace God has toward this evil king! He reassures him instead of crushing him. He announces deliverance to him. He says to him, "Take heed and be quiet" — let Me act. He says, "Fear not" to a man who had everything to fear.
Under attack, Ahaz looked to a foreign king for rescue instead of to the LORD. Yet the promise tied to David's family did not fall with him.
When Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, king of Israel, came against Jerusalem and besieged Ahaz, he appealed to Tiglath-pileser to save him out of their hands. He did not cry to Jehovah for the deliverance He had promised to His people… Isaiah told Ahaz to ask the LORD God for a sign of any kind, to calm the king's fears and show that the LORD would preserve the house of David. When wicked Ahaz refused, the prophet spoke that great sign, which would come true over seven hundred years later: the virgin would conceive and bring forth a son, even Immanuel. The house of David might be punished and disciplined, but the royal family could not come to a full end, for the promised One had to come from David.
- Standard — Ahaz began with 130 years of good kings behind him, so he knew what a king of Judah was meant to be.
- Contrast — a godly father can have a wicked son. Writers look at the home and the mother's part, but they never excuse the son.
- Measure — God calls a king "evil" by how he stands toward Him, not by national success. Men praised such kings; God asked a different question.
- Grace — God's first word to this besieged king was "Fear not." He offered deliverance before judgment.
- Line — Ahaz refused the sign. Yet God's answer reached past him to Immanuel, keeping David's line for the promised One.
Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign; and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. And he did not what was right in the sight of Jehovah his God, like David his father,
Ahaz takes the throne of Judah after a line of kings whose reigns God had already judged. Scripture does not describe him; it measures him against David — which raises three questions: what does God count as right, why is David the standard, and what does God do with a king who fails it?
Ahaz did not inherit a corrupt court. The kings just before him had good records, and he knew it.
Ahaz, king of Judah, came to the throne at a remarkable time in the history of God's earthly people. The three kings before him — Jotham, Azariah and Amaziah — reigned for about 130 years, and all of them had "done what was right in the eyes of the LORD." Ahaz surely knew this. So he knew the standard God sets for a king.
How does a son like this come from a house like that? One writer looks at Ahaz's upbringing.
It seems strange that the best of men often have the worst of sons. Ahaz's mother is not named, and it is possible that his father chose his wife badly. A king has the heavy work of government pressing on him all the time. He can give little time to training his children, so most of that important duty falls to the mother.
The phrase is not a general rating of character. People admired kings whose record before God was terrible.
Notice that this word "evil" is always used in reference to the Lord. It is true that turning away from God often hands the guilty person over to all sorts of moral evil, to crime and impurity, but it is not always so. Jeroboam I, Joash of Israel and Jeroboam II were remarkable kings in the eyes of men. Two of them were "saviours" of their nation, helping to build its reputation and win back its lands. But for God the question is a different one. What matters is the relationship these kings had with Him, and Ahaz king of Judah here as well.
The verse could have compared Ahaz with the good kings just before him. Instead it reaches back to David — and the reason lies in David's heart.
Scripture says this great thing about David: he followed the LORD with all his heart. The LORD had power to take hold of His people's hearts completely. This became the standard for measuring later unfaithful kings: "his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father." The LORD had all of David's heart, and worship flowed straight out of that. The later kings worshipped the Baals, and that is why they compare so badly with David.
The same standard removes every excuse a bad upbringing might offer. Ahaz's own son Hezekiah shows it:
His father set a very bad example, but Hezekiah did not follow it. Everyone should realize that he does not have to walk in his father's godless footsteps.
The numbers in this verse raise a well-known puzzle.
Ahaz began his reign, Scripture says, when he was twenty years old, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. And Hezekiah, his son, was twenty-five years old when he came to the throne. This seems to teach that Ahaz was only eleven when Hezekiah was born, which is very unlikely, if not impossible. Modern commentators have suggested various solutions, and none of them is satisfactory. One writer answers them well: "It is never advisable to find any fault with the text except where there is no other tolerable solution, and that is not the case here."
after_note: DELETE-nothing
This verdict does not bring instant judgment. God sends a prophet to the king He has just condemned.
How moving is the patient grace God shows toward this evil king! He reassures him instead of crushing him. He announces rescue to him. He says to him, "Take heed and be quiet" — let Me act. He says "Fear not" to a man who himself had everything to fear.
Ahaz leaned on a human ally instead of God's word. The support he chose became the tool that struck him.
Our fear that trouble will come makes us look for support in what seems to us a safe path. Those are the very things God uses to chastise us. The kings of Israel and Syria came against Judah of their own will. God stops them. Ahaz and his people wanted to lean on the king of Assyria, and in the end God makes the Assyrian come against them.
- Standard set. David is the measure because his heart was wholly God's — not the nearest good example, but the original one.
- Standard refused. Ahaz knew that measure from three good reigns before him, and chose the kings of Israel instead.
- Measured by God. "Evil" is always measured against the Lord. Men God condemned were national heroes to their own people.
- Grace first. God met this condemned king with "Fear not" and a promise of rescue before any judgment came.
- Prop becomes rod. Ahaz refused God's word and leaned on Assyria. Assyria became the power that came against him.
but walked in the way of the kings of Israel, and even caused his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the nations that Jehovah had dispossessed from before the children of Israel.
Ahaz sat on David's throne, but he followed the kings of the north — even burning his own son. How does a king of Judah fall this far, and why is copying those kings the heaviest charge against him?
Judah's kings are charged in many ways. This one is the heaviest, and it has a starting point.
Another effect of the earlier connection with Ahab is that Ahaz walked in the ways of the kings of Israel. This expression seems to mark the greatest guilt of the kings of Judah. Scripture uses it after the marriage link with Ahab. Ahaz burned his children in the fire. Manasseh consulted mediums and spiritists. Could the chosen nation sink lower?
A good king began this pattern generations earlier, with one bad alliance.
The kings of Israel had set a deadly example. That course led Judah and all Israel to ruin (see 2 Kings 16:3). All this began with the godly Jehoshaphat's alliance with Ahab. Evil bears fruit, and that fruit keeps reproducing itself for a long time.
The wording is mild. The act was not. One writer describes what it involved and where Ahaz did it.
He made idolatrous images and burned incense in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom. There he sacrificed his own children to the fire (v. 3). They did this by placing the young child in the arms of a metal idol. Then they lit a fire under it and beat drums to drown out the child's cries. That is how hard-hearted the wickedness of idolatry is. Yet men like Ahaz think they are being very religious when they do it.
Older translations read "pass through the fire" here instead of "burned his son as an offering." One writer names the god behind the rite, and refuses the softer reading.
Satan so blinded parents that they gave their own children as sacrifices to Molech, the god of the Ammonites... Some have argued from "passing through the fire," here and elsewhere, that their children were not burned. But this seems a kindly effort to soften how wicked the act really was. It was the fullest, though not the only, profaning of the name of Israel's God. The Lord accepted a sheep or an ox, or even a much smaller sacrifice; Satan, under these names, demanded their sons.
The verse compares Ahaz with the peoples God removed from Canaan. God had warned Israel long before about those same practices.
A solemn warning closes this chapter. God would cast the people of Canaan out of the land because of their vileness. The Lord would not spare His own people if they practised these things. They did commit all this wickedness. Israel, cast out of the land and wandering homeless, shows that God carried out this solemn warning.
God measures a king in one direction only. His verdict can fall on a ruler the public admires.
He did what was evil in the sight of the Lord like the kings of Israel. Notice that this word "evil" is always given to us in reference to the Lord... Jeroboam I, Joash of Israel, and Jeroboam II were remarkable monarchs in the eyes of men. Two of them were "saviours" of their nation, helping to build its reputation and to win back its territory. But for God the question is a different one. It is a matter of what relationship these kings, like Ahaz king of Judah here, had with Him.
Syria and Israel soon besieged Ahaz. God's answer to a king this far gone was not what you would expect.
The Lord sends Isaiah to meet the king... How moving is the patient grace God shows toward this evil king! He reassures him instead of crushing him. He announces deliverance to him. He says, "Take care and be quiet" — let Me act. He says "Fear not" to the man who had everything to fear.
The attack aimed at more than one man. That is why Jerusalem held.
