IN THE SEVENTEENTH year of Pekah son of Remaliah, Ahaz son of Jotham king of Judah began to reign. 2Ahaz was twenty years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem sixteen years. Unlike David his father, he did not do what was right in the eyes of the LORD his God. 3He walked in the ways of the kings of Israel and even sacrificed his son in the fire, following the detestable ways of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites. 4He offered sacrifices and burned incense at the high places, on the hilltops and under every spreading tree.
5Then Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem and besieged Ahaz, but they could not overpower him. 6At that time, Rezin king of Aram recovered Elath for Aram by driving out the men of Judah. Edomites then moved into Elath and have lived there to this day.
7Ahaz sent messengers to say to Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria, “I am your servant and vassal. Come up and save me out of the hand of the king of Aram and of the king of Israel, who are attacking me.” 8And Ahaz took the silver and gold found in the temple of the LORD and in the treasuries of the royal palace and sent it as a gift to the king of Assyria. 9The king of Assyria complied by attacking Damascus and capturing it. He deported its inhabitants to Kir and put Rezin to death.
10Then King Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria. He saw an altar in Damascus and sent to Uriah the priest a sketch of the altar, with detailed plans for its construction. 11So Uriah the priest built an altar in accordance with all the plans that King Ahaz had sent from Damascus and finished it before King Ahaz returned. 12When the king came back from Damascus and saw the altar, he approached it and presented offerings on it. 13He offered up his burnt offering and grain offering, poured out his drink offering, and sprinkled the blood of his fellowship offerings on the altar. 14The bronze altar that stood before the LORD he brought from the front of the temple—from between the new altar and the temple of the LORD—and put it on the north side of the new altar.
15King Ahaz then gave these orders to Uriah the priest: “On the large new altar, offer the morning burnt offering and the evening grain offering, the king’s burnt offering and his grain offering, and the burnt offering of all the people of the land, and their grain offering and their drink offering. Sprinkle on the altar all the blood of the burnt offerings and sacrifices. But I will use the bronze altar for seeking guidance.” 16And Uriah the priest did just as King Ahaz had ordered.
17King Ahaz took away the side panels and removed the basins from the movable stands. He removed the Sea from the bronze bulls that supported it and set it on a stone base. 18He took away the Sabbath canopy that had been built at the temple and removed the royal entryway outside the temple of the LORD, in deference to the king of Assyria.
19As for the other events of the reign of Ahaz, and what he did, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Judah? 20Ahaz rested with his fathers and was buried with them in the City of David. And Hezekiah his son succeeded him as king.
Original Meaning
THE ACCOUNT OF the sixteen-year reign of Ahaz is considerably longer than that of the fifty-two year reign of Azariah. Unlike Azariah, Ahaz has no particular political accomplishments; under his rule Judah shrinks in influence and independence. The space given to Ahaz is a result of the special interests of the Deuteronomistic Historians, particularly the territorial claims of Judah and developments in temple worship.
These two issues are interrelated through the presence of Tiglath-Pileser. Ahaz depends on this king for his own authority and in turn incurs a heavy financial indemnity with the Assyrians. Ahaz, dependent on their assistance to maintain Judah’s independence against Rezin and Pekah, is in no position to retain control over the Transjordan territories, especially the important seaport at Elath (16:6). In order to meet his financial obligations to the Assyrians, Ahaz has to strip the temple of its precious metals (v. 8), even to the extent of removing the bronze from the temple artifacts (vv. 17–18). The Deuteronomistic evaluation of these compromises is best summarized in the condemnation that he is following in the practices of the kings of Israel (v. 3). He not only supports worship at the high places (v. 4), but he corrupts worship at the temple itself.
The relationship of Ahaz to Tiglath-Pileser is not obvious, either in the Deuteronomistic reports or in the mutilated Assyrian records pertaining to the initial campaign into Philistia in 734 B.C. On the one hand, if Ahaz appeals to Tiglath-Pileser before the campaign into Philistia as an initial act of submission to the Assyrian king, he is a willing vassal in opposition to Syria and Israel. On the other hand, if his appeal is made after Judah is subjugated in the campaign, he is simply petitioning his master to come to his aid in time of distress. The bribe (šōḥad, 16:8) sent to Tiglath-Pileser could be to initiate an alliance with the Assyrians, or it could be the payment required to obtain Assyrian assistance in retaining the throne (v. 8). In either case, reliance on a foreign power is contrary to trusting God and is viewed negatively by the prophetic writers.
