Why did the LORD allow King Ahaz to seek help from Assyria in 2 Chronicles 28:20? Historical and Literary Setting King Ahaz ruled Judah c. 732–716 BC, within the chronologies calculated by Usshur at 3305–3321 AM. The Syro-Ephraimite War (2 Kings 16; Isaiah 7) pressed Judah as Rezin of Aram and Pekah of Israel attacked. Rather than heed Isaiah’s call to trust Yahweh, Ahaz emptied temple treasuries and dispatched the silver and gold to Tiglath-Pileser III of Assyria, a fact attested in the Annals of Tiglath-Pileser (Summary Inscription 7, lines 28–35). 2 Chronicles 28:20–21 records: “So Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria came against him and afflicted him instead of strengthening him. Although Ahaz took a portion from the house of the LORD, the royal palace, and the princes and gave it to the king of Assyria, it did not help him.” Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility Scripture continuously affirms both (Proverbs 16:9; Acts 2:23). Ahaz exercised genuine choice; the LORD “gave him into the hand of the king of Aram … and also … into the hand of the king of Israel” (2 Chronicles 28:5). Allowing Assyrian reliance magnified the futility of human alliances (Psalm 118:8-9). The LORD “allowed” (Heb. נתן) in the sense of judicial permission, not moral endorsement (cf. Romans 1:24). Covenant Judgment Realized Ahaz’s idolatry (child sacrifice, 2 Chronicles 28:3) invoked the covenant curses: defeat (Deuteronomy 28:25), oppression (v. 33), and economic plunder (v. 29). By letting Ahaz turn to Assyria, Yahweh was not passive; He was actively fulfilling His word, vindicating His holiness (Ezekiel 36:22-23). Prophetic Testimony Ignored Isaiah’s confrontation (Isaiah 7) offered the sign of Immanuel—proof Yahweh Himself would preserve David’s line. Ahaz preferred Assyrian horses to God’s promises. The LORD thus let his chosen “savior” become his scourge, illustrating Isaiah 30:3: “Pharaoh’s protection will become your shame, and refuge in Egypt’s shadow your disgrace.” Preparatory Role in Redemptive History The Assyrian arrangement served God’s larger plan: 1. It precipitated Northern Israel’s fall (2 Kings 17), emphasizing Judah’s need for covenant fidelity. 2. It set the stage for Hezekiah’s reforms, contrasting unrighteous and righteous kingship (2 Chronicles 29–31). 3. It highlighted the Davidic line’s preservation despite human failure, pointing ahead to the faultless Davidic Son (Luke 1:32-33). Archaeological Corroboration Assyrian reliefs from the Central Palace at Nimrud depict Judean emissaries with tribute—visual evidence that Ahaz’s gold reached Tiglath-Pileser. This external confirmation fortifies the Chronicler’s accuracy and undercuts skeptical claims of late fabrication. Theological Themes for the Reader • The peril of pragmatic politics divorced from faith. • The inviolability of covenant warnings and promises. • God’s sovereignty in harnessing even pagan empires for holy ends. • The gospel pattern: humans fail, God intervenes; ultimate deliverance comes only through the greater Son of David, risen and reigning (1 Corinthians 15:20). Practical Application Trusting modern “Assyrias”—technology, wealth, alliances—cannot substitute for reliance on Christ. As 2 Chronicles 28:22 states, “In the time of his distress, King Ahaz became even more unfaithful to the LORD.” The antidote is Hebrews 4:16: “Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence.” Summary Answer The LORD allowed Ahaz to seek Assyrian help to execute covenant judgment, expose the bankruptcy of idolatrous alliances, vindicate prophetic warnings, and advance the broader redemptive narrative culminating in Christ. What appeared as divine passivity was actually active, purposeful sovereignty, teaching Judah—and every reader—that salvation and security reside in God alone. |
    |