"The two tails of these smoking firebrands" aimed to remove king Ahaz from the throne and set up "the son of Tabeal" in his place... This was surely Satan's plot, if not man's, to destroy the line of David. For this reason God did not hand Jerusalem over to them... A remnant would be left to return to the land, and the virgin would bear a son. So a king would never fail on the throne of David.
- Pattern — Copying the kings of Israel is the heaviest charge against any king of Judah. It began with one godly king's alliance with Ahab, and that evil bred on for generations.
- Practice — The mild wording covers real child-sacrifice by fire in the Valley of Hinnom. Reading it as anything less only softens the wickedness.
- Power — Behind the idol stood Satan. God accepted an ox or a sheep; Satan demanded their sons — and the men doing it felt religious.
- Precedent — Judah took up the same practices God expelled the Canaanites for. He warned Israel of the same end, and the scattered nation shows He kept His word.
- Patience — God weighs a man by his relationship with Him, not by his public record. Yet He met this king with "Fear not," guarded David's line, and promised the virgin's Son.
And he sacrificed and burned incense on the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree.
Ahaz became king of Judah and took up worship at hilltop shrines all over the land. The question this verse raises is not whether he was religious — he was — but why God counts a scattered devotion like his as evil.
Earlier kings of Judah left the hill shrines standing but kept their own hands clean. Ahaz did not.
None of the kings before him had done away with the high places. They had let the people burn incense there without joining in this idolatry themselves. Ahaz himself "sacrificed and made offerings on the high places and on the hills and under every green tree" (2 Kings 16:4). He did what was evil in the sight of the Lord like the kings of Israel.
God chose one place for sacrifice. The motive behind any other shrine did not rescue it.
It seems to have been the custom of the nations of Canaan to set up places of worship for their false gods on various heights, chosen to suit their own desires, which Satan controlled. The Lord told His people about the ways of these nations, and forbade them to copy them. He would choose His own centre, and there His people must come with their burnt offerings and sacrifices. The Israelites were to destroy all the high places of these nations. In that way they would show their horror at their wicked ways. But human nature is no better in those who are near to God than in those who are far from Him. Sad to say, the time soon came when Israel chose high places for themselves. Some of these were for idolatrous worship, and some for the worship of the Lord. But all the high places were offensive in His sight, whatever the motives of those who set them up. They were the expression of self-will, of hearts not subject to His commandments.
People filled the hills and trees with objects they had made. Those objects had a defence ready to hand.
They set up for themselves sacred pillars and wooden images on high hills and under green trees. They would no doubt say that these things were there to remind them of God. But God had forbidden such things. Using them always lowered God in their view, so that in the end the things themselves became the objects of their worship.
"Evil" here is not a comment on Ahaz's competence or his public record. Rossier points out that people admired some of the worst kings.
Notice that the word "evil" is always used with reference to the Lord. It does happen that forsaking God hands the guilty one over to all kinds of moral evil, to crime and impurity. But it is not always so. Jeroboam I, Joash of Israel, and Jeroboam II were remarkable monarchs in the eyes of men. Two of them were "saviours" of their nation... But for God, the question is a different one. It is a matter of working out what relationship these kings — like Ahaz king of Judah here — had with Him.
Ahaz had a temple he could have gone to. Another writer names what his choice looks like today.
His father Jotham did not burn incense in the high places, but he had allowed those places to remain. Ahaz forgot the temple of God and burned incense in the high places and other outdoor areas (v.4). He was like many today who say they need not gather with others to worship God. They claim they can worship just as well while enjoying the scenery, when they hunt or fish or play golf or hike in the mountains.
What follows is not destruction. God sends a man to speak to this king.
The Lord sends Isaiah to meet the king. The prophet speaks in grace to this wicked king... But how touching is the patient grace God has toward this evil king! He reassures him instead of crushing him. He announces deliverance to him. He says to him, "Be careful, be quiet" — let Me act. He says, "Do not fear" to the man who, for his part, had everything to fear.
- Tolerated. Earlier kings left the high places standing but never used them. Ahaz sacrificed there himself. What one generation allows, the next joins in.
- Self-willed. Every high place offended God, whatever the worshipper's motive. Each one expressed a heart not subject to His commandments.
- Lowered. Objects kept as reminders of God ended up taking His place. People worshipped the reminders.
- Measured. God measures "evil" by a man's relationship to Him, not by his standing with people. He counted able rulers evil, and He weighs Ahaz by the same rule.
- Met with grace. To the king who had scattered his worship across the hills, God still sent a prophet saying, "Do not fear."
Then Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah son of Remaliah, the king of Israel, came up to Jerusalem to battle; and they besieged Ahaz, but were unable to conquer him.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drove the Jews from Elath; and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there to this day.
While Syria and Israel pressed Jerusalem, Judah lost a small port far to the south — and never got it back. Commentators read that loss as the cost of a king who would not trust God.
Elath was no minor village. Its story runs from Israel's wilderness years to the days of Rome.
A seaport town at the far north of the Gulf of Akaba branch of the Red Sea. It is first mentioned during the wanderings of the Israelites. Later it belonged to Solomon's kingdom. Nearby, at Ezion-geber, he kept a fleet of ships. Afterwards we read that Azariah built it and restored it to Judah. Later still Rezin conquered it, and the Syrians held it, until it became a border town of Rome.
An earlier king, Azariah, won Elath back for Judah. Under Ahaz, Judah lost it again.
His son Azariah succeeded him. He recovered Elath for Judah and restored it. This city, and all the territory of Edom it belonged to, had once been under David's rule and part of Solomon's kingdom. After Azariah, it did not remain in the hands of Judah for long. Sixty-eight years later, Rezin the king of Syria recovered it.
The previous verse says the allied kings could not overcome Ahaz. This verse shows what they did manage to take, and one writer explains how both can stand together.
These statements do not clash with 2 Kings 16:5, which says these allied kings "could not overcome him." They could not get into the city or reach the king himself, though they entered the land. When it says "God delivered him" and "they smote him," it means his people and his kingdom. Elath was also lost to Judah at this time.
Commentators differ over who settled in the city afterwards. The dictionary above has the Syrians holding it. Another writer names the Edomites, as the verse above does.
However, Rezin captured Elath, a city of Judah, and drove the people of Judah out of the city, allowing the Edomites to take possession of it.
Losing Elath did not send Ahaz to God. It sent him looking for a stronger ally.
This spurred Ahaz to appeal, not to God, but to the king of Assyria, Tiglath Pileser, telling him that he, Ahaz, was his servant and asking his help against Syria and Israel. How foolish a move this was for a king of Judah! It cost him something, too. He stole from the Lord the silver and gold in the house of the Lord. He also took silver and gold from the treasuries of the king's house. He used it all to pay the king of Assyria for his protection.
God had already offered Ahaz a different way out. He sent the prophet Isaiah to him in the middle of this crisis, and Isaiah came with a word of grace.
The Lord sends Isaiah to meet the king. His son Shear-jashub comes with him. The name means "the remnant shall return." He speaks in grace to this wicked king... How touching is the patient grace God shows toward this evil king! He reassures him instead of crushing him; He announces deliverance to him; He says to him, "Take heed and be quiet" — let Me act. He says, "Fear not" to the man who had everything to fear.
This verse also carries a quiet milestone in the Bible's vocabulary. Where the ESV reads "the men of Judah," older translations read "the Jews" — the first time that name appears in the Bible.
A man of Judah. The term does not occur until after the division of the kingdom. 2 Kings 16:6; 2 Kings 25:25. It applies to anyone belonging to the two tribes. It may also have been used of any of the ten tribes who stayed in the land at the captivity, or who returned there. The Old Testament uses the name most often in Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and Jeremiah.
- Inherited — Elath was a Red Sea port. It served Solomon's fleet, and Azariah won it back for Judah.
- Forfeited — Sixty-eight years after Azariah restored it, Rezin took it back. What one king regained, another lost.
- Exposed — Jerusalem's walls held, but the kingdom bled. The allied kings never reached Ahaz himself; they struck his land and his people.
- Refused — God met the crisis with Isaiah, a promise that a remnant would return, and the words "Fear not." Ahaz answered by buying Assyria with temple silver.
- Renamed — In this decline the name "Jews" enters the Bible for the first time. It was born after the kingdom split, and it marked what was left.
And Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria, saying, I am thy servant and thy son come up, and save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, who have risen up against me.