Political Compromise (16:1–9)
THE POLITICAL TURBULENCE at the end of Jotham’s reign caused by the campaign of Tiglath-Pileser disrupts the regular succession of Judean kings. This has resulted in conflicting synchronisms, possibly the result of the incorporation of various records for the beginning and end of the reigns of Jotham and Ahaz. Jotham lives beyond his sixteen-year reign (15:30, 33); Ahaz becomes king twelve years before Hoshea begins to reign (17:1).1 Tiglath-Pileser may have accorded him some recognition of authority, which north Israelite records count as his formal accession. His independent rule begins in the sixteenth year of the reign of Jotham, though Jotham lives another four years.
The attack of Rezin and Pekah (16:5) is partly an attempt to force Judah to join an alliance in resisting the Assyrian advance.2 The result noted here is the same as that indicated in Isaiah 7:1: The aggressors fail to engage the Judean army, or at least fail in their attempt to lay siege to Jerusalem. The Hebrew text says that Rezin is successful in capturing the seaport at Ezion Geber (Tel-el-Kheleifeh) for Aram (16:6). The term “recovered” (hēšîb) indicates that Elath is restored to the Edomites, who have the proper claim of ownership;3 Chronicles also refers to an attack by Edom (2 Chron. 28:17). Aharoni suggests that the Arameans assist the Edomites in regaining control of their territory.4 The Chronicler further reports that Ahaz loses control of a number of towns that control passes to Jerusalem (28:18);5 these included Gimzo and Aijalon in the north, Timnah and Beth Shemesh in the Sorek Valley, and Socoh and Gederoth in the Valley of Elah.
Ahaz’s appeal to Tiglath-Pileser for help (2 Kings 16:7–8) is a critique of Ahaz based on sources from the court and temple.6 The wealth sent to the Assyrians is not a “gift” (NIV) but a “bribe” (šōḥad). This word depicts derogatively a “hired razor” who will ravage the land of Judah (Isa. 7:20).7 This exchange should not be compared with submitting tribute as a vassal. Ahaz appeals as a servant and son; the use of “son” as a qualification of servant tends to soften the expression of subservience and dependence. Tiglath-Pileser responds by killing Rezin and exiling the citizens of Damascus to Kir.8 The historian portrays Ahaz as voluntarily submitting to the Assyrian yoke, a grievous misdeed in addition to his promoting idolatry in the high places.
Temple Innovations (16:10–20)
THE POLITICAL COMPLIANCE to Tiglath-Pileser requires Ahaz to meet him in Damascus to bring tribute.9 While there he sees an altar that apparently meets the deficiencies of the altar of Solomon, which is described as too small (1 Kings 8:64). There is no indication that the altar is of Assyrian design or that it represents subordination to Assyria. The Chronicler regards use of the altar as bringing offerings to the gods of Damascus, to whom Ahaz turns for help instead of looking to Yahweh (2 Chron. 28:23). The altar is built by Uriah the faithful high priest (Isa. 8:2), according to the model and design Ahaz has prescribed. When Ahaz returns from Damascus he conducts the inaugural ceremony, just as Solomon did at the dedication of the temple. The new altar is elevated, so the king must mount it in order to make the offerings (2 Kings 16:12).
The offerings include those totally burned, the dry offerings of grains, the libations of liquid produce such as oil and wine, and the peace or fellowship offerings, which are consumed by the worshipers (16:13). The old bronze altar is moved from its place in front of the sanctuary entrance to the north side. All the regular offerings for the king and his officials (“the people of the land,” 16:15) are to be brought to the new altar. The old altar is for the exclusive use of the king, where he will worship and pray. The sense of how Ahaz will seek (baqqēr, 16:15) Yahweh is not specified, but no cultic practice is implied. The involvement of Uriah the priest suggests that Ahaz does not intend worship contrary to what has been prescribed.