Syria and Israel are attacking Judah, so King Ahaz begs Assyria's king Tiglath-pileser for help instead of turning to God. Commentators see here the moment David's line swapped trust in God for a foreign alliance, and they ask what that cost.
Behind this message lies a choice between two protectors.
Ahaz prefers to trust the king of Assyria against Pekah and Rezin rather than to trust the Lord and obey Him. This explains his answer to Isaiah.
One writer draws out the principle. The enemy Ahaz feared had no power; the ally he chose became the real danger.
What the Christian needs is to be sure of his relationship with God. Then there is nothing to fear. The people do not have to dread the strength of the enemy. What weakens them is their own iniquity. The danger that threatens comes to nothing. But if we look for any support at all in something of this world, God abandons us. He leaves us to face the consequences of the support we chose. So Pekah and Rezin had no strength against Judah, because God would not hand Jerusalem over to these allied kings. But Ahaz, fearful and unbelieving, rests on Assyria — and it is the Assyrian that Judah must be saved from. Meanwhile God reveals the true Deliverer, the real support: Immanuel.
The wording of the message matters as much as its purpose. A king of Judah puts himself below a pagan king and begs him for rescue.
How shameful is his fawning appeal to the king of Assyria: "I am your servant and your son. Come up and rescue me from the hand of the king of Syria." And that greedy king, for the silver and gold sent him, went to Damascus and killed Rezin, its king.
Another writer weighs those words against Ahaz's family line.
What a solemn departure from the Lord, and from dependence on Him, for a son of king David.
God had already sent a prophet to Ahaz with the rescue he was now begging Assyria to supply.
How touching is the patient grace God has toward this evil king! He reassures him instead of crushing him; He announces deliverance to him; He says to him, "Take heed and be quiet" — let Me act. He says, "Fear not" to the man who, for his part, had everything to fear... The Spirit of God, through the prophet, says to Ahaz: "Ask for yourself a sign from the LORD your God." Ahaz answered, "I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test." He covered his unbelief and his disobedience with a show of reverence.
Another writer names that polite refusal for what it is.
How often the hypocrisy of unbelief tries in this way to hide its contempt of Jehovah! Its presumption despises the word of His grace, yet it puts on the dress of superior reverence and humility... Ahaz shrank from God even in His goodness. Flesh never trusts God.
Ahaz's appeal to Assyria came with a price tag.
How foolish a move was this for a king of Judah! It cost him something too. He stole from the Lord the silver and gold that was in the house of the Lord. He also took silver and gold from the treasuries of the king's house. He used it to pay the king of Assyria for his protection.
The rescuer Ahaz hired became the affliction Isaiah had foretold. Hardship did not soften him.
The king of Assyria came, but instead of really helping him, afflicted him. He took the treasure Ahaz stripped for him from the house of the Lord. He took more from his own house and from the houses of the princes. It was just as the prophet Isaiah had warned him: "The LORD will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father's house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah — the king of Assyria." He trusted in man. He made flesh his strength, and his heart departed from the Lord... "And in the time of his distress he trespassed yet more against the LORD." How different was his great ancestor David! "In my distress I called upon the LORD."
Beyond politics, the link he forged reshaped Judah's worship.
The voluntary action of Ahaz put him and Judah in touch with the king of Assyria. It put them into slavery to Assyria. And it brought them into idolatry, because Ahaz went to meet the king of Assyria at Damascus and built an idolatrous altar copying the one he saw there.
- Fear — Ahaz's real weakness was not Syria and Israel. It was his own unbelief. God told him to be quiet and let Him act, and he refused.
- Words — calling himself the servant and son of a pagan king was a shameful fall for a son of David.
- Price — Ahaz bought the help with silver and gold stolen from the house of the Lord. He robbed the God who had offered to save him.
- Result — the hired rescuer afflicted him instead of helping him, and drew Judah into slavery and a copied Damascus altar.
- Alternative — the true support was Immanuel, the real Deliverer God revealed while Ahaz leaned on Assyria.
And Ahaz took the silver and the gold that was found in the house of Jehovah, and in the treasures of the king's house, and sent it [as] a present to the king of Assyria.
Jerusalem was under siege from two kings, and God had just sent Isaiah to tell Ahaz not to be afraid. Instead, Ahaz emptied the treasuries — even the Lord's own house — to buy Assyria's protection. Commentators read this verse as the moment Judah's king traded dependence on God for a paid alliance.
The silver and gold Ahaz sent was not his to give. One commentator counts the price of the appeal item by item:
This spurred Ahaz to appeal to the king of Assyria, Tiglath Pileser, and not to God. He told him that he (Ahaz) was his servant, and asked his help against Syria and Israel. How foolish a move was this on the part of a king of Judah! It cost him something too. He stole from the Lord the silver and gold that was in the house of the Lord. He also took silver and gold from the treasuries of the king's house, to pay the king of Assyria for his protection.
Ahaz had another option. Before he sent the gift, God spoke to him in the gentlest terms and invited him to name a sign:
How touching is the patient grace God has toward this evil king! He reassures him instead of crushing him; He announces deliverance to him; He says to him, "Be careful, be quiet" — let Me act. He says "do not fear" to him who on his part had everything to fear... The Spirit of God, through the prophet, says to Ahaz: "Ask a sign of the LORD your God." Ahaz answered, "I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test." He coloured his unbelief and his disobedience with an appearance of piety. To put the Lord to the test was to distrust Him. But Ahaz did much more than distrust Him: he did not believe the word of the Lord.
The gift to Assyria was the choice Ahaz had already made in his heart. Rossier puts the two options side by side: "Ahaz prefers to trust in the king of Assyria against Pekah and Rezin rather than to trust in the Lord and obey Him."
Ahaz held the throne promised to David's line. Listen to how he speaks to a foreign king:
Uzziah was king of Judah when Tiglath-pileser carried captive the first of Israel's cities. It was to this same king of Assyria that Ahaz, the grandson of Uzziah, sent messengers: "I am your servant and your son: come up and save me from the hand of the king of Syria and from the hand of the king of Israel..." What a solemn departure from the Lord, and from dependence on Him, for a son of king David.
At first the payment seemed to work. But Judah had now sought the same alliance Israel had sought, and Rossier marks what followed: "What the Lord had pronounced against Israel, which had sought the support of Assyria, He now pronounces against Judah, who sought this same alliance." In the end the hired king turned on the man who paid him:
The king of Assyria came, but instead of helping him he "distressed him." He took the treasure Ahaz "stripped" for him from the house of the Lord, and from his own house, and the houses of the princes. It was just as the prophet Isaiah had forewarned him: "The LORD will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father's house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah — the king of Assyria." He trusted in man and leaned on human strength. His heart turned away from the Lord, and so he brought on himself and his kingdom the curse and barrenness that follow. "In the time of his distress he grew yet more faithless to the LORD." How different was his great ancestor David! "In my distress," he says, "I called upon the LORD; to my God I cried for help."
Ahaz would not ask for a sign, so God named one Himself — and it reached far past the crisis of the moment:
Rezin, King of Syria, and Pekah, the son of Remaliah, King of Israel, came against Jerusalem and besieged Ahaz. He appealed to Tiglath-pileser to save him out of their hands, instead of crying to the LORD for the deliverance He had promised to His people... When wicked Ahaz refused, the prophet gave that great sign, which would take place over seven hundred years later: the virgin would conceive and bring forth a son, even Immanuel. The house of David might suffer punishment and discipline, but there could be no full end of the royal family. The promised One had to come from David.
- Offer. God met Ahaz first, telling him to be quiet and not fear, and inviting him to ask for any sign he liked.
- Refusal. Ahaz declined the sign with a show of reverence. It was unbelief dressed as piety; he did not believe God's word.
- Payment. Instead of crying to God, he robbed the Lord's house and his own treasuries to hire Assyria. He called himself that king's servant and son.
- Reversal. The king he paid took the treasure and distressed him instead of helping him. Trusting man brought the curse Isaiah had already announced.
- Promise. Yet David's line could not fail. God gave the sign Ahaz refused to ask for — Immanuel, born of a virgin centuries later.
And the king of Assyria hearkened to him; and the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took it, and carried it captive to Kir, and put Rezin to death.