Ahaz removes the frames from the wheeled stands (cf. 1 Kings 7:27–30) with their elaborate metal work, probably as part of the payments made to Assyria (16:17). He also takes down the large basin from the bronze oxen that support it and places it on a stone bed. The “Sabbath canopy” may have been a metal awning, the word “Sabbath” being a metaphor for an inner temple structure (16:18).10 Naʾaman suggests that this really is a hall where the temple guards can rest; from here they go to their various assignments (cf. 11:5, 7, 9).11 The renovation of this hall is part of the reorganization of the private royal passageway to outside the building. The hall is probably located at the junction of the palace and the temple, so the guards can enter it to rest or leave it to go on duty. All these changes are regarded negatively as an accommodation to Assyrian influence.
Bridging Contexts
FAILURE TO TRUST GOD. The regnal summary condemns Ahaz for governing according to the abominable practices of the Canaanites that Yahweh drove out before Israel (16:3). A leading motif in the Deuteronomistic History is that God gave Canaan to Israel because of the iniquity of the Amorites, but that Israel itself became Canaanite in its practices (Judg. 2:1–5). Ahaz carries this to the extent of making his son pass through the fire. It is not certain if this describes child sacrifice; the writer quotes the language of Deuteronomy to typify the sordid conduct of the Canaanites (Deut. 18:9–10), where passing sons through the fire is named with various practices of divination. The same practice may be referred to by the description of “burning sons and daughters in the fire” (Deut. 12:31; Jer. 7:31; 19:5). Mesha king of Moab sacrificed his son (2 Kings 3:27), and offering children to Molek was one of the practices of the high places (Jer. 32:35). Passing children through the fire may have been a dedicatory rite, but apparently child sacrifice was practiced in severe times of distress.
The Deuteronomistic Historians find fault with Ahaz because of his promotion of idolatrous worship at the high places and his innovations to the temple. The alliance with the Assyrians delivers Ahaz in his time of crisis, but the cost requires stripping the temple of its precious metals—the gold and silver, and even the bronze that was a part of the water basins of the outer court. The prophet Isaiah finds fault with Ahaz at the fundamental level of his unwillingness to trust God (Isa. 7:1–17). The various compromises of worship, so significant to the Deuteronomists as evidence of covenant failure, are manifestations of one essential problem: failure to trust God. Ahaz figures prominently in Isaiah’s message to Jerusalem during the days of the Syrian crisis, but there is no mention of worship at the high places or manipulation of worship at the temple. The Assyrians are not allies but the agents of judgment in exiling the population of Judah.
The crisis for faith comes with the attack of Rezin and Pekah in an attempt to overthrow Ahaz and install Tabeel (“good for nothing”) as king to aid them in their cause (Isa. 7:3–6). Isaiah meets the king while he is inspecting his water supply to assure him that there is no cause for fear. The presence of Isaiah’s son Shearjashub (“a remnant will return”) is an invitation to trust God.12 Rezin and Pekah have already exhausted their fury; they are nothing more than two smoldering firebrands. Merely human cities such as Damascus and Samaria are no threat to Ahaz’s security, because they will themselves shortly disappear (vv. 8–9). The real cause for concern is whether Ahaz can trust God. This is put to the king in a phrase that plays on the Hebrew root commonly used in English as “amen” (ʾmn): If you do not believe (taʾ amînû), you will not be secure (tēʾāmēnû, 7:9).
The sign Immanuel. Underlying the assurance to Ahaz is the divine promise for the house of David (Isa. 7:13). Ahaz may weary God in his rejection of the sign (v. 12), but this will not alter God’s purpose for his nation. The name “Immanuel” is possibly the best-known symbol of divine faithfulness, but it comes with a double significance.13 Ahaz’s unbelief shatters the solidarity between the king as representative of the house of David and the faithful people of Israel. For those of unbelief (Ahaz and his people), the sign of divine presence is one of destruction (7:17), but for those who believe the sign is a pledge of God’s continuing presence in deliverance (7:16). The withdrawal of Israelite and Aramean armies vindicates the prophet’s word and shows that the fear of Ahaz and his people is groundless if they will only trust in God.