King Ahaz of Judah was afraid of two enemy kings, so he paid Assyria to come and save him. This verse is Assyria's answer — and it shows what that help cost a king of David's line.
The whole episode turns on where Ahaz looked when he was frightened. Isaiah had already come to him with God's promise of deliverance, and he had refused a sign. Instead he called himself the servant and son of a pagan king.
Ahaz prefers to trust the king of Assyria against Pekah and Rezin rather than to trust the Lord and obey Him… The Lord had already pronounced judgment on Israel for seeking Assyria's support. He now pronounces the same on Judah, which sought that same alliance.
The rescue was bought, and the money came from a place that was not Ahaz's to spend.
This spurred Ahaz to appeal, not to God, but to the king of Assyria, Tiglath-Pileser. He told him that he (Ahaz) was his servant, and asked his help against Syria and Israel. What a foolish move this was for a king of Judah! It cost him something too. He stole from the Lord the silver and gold that was in the house of the Lord. He also took silver and gold from the treasuries of the king's house. All of it went to pay the king of Assyria for his protection.
Damascus did not fall only because Ahaz paid for it. Its fall had been predicted long before, and the captives were sent back to the place their people came from.
Damascus was broken and the predicted judgment came. The King of Assyria, Tiglath-Pileser, carried it out. He drove the Syrians back to Kir, the place they had come from.
So God used Ahaz's faithless bargain to carry out a sentence He had already passed on Syria.
Read on its own, the verse looks like a policy that worked.
The first result of this trust in Assyria seemed to be favourable for Judah… The prophecy pronounced long before by Amos is now fulfilled.
The word "seemed" carries the weight. The protector Ahaz hired became the power that bled him.
The king of Assyria came, but he did not really help him. Instead he "distressed him." He took the treasure Ahaz "stripped" for him from the house of the Lord, from his own house, and from the houses of the princes. It was just as the prophet Isaiah had forewarned him: "The LORD will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father's house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria." He trusted in man and leaned on human strength. His heart turned away from the Lord, and he brought on himself and his kingdom the curse and barrenness that follow.
The verse ends with Damascus captured — and the next thing we read is that Ahaz went there to meet his new master. The visit produced more than a thank-you.
Ahaz is not at the end of his transgressions. Isaiah's prophecy had no effect on his conscience. He went to Damascus to meet the king of Assyria, whom he congratulated for his help and his success. He had seen Rezin's altar to false gods. He sends its pattern to Jerusalem and has it set up in the court of the temple. He finds a high priest to carry out this act of sacrilege.
The help he leaned on shaped the worship he came home to.
Commentators say the same mistake still repeats, long after Ahaz.
It is only the old leaning on Egypt that we see so often in Israel. In the end they found Egypt a broken reed… And yet how often we still look for help like this! We ask for or accept help that cuts us off from the help of God. All such things are only a denial of Him, who is the one security His people need.
- Asked — Isaiah's word from God made no difference to Ahaz. He asked a foreign king to save him instead of trusting the Lord.
- Paid — the help was not free. He stripped the silver and gold of the Lord's house and his own treasury to buy protection.
- Answered — Assyria listened. Damascus fell, its people went to Kir, and Rezin died — just as Amos had said long before.
- Distressed — the first result looked good. Then the hired protector turned on him, just as Isaiah had warned.
- Corrupted — the alliance put a pagan altar in the temple court. Help sought outside God reshapes the worship of the one who sought it.
And king Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria; and he saw the altar that was at Damascus, and king Ahaz sent to Urijah the priest the form of the altar, and the pattern of it, according to all its workmanship.
Ahaz had asked Assyria, not the Lord, to rescue him from his enemies. Now the rescued king travels north to meet his rescuer, and what he brings home is not a treaty but the design of a foreign altar.
The trip to Damascus grew out of an earlier choice. Two kings, Pekah and Rezin, stood against Ahaz. He turned to a foreign army rather than to the Lord, and for a while it looked like a success.
Ahaz chose to trust the king of Assyria against Pekah and Rezin rather than to trust the Lord and obey Him. This explains his answer to Isaiah. … The first result of this trust in Assyria seemed to work out well for Judah. Tiglath-pileser captured Damascus, carried away its people, and put Rezin to death.
The king is not abandoning religion. He is upgrading it — swapping what God gave for what pleased him more, and finding a priest happy to help.
Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-Pileser, likely to congratulate him for his victory. But while there Ahaz saw a Syrian altar that he evidently liked better than the altar of the Lord. He therefore sent the pattern of the altar to Urijah the priest at Jerusalem, instructing him to build one like it for the worship of Judah. Ahaz was therefore a religious man, but choosing wicked religion above the true worship of the Lord. Christendom has been guilty of the same evil in imitating the false worship of unbelievers.
The true altar was not a matter of taste. Its pattern came from God, given to Moses. Sending a rival pattern from Damascus was not decoration but replacement, and the same choice is still open today.
Moses is reminded again that the pattern shown to him on the mountain must be his guide. The wisdom of God alone could devise the altar which was to embody so many blessed truths. A king Ahaz, taken with the beauty of the Syrian altar, may reject the altar of God; but it was the ruin of him and of all Israel. So now men may refuse the preaching of the cross of Christ. By their own reckoning they find in it either a stumbling block or foolishness. So they choose an altar for their worship that suits their own tastes, one that will not offend the prejudices of the natural man. But, as with Ahaz, it can only end in their everlasting ruin. God alone can set the way and the manner of approach to Himself.
Uriah — Urijah in older translations — could have refused. Judah's priests had a record of standing up to a king who overstepped.
When Uzziah interfered with the order of the house of God, the faithful priests resisted him. But when Ahaz sent the pattern of the idolatrous altar from Damascus, Urijah the priest built it for him. He supported the king in his turning away from God.
He did everything the king ordered. That obedience had a direction to it.
He reversed the rule the apostles lived by: "We must obey God rather than men." He thought otherwise. His eye was on the honour that comes from man; theirs was on the honour that comes from God.
Ahaz used the new altar freely. One offering is missing from the list.
On this altar of new design Ahaz offers every kind of offering except the one he needed most for himself — the sin offering. The plain bronze altar stood before the house of the Lord. It seems to have offended his taste for beauty. So it was moved to a less noticeable place, on the north side of his own foreign substitute.
One writer asks whether the same swap happens today.
Do we not find something similar in today's religions? Men who claim to be Christians think they can come to God by an altar other than the altar of expiation — an altar they do not believe in. Like Rezin's altar, theirs is much broader and far better looking than God's. The old religious narrowness has given way to broader views, they say. It is no longer the blood of the cross that justifies and redeems the sinner. … The new altar has no point of contact with the old.
- Cause. Ahaz trusted Assyria instead of the Lord. At first the deal seemed to pay off. The Damascus altar is what that trust brought home.
- Copy. He saw an altar he liked better than God's and sent its design to Jerusalem — religion kept, worship swapped.
- Pattern. God's wisdom alone designed His altar. Only God can set the way to Himself. An altar picked to suit our taste ends in ruin.
- Compliance. Priests had resisted a king before. Urijah did not. His eye was on honour from men, not from God.
- Cost. Ahaz brought every offering except the sin offering he needed most. He pushed the true altar aside. Any religion that keeps the forms but drops the blood of the cross does the same.
And Urijah the priest built an altar according to all that king Ahaz had sent from Damascus; thus Urijah the priest made [it], against king Ahaz came from Damascus.
Ahaz saw an altar in Damascus and sent its design home ahead of himself. The verse's hard question is not about Ahaz but about Urijah: why did the priest responsible for God's altar build a rival one on the king's orders?
The speed matters. Urijah did not stall or object. He finished the work in time for the king's return. One writer asks the question directly.
Ahaz therefore sent the pattern of the altar to Urijah the priest at Jerusalem, telling him to build one like it for the worship of Judah. So Ahaz was a religious man, but he chose wicked religion above the true worship of the Lord. The Christian world has been guilty of the same evil, copying the false worship of unbelievers. But why did Urijah not have the spiritual strength to resist this evil of the king? Instead of resisting, he agreed with this false worship completely, and had built the altar by the time Ahaz returned.
Resistance was possible. Priests had refused another king before.
When Uzziah interfered with the order of God's house, the faithful priests resisted him. But when Ahaz sent the pattern of the idolatrous altar from Damascus, Urijah the priest built it for him, and backed the king in his turning away from God.