The prophet Isaiah describes the coming devastation of Judah with the vivid imagery of the prosperous land being reduced to a place of briars and thorns (Isa. 7:18–25). The devastation is such that an inhabitant will struggle for life with a young cow and two sheep (v. 21), but even in such circumstances these few pitiful animals will produce such an abundance that the survivors will feast on curds and honey (v. 22).
The mysterious name “Immanuel” is further clarified in Isaiah’s proclamation concerning Judah and Assyria (8:1–10). The figure of a trickle of water depicts the weakness of the divine promise in contrast with the mighty strength of Assyria that Ahaz has appealed to. The meager supply of water is an allusion to the spring of Gihon in the Kidron Valley channeled to pools on the lower east side of the city. Since Judah refuses this divine supply, Yahweh will bring the Assyrians like a flood; the mighty water of the Euphrates will flow over Judah—not to provide deliverance, as Ahaz assumes, but to sweep the country away. The judgment concludes with the name “Immanuel” (8:8). “Immanuel partakes of the judgment enveloping the people and land of Judah, but the divine judgment executed by the Assyrians has its limits explicitly because of the reality of ‘God-with-us.’”14 The unbelief of the king and the people have brought about a double significance of the meaning of the name; the presence of God will bring about judgment, even though it holds out the promise of the redemption of the people.
The judgment against the nations brings assurance of the fulfillment of the divine promise (Isa. 8:9–10). The people from far countries may band together in a plan to destroy God’s people. The nations are represented in the concrete presence of Assyria; its plans will be thwarted because of the presence of Immanuel. The people are offered a pledge of salvation because of the divine presence in the midst of judgment. Such optimism is not based in political fortunes or psychological optimism; it is a result of the assurance that God’s faithfulness will prevail in spite of the faithlessness of the Davidic king.
The Deuteronomistic Historians look back on all these events, pondering the question of the future of the covenant and of Jerusalem. Their concerns for the temple and the strength of the country are not to be minimized. Their king has betrayed them; the policy of bribing the Assyrians is not only an enormous cost in the short term, but utter loss in the long term. Ahaz has inherited a perilous situation, but his appeal to mighty earthly powers subverts his country. The pro-Assyrian policy that brought him to power results in complete servitude to his master.
Ahaz has inherited an exceedingly difficult political situation. Judah was an independent and wealthy nation for more than two generations under the rule of Uzziah and Jotham. Ahaz’s highest priority, as in any society, is to maintain the standard of living and exercise of power established in the previous regimes. In the judgment of the pro-Assyrian group that put Ahaz into power, the only hope of achieving this is to join forces with the Assyrians. In their judgment—and history proves them correct—the coalition of Aramean states will not be able to resist the Assyrians. Their solution is to accept the inevitable in the hope of being granted some independence in vassal status. This is contrary to the way of the covenant, in which reliance on any other nation is forbidden. History also proves the truth of the covenant; within a generation the Assyrians plunder Judah, though it is never made an Assyrian territory as Israel was.
The sign of “God with us” is both a promise and a threat. Matthew interprets the name the same as Isaiah does. It is a promise to those who trust God in accomplishing his redemption; it is a threat if they determine instead to protect their material prosperity by relying on the military powers such as Assyria or Rome. The choice is not whether God will be present; the choice is only in the response to that presence.
When Ahaz declines the offer of a sign, the prophet declares that Yahweh will give him a sign anyway (Isa. 7:13–14). The threat that Ahaz fears will disappear, as the prophet has said, but the result will be a greater judgment—the king of Assyria (v. 17). The fulfillment of the Immanuel promise comes with the birth of Christ (Matt. 1:22–23). God with us in the present time is not different from what it was for Ahaz. It is a promise to those who seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness. The presence of Christ is a threat for those who seek to protect their material well-being in this world by making it their highest priority. They are in danger of losing everything that is of such value to them.