It would be easy to read this as a matter of style — a new design, the same God. The record says otherwise.
Having seen Rezin's idolatrous altar, he sends its pattern to Jerusalem and has it set up in the court of the temple. He finds a high priest to carry out this act of sacrilege. 2 Chronicles 28:22 tells us that Ahaz sacrificed to the gods of Damascus. To burn a sacrifice on any altar other than the bronze altar was to sacrifice to false gods.
Ahaz did not just supply a design. He gave orders about the offerings, and Urijah took them. One writer sets that choice beside the apostles', who chose the other way.
In his pride he told the high priest what to offer on his altar, and how, and when. And Urijah, the unworthy successor of Jehoiada and Zechariah, obeyed him to the letter like a slave. "Uriah the priest did all this, as King Ahaz commanded." He turned the apostles' rule upside down, that we "must obey God rather than men." He thought differently. His eye was on the honour that comes from man; theirs was on the honour that comes from God.
An altar is a small thing beside a whole temple system. But this one change did not stay small.
When Ahaz set up a new altar in the Temple, copied from the pattern of the idol-altar, he opened the door wide to unlawful worship in the Temple of God. He found a willing helper in Urijah (whose name means "the LORD is light"), who ran the worship just as King Ahaz commanded. And greater dishonour to God's house followed. He even shut up the doors of the house of the Lord (2 Chron. 28:24), which probably meant that the services in the Holy Place stopped completely.
Urijah traded God's altar for a better-looking one. That trade cost more than a design.
A king like Ahaz, captivated by the beauty of the Syrian altar, may reject the altar of God. But it was the ruin of him and of all Israel. In the same way men today may refuse the preaching of the cross of Christ. To their thinking it is either a stumbling block or foolishness. So they choose an altar for their worship that suits their own taste, one that will not offend the prejudices of the natural man. But, as with Ahaz, it can only end in their everlasting ruin. God alone can prescribe the fitting way and method of access to Himself.
- Pattern sent. Ahaz liked a foreign altar better than God's and sent home its design. The trouble began with a preference, not an argument.
- Priest yields. Urijah could have refused, as priests had refused a king before. Instead the altar stood ready before Ahaz came home.
- Master swapped. He did all the king commanded. He reversed the rule that we must obey God rather than men, with his eye on human honour.
- Worship redefined. A sacrifice on any altar but God's own was a sacrifice to the gods of Damascus, whatever name the worshipper spoke over it.
- Door opened. One new altar led to worse, until Ahaz shut the temple doors. God alone can set the way of approach to Himself.
And when the king came from Damascus, the king saw the altar; and the king approached to the altar, and offered upon it.
Ahaz comes home from meeting the king of Assyria and goes straight up to a new altar copied from a foreign design. It looks like worship, but who chose that altar, and what became of the one God had commanded?
The altar did not come from God's instructions. It came from a royal visit abroad.
Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath Pileser, likely to congratulate him for his victory. But while there Ahaz saw a Syrian altar that he evidently liked better than the altar of the Lord. So he sent the pattern of the altar to Urijah the priest in Jerusalem, and told him to build one like it for the worship of Judah. Ahaz was a religious man. But he chose wicked religion above the true worship of the Lord.
The altar was ready and waiting because a priest had built it. Judah had seen priests resist a king who meddled with the house of God.
When Uzziah interfered with the order of the house of God, the faithful priests resisted him. But when Ahaz sent the pattern of the idolatrous altar from Damascus, Urijah the priest built it for him. He supported the king in his turning away from God.
Even Urijah's own name spoke against what he did.
King Ahaz finds in Urijah the high priest a willing tool for his idolatrous plans. Untrue to his name, which means "light of the Lord," he obeys his king's orders without question instead of rebuking him for his shameful act. Probably because he bowed so low, his name is left out of the list of priests in 1 Chronicles 6:4-15.
Some older translations end the verse with "and offered upon it." The altar he used, not the ritual, decided what that offering really was.
Having seen Rezin's idolatrous altar, he sends its pattern to Jerusalem. He has it set up in the court of the temple. He finds a high priest to carry out this act of sacrilege. 2 Chronicles 28:22 tells us that Ahaz sacrificed to the gods of Damascus. Burning a sacrifice on any altar other than the bronze altar was sacrificing to false gods.
What he offered on this altar matters. So does what he left out.
On this altar of new design Ahaz offers every kind of offering. He leaves out the one he needed most for himself — the sin offering. The plain bronze altar, "which was before the house of the Lord," seems to have offended his taste for beauty. So he pushed it aside to the north side of his own foreign copy. He had the arrogance to command the high priest what to offer on his altar, and how, and when. And Urijah, the unworthy successor of better priests, obeyed to the letter. He reversed the apostles' rule, that we ought to obey God rather than men.
Every step Ahaz took toward his new altar was a step away from the one God had placed in front of the temple. Its position there carried meaning.
Not only did Ahaz introduce an idolatrous altar into the temple worship, but he displaced the copper altar that was in front of the temple. He put it on the north side of his new altar. The Lord had placed the copper altar in front of the temple because it speaks of the only way of approach to God. That way is Christ, the One whose sacrifice is indispensable. But how many today are like Ahaz, pushing Christ out of the way and despising the value of His perfect sacrifice.
The same swap did not stop with Ahaz. One writer sees it in religion today.
Do we not find something similar in today's religions? Men who profess to be Christians think they can approach God by another altar than the altar of expiation, which they do not believe in. Like Rezin's altar, theirs is much broader, and looks much more beautiful than God's. The old-fashioned religious narrowness has given place to broader views, they say. It is no longer the blood of the cross that justifies and redeems the sinner. They have another Christ than that One. Their Christ renewed humanity's ties with God by His life, and His cross is nothing more than the crowning act of a life of devotion.
- Seen — Ahaz saw an altar in Damascus that pleased him more than the Lord's, and sent home the pattern of it.
- Built — faithful priests had once resisted a king. Urijah obeyed Ahaz instead of God, and built the altar for him.
- Approached — going up to that altar was not a new style of true worship. Offering anywhere but the bronze altar meant sacrificing to the gods of Damascus.
- Displaced — the bronze altar stood in front of the temple to picture the one way to God: Christ and His sacrifice. Ahaz shoved it aside.
- Repeated — people still make the same swap. A broader, prettier altar replaces the blood of the cross, and leaves them with another Christ.
And he burned his burnt-offering and his oblation, and poured out his drink-offering, and sprinkled the blood of his peace-offering upon the altar.
Ahaz returns from Damascus and walks up to a new altar. He had ordered it built from a foreign pattern. Now he offers Israel's sacrifices on it. The forms are all correct. The altar is not. Can worship be right when its altar is wrong?
Ahaz did not design this altar. He saw it abroad on a visit to the king of Assyria, and had it copied at home.
Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath Pileser, likely to congratulate him for his victory. But while there Ahaz saw a Syrian altar that he evidently liked better than the altar of the Lord. So he sent the pattern of the altar to Urijah the priest in Jerusalem. He told him to build one like it for the worship of Judah. Ahaz was a religious man, then, but he chose wicked religion over the true worship of the Lord.
The list of what Ahaz offered is long. One item is missing.
On this altar of new design Ahaz offers every kind of offering except the one he needed most for himself — the sin-offering. The plain bronze altar stood in front of the house of the Lord. Its looks seem to have offended his taste for beauty. So it lost its place, pushed aside to the north side of his own foreign substitute.
Much of the ritual was correct. But an offering's worth depends on the altar it is laid on.
Ahaz ignored the altar of God. He offered burnt offerings, grain offerings and drink offerings on the altar he liked, and sprinkled the blood on it as well. We are not told whether the priest acted for him in this or not. Ahaz could boast that he had some details right, while he was rebellious against God at the root. The Lord Jesus spoke of the scribes and Pharisees. They taught that a promise sworn by the altar counts for nothing, but a promise sworn by the gift on the altar must be kept. The Lord called these teachers blind fools, and asked which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift holy? The gift speaks of Christ's sacrifice, but the altar pictures Christ Himself, the basis of the value of the sacrifice. So the altar of Ahaz means that he brought in a false Christ.
The altar copied one belonging to Rezin, the king of Damascus. Ahaz would have said he was worshipping the God of Judah. Chronicles names who really received these sacrifices.