Contemporary Significance
GOD AND THE use of human wealth. Biblical prophecy has left Ahaz as a paradigm for the choice to trust in God for one’s well-being. In seeking to protect his earthly inheritance, he loses it all. Had he been willing to trust God with his kingdom, he and his people could have been secure. Jesus in the same way promises his followers that all the needs of this earthly life will be provided to those who make the kingdom of God their concern (Matt. 6:25–33). By contrast, those who seek treasure on this earth will find it will rust and decay (vv. 19–21), if it is not taken away, as Tiglath-Pileser strips the treasures of the temple.
Today’s church includes many who leave everything to follow Christ, live in actual solidarity with poor people, and are insulted, hated and persecuted for this. At the same time, the church depends on the generosity of people of means to further its mission. The rich in the Gospels are by no means hard-working middle or upper-middle class people, but the arrogant and blind super-wealthy of imperial societies, reflected today in the superrich or in global corporations.15 It is the mission of corporations to earn money; it is the mission of Christians to use those earnings for the kingdom of God.
It is not easy for individual Christians to separate personal mission from corporate commercial enterprise. The separation is difficult both in the business practices by which money is earned and in the investment of the earnings that are realized. To some measure, commerce in this world must be conducted according to the rules established by government and corporate practice. When these practices contradict Christian ethics, they must be abandoned for the sake of the kingdom, even at the sacrifice of profit. As with Ahaz, the temptation is to follow the powers of political and economic forces rather than to submit to Christ’s presence and his work in the world. More often, as with Ahaz, the pursuit of the corporate mission inspires priorities that are contrary to God’s work in the world. Such wealth is no longer in service of the kingdom of God, even if token charity continues to be practiced.
A large part of Jesus’ teaching concerns the use of wealth. The narrative of the rich man and poor Lazarus is the Lukan culmination of Jesus’ teaching about the danger of wealth. Because the good news originates among the ʿ anāwîm (i.e., marginal and humble people who are open to God, such as Zechariah, Mary, the shepherds, Anna, and Simeon), Luke’s Gospel is often called the “Gospel for the Poor.” Yet there is far more material about the dangers of great wealth and the pitfalls the rich face in responding to the good news, so this Gospel may also be rightly called “Somber News for the Wealthy.”16
The somber warning of the story about Lazarus and the rich man is that, like Ahaz, the rich man does not recognize his peril until it is too late (Luke 16:19–31). Once the great chasm has been fixed between the rich man in Hades and the poor man in Abraham’s bosom, the rich man becomes concerned not only about his own fate but especially that of his five brothers. He assumes that if some great sign could take place, such as Lazarus’s returning from the dead to warn them, they will repent. But the deception of wealth is not deterred by such signs. Those unwilling to hear the warnings of Moses and the prophets will not be persuaded by such a miracle. The disaster of trusting in wealth and power is evident only after the judgment is past.
There is much implicit in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. The reason for the judgment of the rich man and the merit of Lazarus is not made explicit. It is apparent that certain conventions were known and understood in the social context as characteristic of the type of rich man in the story.17 The rich are characterized as having amassed their wealth by perjury, robbery, and duplicity. Unmistakable in the parable is the hedonism of the rich, particularly the clothing and the sumptuous daily feasting and entertainment. Lazarus is not virtuous merely by being poor; the poor are characterized by self-control and discipline, by their simple way of life that does not rob from others. This story is an attack on the hedonism and the immorality that wealth engenders. These are contrary to the values of the kingdom.
The choices of Ahaz are typical of the values of the wealthy seeking security for their possessions. He chooses to trust political and economic forces rather than God. In so doing he is willing to not only desecrate the temple by robbing it of its valuable metals, but to set up in its precincts foreign altars. In all of this, God is still with Ahaz. During his reign the kingdom of Israel disappears entirely, the nation that he so fears, but his own people come under the domination of the same Assyrians. Wealth is important to life in this world, but not as an end in itself. Pursued as a goal, it brings judgment and is lost. Wealth used in dependence on God and in furthering the kingdom of God enables his presence and blessing. But Ahaz chooses to make the security of his wealth through temporal forces his god, and in so doing he loses the blessing of the sign of Immanuel. Christians, who have experienced the blessing of the fulfillment of Immanuel, must beware of falling into the same condemnation.