Having seen Rezin's idolatrous altar, he sends its pattern to Jerusalem and has it erected in the court of the temple. He finds a high priest to carry out this act of sacrilege. 2 Chronicles 28:22 tells us that Ahaz sacrificed to the gods of Damascus. To burn a sacrifice on any altar other than the bronze altar was to sacrifice to false gods.
Judah's priests had stood up to a king before. This time the priest did not.
When Uzziah interfered with the order of the house of God, the faithful priests resisted him. But when Ahaz sent the pattern of the idolatrous altar from Damascus, Urijah the priest built it for him. He backed the king in his turning away from God.
Ahaz's altar won him over by its size and its looks. One writer sees the same pull at work today.
Do we not find something similar in today's religions? Men who claim to be Christians think they can approach God by another altar than the altar of expiation, which they do not believe in. Like Rezin's altar, theirs is much broader and looks far more beautiful than God's. The old-fashioned religious narrowness has given way to broader views, they say. It is no longer the blood of the cross that justifies and redeems the sinner. They have another Christ than that One.
- Pattern. The trouble started with a preference. Ahaz liked a foreign altar better than God's, so he had it copied for Judah's worship.
- Priest. A weak priest built what a wicked king ordered. Earlier priests had resisted a king who meddled with God's house. Urijah helped his king instead.
- Offerings. Ahaz presented every kind of offering except the sin-offering — the one he needed most.
- Altar. The altar gives the gift its value. So a substitute altar means a substitute Christ: form kept, foundation lost.
- Verdict. To sacrifice on any altar but God's was to sacrifice to the gods of Damascus. Men make the same trade whenever a broader, prettier religion replaces the blood of the cross.
And the brazen altar which was before Jehovah, he brought forward from the forefront of the house, from between [his] altar and the house of Jehovah, and put it by the side of [his] altar on the north.
Ahaz came home from Damascus with a design in his head, and he rearranged the court of God's house to fit it. He did not smash God's altar; he moved it aside to make room for one he liked better.
The bronze altar's position was not decoration. Writers point out that it stood at the front because of what it stood for:
Ahaz did not only bring an idolatrous altar into the temple worship. He also displaced the copper altar that stood in front of the temple, and put it on the north side of his new altar (v.14). The Lord had the copper altar placed in front of the temple because it speaks of the only way of approach to God. That way is Christ, the One whose sacrifice is indispensable. But how many today are like Ahaz, pushing Christ out of the way and despising the value of His perfect sacrifice.
Ahaz renounced nothing out loud. He kept the old altar, but not at the centre. And what he offered on the new one left out the offering he needed most:
On this altar of new design Ahaz offers every kind of offering except the one he needed most for himself — the sin offering. The plain bronze altar, the one standing in front of the house of the LORD, seems to have offended his eye for beauty. So he pushed it off to a place of relative obscurity, on the north side of his own foreign substitute.
Its look and its size are what made the Damascus copy win. One writer sees people today approaching God by a different altar too:
Like Rezin's altar, theirs is much broader and looks far more beautiful than God's. The old-fashioned religious narrowness has given way to broader views, they say. It is no longer the blood of the cross that justifies and redeems the sinner. They have another Christ, a Christ who by His life renewed humanity's ties with God. His cross is nothing more than the crowning act of a life of devotion. The new altar has no point of contact with the old. Its shape and its beauty make it far more desirable to the world than the bronze altar. So the bronze altar loses its place and is set aside (v. 14). It is no longer the indispensable way of approach when a person comes before God in His sanctuary. In short, there is a new way of approach; a new religion is set up, and the first is pushed into a corner.
The change needed a priest to carry it out, and Ahaz had one. Commentators contrast him with the priests who once stood up to King Uzziah:
When Uzziah interfered with the order of the house of God, the faithful priests resisted him. But when Ahaz sent the pattern of the idolatrous altar from Damascus, Urijah the priest built it for him, and supported the king in his apostasy.
Ahaz chose an altar by taste. One writer turns that choice into a warning for anyone today:
A king like Ahaz, captivated by the beauty of the Syrian altar, may reject the altar of God (2 Kings 16). But it was the ruin of him and of all Israel (2 Chr. 28:23). So now people may refuse the preaching of the cross of Christ. As they see it, they find in it either a stumbling block or foolishness. So they choose an altar for their worship that suits their own taste and will not offend the natural man. But, as with Ahaz, it can only end in their everlasting ruin. God alone can prescribe the fitting way and method of access to Himself.
The altar was the first change, not the last. By the end of the chapter Ahaz had also altered the king's entrance to the house — again with one audience in mind:
Finally, Ahaz changes the entrance to the house of the LORD (v. 18), which no one but the king was allowed to use. He does it "because of the king of Assyria." He gives up his own privileges as head of the people of God. He also gives up the "covered way of the sabbath," the privilege of the people themselves. He does all this to avoid offending the world he is serving… The very foundations of Israel's religion, by which the people were set apart for God, have disappeared.
- Place. God put the bronze altar in front of the house because it stood for the one way of approach to Him.
- Preference. Ahaz never argued against that altar. He just liked the Damascus one better, and taste decided.
- Push. He did not destroy the old altar. He moved it to the side — still in view, out of the centre.
- Permission. A priest built the substitute to order. So the king's taste became the nation's worship.
- Price. Once the altar moved, everything else moved too. In the end the foundations that set the people apart for God were gone.
And king Ahaz commanded Urijah the priest saying, Upon the great altar burn the morning burnt-offering, and the evening oblation, and the king's burnt-offering, and his oblation, and the burnt-offering of all the people of the land, and their oblation, and their drink-offerings; and sprinkle upon it all the blood of the burnt-offerings, and all the blood of the sacrifices; and the brazen altar shall be for me to inquire [by].
Ahaz has copied a foreign altar, and here he orders it into the centre of Israel's worship. He moves every daily sacrifice onto it. God's own altar keeps only a strange new job, and the priest obeys without a word.
The command comes from the throne, not from God. One writer weighs the tone of the order, the priest who carried it out, and the one offering left off the list:
On this altar of new design Ahaz offers every kind of offering except the one he needed most for himself — the sin offering... With great arrogance he told the high priest what to offer on his altar, and how, and when. And this unworthy successor of Jehoiada and Zechariah obeyed to the letter, like a slave. "Urijah the priest did everything King Ahaz commanded." He turned the apostles' rule upside down, that we "must obey God rather than men." His mind was set elsewhere. His eye was on the honour that comes from man; theirs was on the honour that comes from God.
Other bad reigns are remembered for priests who stood firm. This one is not:
Under other wicked kings, the record still honours faithful priests. One mark of the wicked reign of Ahaz is that here the priest is almost as wicked as the king. Urijah let himself become the ready tool of his king, who treated holy things with contempt, and helped him build an idolatrous altar.
The list of offerings leaves nothing out. Ahaz keeps every form of worship. One commentator shows why the altar, not the gift on it, decides everything:
Ahaz could boast of having some details correct, while he was rebellious against God at heart. The Lord Jesus spoke of the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. They taught, "Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing, but whoever swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath" (Matt. 23:18). But the Lord called these teachers, "You blind fools! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred?" (v. 19). The gift speaks of Christ's sacrifice, but the altar pictures Christ Himself, the basis of the value of the sacrifice. So the altar of Ahaz stands for the false Christ he was bringing in. How dreadful is such an evil as this!
The bronze altar stood in front of the temple, and its place there had a meaning:
The Lord had the copper altar placed in front of the temple for a reason. It speaks of the only way to come to God, and that way is Christ, the One whose sacrifice cannot be done without. But how many today are like Ahaz, pushing Christ out of the way and despising the value of His perfect sacrifice.
Ahaz does not destroy God's altar. He keeps it for his own private use, as something to consult. One writer denies that Ahaz was simply weighing up what to do with the old altar, and calls the swap a change of religion:
In short, there is a new way of approach. A new religion is set up, and the first is pushed into a corner. At most the bronze altar may serve to "inquire by" (v. 15) — not, as some have said, so that one might think over what to do with it, but to use it for superstitious practices.
God's altar becomes something Ahaz calls on only when he needs it:
If hard problems or danger came, he could use the copper altar. Men today treat Christ the same way — Someone to consult when they are in trouble. But this only amounts to superstition, with no faith at all in Christ Himself. They want Christ only as their servant, not as their Lord.
Ahaz chose the altar that looked better to him. The same instinct is still at work:
A king Ahaz, charmed by the beauty of the Syrian altar, may reject the altar of God; but it was the ruin of him and of all Israel. So now men may refuse the preaching of the cross of Christ. As they see it, the cross is either a stumbling block or foolishness. They choose instead an altar for their worship that suits their own taste, and that will not offend the prejudices of the natural man. But, as in the case of Ahaz, it can only end in their everlasting ruin. God only can prescribe the suited way and method of access to Himself.
- Altar. The altar pictures Christ Himself, who gives the sacrifice its value. Swap the altar and you swap Christ, however correct the ritual on it.
- Approach. God's altar stood in front of the temple as the only way in. Ahaz pushed it aside. Only God can set the way to Himself.
- Appetite. Ahaz chose the new altar because it pleased his eye. Men still refuse the cross and pick an altar that will not offend their taste.
- Accomplice. Urijah obeyed the king to the letter. He turned the rule upside down: we must obey God rather than men. His eye was on the honour that comes from man.
- Amulet. Cut down to something "to inquire by," God's altar became mere superstition. So men consult Christ in trouble, wanting a servant and not a Lord.
And Urijah the priest did according to all that king Ahaz had commanded.
Ahaz had rebuilt the worship of Jerusalem around a new altar, copied from a pattern he sent from Damascus. This verse asks why the priest who guarded God's altar built it without a word of protest.
Uriah's orders came from the king, not from God. One writer notes what the new altar left out. He weighs the priest's obedience against the rule the apostles lived by.
On this altar of new design Ahaz offers every kind of offering except the one he needed most for himself — the sin-offering. He arrogantly commanded the high priest what to offer on his altar, and how, and when. And the unworthy successor of Jehoiada and Zechariah obeyed slavishly, down to the letter. "Uriah the priest did all this, as King Ahaz commanded." He reversed the apostles' rule, that "we must obey God rather than men." He was of another mind: his eye was on the honour that comes from man; theirs was on the honour that comes from God.
Uriah had another option. Judah had already seen priests refuse King Uzziah.
When Uzziah interfered with the order of the house of God the faithful priests resisted him. But when Ahaz sent the pattern of the idolatrous altar from Damascus, Uriah the priest built it for him, and supported the king in his apostasy.
Ahaz stayed religious while turning from the true worship of the Lord. One commentator stops to ask what the priest lacked.
Ahaz was therefore a religious man, but he chose wicked religion above the true worship of the Lord. Christendom has been guilty of the same evil in imitating the false worship of unbelievers. But why did Uriah not have the spiritual strength to resist this evil of the king? Instead of resisting, he fully agreed with this false worship and had the altar built by the time Ahaz returned.
The old bronze altar was not destroyed. It was only pushed aside. One writer reads that swap of altars as a picture of religion today.
Do we not find something similar in today's religions? Men who profess to be Christians think they can approach God by an altar other than the altar of expiation, and they do not believe in that altar. Like Rezin's altar, theirs is much broader and far better looking than God's. The old-fashioned religious narrowness has given way to broader views, they say. It is no longer the blood of the cross that justifies and redeems the sinner... Its form and its beauty make it infinitely more desirable to the world than the bronze altar. So the bronze altar is taken from its place and set aside (v. 14). It is no longer the one necessary way of approach when a person comes before God in His sanctuary.
Uriah's help did not stop at one altar. What it let in ran far past a change of furniture.
The building of a new altar in the Temple by Ahaz, following the pattern of the idol-altar, opened the door wide for unlawful worship in the house of God. He found a willing helper in Uriah (the LORD is light), who conducted the worship "as King Ahaz commanded." And greater profanation followed. He even shut up the doors of the house of the Lord (2 Chron. 28:24), which probably meant a complete stop to the services in the Holy Place. He worshipped the gods of Damascus in connection with this altar (2 Chron. 28:23).
The failure was the high priest's own, yet God did not scrap the priesthood He had set up. One writer draws a conclusion from that about where Christ is Priest.
God has provided a priesthood for earth in the family and line of Aaron. Despite that family's failure in the past, He has never set that priesthood aside. Eli's sons were wicked. Uriah went along with Ahaz's proposal (2 Kings 16). Neither of these moved God to transfer the priesthood to another tribe... God, we repeat it, never sets aside a priesthood that He has established. So the Lord Jesus could not possibly have been a Priest on earth.
- Command. Ahaz told the priest what to offer, how, and when. Uriah obeyed to the letter, with his eye on honour from man.
- Consent. Earlier priests resisted a king who meddled with the house of God. Uriah backed his king instead.
- Cost. The altar of expiation was not smashed, only shifted aside. It was no longer the one necessary way of approach to God.
- Contagion. One willing helper opened the door wide. Idol worship came in, and Ahaz shut the doors of the Lord's house.
- Constancy. A failing priest never unseats God's arrangement. He kept the priesthood in Aaron's line, so Christ was never a Priest on earth.
And king Ahaz cut off the panels of the bases, and removed the lavers from off them; and took down the sea from off the brazen oxen that were under it, and put it upon a stone pavement.
Ahaz had already brought an Assyrian altar into the temple. Now he takes the temple furniture apart, and the commentators ask what a people lose when a king reshapes God's pattern to please a foreign ruler.
One writer reads these changes as one act of demolition, aimed at worship, approach, and purity alike.
With shocking irreverence he had placed his Assyrian altar beside the altar of the Lord. He had made it the centre of sacrifice. He then removed the bases of the lavers. He took the sea down from its raised place and set it on a pavement of stones. He also changed the king's way of entry to meet the whims of the king of Assyria. So he lowered the God-given standards of worship, of approach to the House of God, and of purity in that approach, to suit the thoughts and desires of men! God made His commands known to Moses in fine detail, and Moses carried them out to the letter — the divine standard was clear!
One writer suggests a plain motive for the damage.
He probably made these sacrilegious changes to get the precious metals they were made of.
Where the ESV has the "stands" and their "basin," the commentators use the older words "bases" and "lavers." These smaller basins washed the sacrifices. Ahaz did not smash them; he took them off what held them up, and that half-measure is the point.
Ahaz's sacrilege extended to the lavers (v. 17). They served for washing the sacrifices. This showed the complete absence of defilement in Christ, who was offered for expiation. Ahaz removes the lavers from their bases. And here again, do we not find a parallel with what is happening in front of us? People give up the thought of the perfect purity of Christ, the Lamb of God. They make Him subject to the same tendencies we have. They present Him as One tempted by inward lusts — lusts He never yielded to. While keeping the lavers, they remove them from their bases.
The ESV says Ahaz set the sea on "a stone pedestal"; older translations read "a pavement of stones," and the writers below build on that older wording. They differ on what the oxen picture: one sees God's patience carrying His people's purification, the other sees the sacrifice on which any purity of ours rests. Both read the stone as man himself.
The sea stood on oxen. They stand for God's patience toward His people about their practical purification. God could accept that purification only because of His longsuffering in all His ways toward His people. Ahaz took the basin off its base and "put it upon a stone pavement." Is that stone pavement not a striking picture of the nature and heart of man?
The oxen (animals for sacrifice) show that our own purity as priests rests first of all on the value of the sacrifice of Christ. The water in the sea speaks of the Word of God, which purifies. But we are sinners by nature, so the oxen of sacrifice are basic to our purification in practical life. The pavement of stones, though, pictures mankind in their so-called "good works" — a useless (though proud) basis that ungodly men prefer. Mere natural religion always substitutes human merit for Christ!
Understanding the loss depends on knowing the use. The sea held water, not blood — it served people already brought near.
"The sea was for the priests to wash in." Day after day the priests came there to wash their hands and feet. So they were always fit to go through their work as priests. This is a striking type of God's spiritual priests — of all true believers whose works and ways need to be cleansed by the action of the Word. The bronze laver in the tabernacle and the bronze sea in the temple both pointed forward to that "washing of water by the Word." Christ is carrying that on now by the power of the Holy Spirit.
One writer ends not with what Ahaz took, but with what no king can touch.
As we wait for the coming of our beloved Lord, let us always treasure this: "we have an altar" that stands unique in its glory and effect — the cross of Christ. It is through Christ we "have access in one Spirit to the Father." And Christ is the standard of our purity. Nothing the modern Ahaz brings in can challenge the lasting blessedness of these glorious truths.
- Standard. God gave the pattern in detail; Ahaz lowered it to suit men's thoughts and desires.
- Base. He kept the lavers but removed their bases. Men keep the form and let go of Christ's perfect purity.
- Substitute. The sea came off the oxen and onto stone. Sacrifice and God's longsuffering gave way to human nature and human works.
- Loss. Priests washed at the sea every day. Move it, and you lose the picture of the Word cleansing a believer's ways.
- Standing. The true altar is the cross, the access is in one Spirit to the Father, and no modern Ahaz can move it.
And the covered way of the sabbath that they had built in the house, and the king's entry outside, he turned from the house of Jehovah on account of the king of Assyria.
Ahaz had already put a copy of an Assyrian altar in God's house. Now he touches the entrances. He turns away the covered Sabbath way and the king's own outer entry, and Scripture gives one reason: "because of the king of Assyria." Why would a king of Judah redesign the way into God's house to please a foreign ruler?
The verse names two structures, not ornaments. One commentator traces where they came from and who ended up using them.
The covered way for the Sabbath was for the royal worshippers to use on the sabbath. The king's outer entry was the high gate that his father Jotham had so significantly rebuilt. Ahaz appears to have profaned it by giving it over to Tiglath-pileser's use when he worshipped his false gods on his visit to Jerusalem.
Commentators describe the act in different ways: some say Ahaz removed these structures, others that he turned the approach away from the house of the LORD.
These were not decorations. Each entrance marked out a privilege — one the king's, one the people's — and Ahaz gave up both.
Lastly, Ahaz changes the entry of the house of Jehovah (v. 18) which was forbidden to anyone but the king. He does so "because of the king of Assyria." He disowns his own privileges as head of the people of God. He also disowns the "covered way of the sabbath," the privilege of the people themselves. He does all this to avoid offending the world he is serving. Now the king of Assyria may declare himself satisfied! The very foundations of Israel's religion have disappeared — the foundations that set the people apart for God. Why should the world not now come into relationship with the God of Israel through the altar of Damascus? This religion, changed and stripped of its power and its privileges, suits the world perfectly!
No conviction drives this change. No prophet, no word of Scripture. What drives it is one man Ahaz feared.
Ahaz also removed the Sabbath pavilion that had been built in the temple. He removed the outer entrances from the house of God, "because of the king of Assyria" (v.18). He took away things God had ordained so as not to offend the king of Assyria. Ahaz feared the king of Assyria, but had no fear of God before his eyes. Let us be careful not to allow the opinions of men to influence us against the clear Word of God.
Verse 18 is the last item in a short list. Read with verse 17, where Ahaz reworked the temple basins, it shows one loss repeated three times.
With startling irreverence he had placed his Assyrian altar alongside the altar of Jehovah. He had made it the centre of sacrifice. He then went on to remove the bases of the washing basins. He took down the large basin called the sea from its raised position and put it on a pavement of stones. In the same way he altered the way of the king to meet the whims of the king of Assyria. So Ahaz lowered the standards God had appointed — for worship, for approach to the House of God, and for purity in that approach. He lowered them to fit the thoughts and desires of men! In minute detail God had made known His commands to Moses. Moses had carried them out with great care. The divine standard was clear!
Ahaz could move gates and basins because he treated the standard as his to adjust. The same writer separates what can change from what cannot.
Christ is God's standard, so the standard itself cannot change. Sadly, our appreciation of it and our practice may change a great deal. In the wilderness the manna God gave His earthly people never changed in itself — but their appreciation of it sadly declined. At first it tasted like cake made with honey. Later they wanted something besides the manna. In the end they said they loathed it… It is in Christ, and in the truth about Him, that we see the features of the true Altar, the true approach to God, and the true standard of purity.
- Fear — Ahaz feared the king of Assyria. He had no fear of God. The verse gives no other reason for the change.
- Forfeit — He gave up the entry kept for the king, his own privilege. He gave up the covered Sabbath way, the people's privilege.
- Foundations — With those gone, the foundations that set the people apart for God had disappeared.
- Flattery — A religion stripped of its power and its privileges suits the world perfectly. That was the point of the change.
- Fixed — Christ is God's standard, so the standard cannot change. Only our appreciation of it can. In Him are the true altar, the true approach, and the true purity.
And the rest of the acts of Ahaz, what he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
Ahaz's reign closes the way nearly every reign in Kings closes — with a note that the full account lies in a state record, the chronicles of the kings of Judah. The formula is routine, but here it files away one of the darkest lives in Judah's history, which raises the question of what is really being remembered, and by whom.
The book named here was one of several records the writer of Kings could point his readers to.
In various places the writer points to books which contain more about the life of the king in question. He may have based his accounts on them. He points, for example, to the book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41), and several times to the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel (1 Kings 14:19) and to the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah (1 Kings 14:29)… The author of the books of Kings was able to use these "references" under the guidance of the Holy Spirit while writing his God-inspired work.
Those archives are lost. What survives is the account God Himself kept.
Men drew up these chronicles during the reigns of all the rulers of those times, whether Jewish or Gentile. They have nothing to do with the Word of God. They record what it has not pleased the Lord to record or explain. These chronicles have been lost… The believer has no need for any of them; he has God's Word. There, in God's account, he finds all that is necessary for him, as well as the divine evaluation of people, events, and things. Writings that are not inspired may record certain deeds, and even record them with great exactness. But nothing more than human evaluation ever goes with them.
What God kept on record about Ahaz is what he did to the worship of the Lord.
Ahaz was an open opposer of God and His truth. He neglected the temple — shut up the doors — put out the lamps — cut up the vessels, and set up idolatrous altars in every corner of Jerusalem. He also went to Damascus to meet the king of Assyria. There he saw an altar, and he sent a pattern of it to Urijah the priest, who made one like it in Jerusalem. So he put the true altar out of its place and, in a word, overturned the whole order of worship. "This is that king Ahaz."
The parallel summary in Chronicles adds a second word: not only his acts, but all his ways.
"His acts," and "his ways"! God too has "ways" and "acts." "He made known His ways to Moses, His acts to the people of Israel" (Psalm 103:7). His ways revealed His nature; His acts displayed more of His power. "All his ways," it is said of Ahaz. And what displays of his heart's wickedness did his life of thirty-six years bring out! It is little wonder that the inspiring Spirit led the chronicler to call him "king of Israel" (2 Chron. 28:19) — so like was he to the nineteen idolatrous rulers of the northern kingdom.
The same closing question is asked of other kings. One writer turns it on the reader.
"Now the rest of the acts of Ahaziah that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel?" Yes, and God's books above hold them too, along with the wicked acts recorded here. Those books are not merely the chronicles of the kings of Israel. They hold the deeds and doings of every man's life, whether good or evil. Solemn facts for us all!
Ahaz was not a brute. He had taste, curiosity and a measure of restraint — and none of it changed the verdict on his life.
The faithful ministry of the prophet Isaiah seems to have had little influence on him. He was a man of artistic taste, it appears, judging by his admiration of the Damascus altar — as even the most ungodly of men may be. He was interested in the sciences too, it would seem, since he brought the Chaldean sundial into Jerusalem. Nor does he seem to have had a persecuting spirit, for unlike his grandson Manasseh he did not shed innocent blood or put the prophets to death. His name means "possessor," and he had much that men admire and praise today. But all this, without godliness, is of absolutely no worth. He seems to have died as he had lived, unrepentant to the last.
- Two archives. The chronicles of the kings were court records and served as source material. Scripture is the account God Himself kept.
- Two verdicts. Human records may be exact, yet they carry only human evaluation. God's account supplies the divine estimate of people and events.
- Two words. Chronicles speaks of his acts and his ways — what he did, and what he was. Ahaz's ways exposed the wickedness of his heart.
- One legacy. What God preserved of Ahaz is the wrecking of worship: doors shut, vessels cut up, the true altar displaced by one copied from Damascus.
- One warning. Taste, learning and restraint counted for nothing without godliness. And the books God keeps record every life, not only the lives of kings.
And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David; and Hezekiah his son reigned in his stead.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.