Ahaz was twenty years old when he became king
Ahaz ascended to the throne of Judah at a young age, indicating a period of potential vulnerability for the kingdom. His youth may have contributed to his susceptibility to external influences and idolatry. The age of twenty is significant in biblical terms, often marking the beginning of adulthood and responsibility (Numbers 1:3).

and he reigned in Jerusalem sixteen years
Ahaz's reign in Jerusalem, the political and spiritual center of Judah, lasted for sixteen years. This period was marked by significant political turmoil and spiritual decline. Jerusalem, as the city of David, held great importance as the site of the temple, the center of worship for the Israelites. Ahaz's reign saw the introduction of foreign religious practices, which had lasting impacts on the kingdom.

And unlike David his father
The reference to David highlights the standard of righteousness and faithfulness to God that Ahaz failed to meet. David, though not without sin, was known for his heart after God (1 Samuel 13:14). The term "father" here is used in a broader ancestral sense, as David was Ahaz's forefather. This comparison underscores the deviation from the covenantal faithfulness expected of the Davidic line.

he did not do what was right in the eyes of the LORD
Ahaz's actions were contrary to the covenantal laws and expectations set by God for the kings of Israel and Judah. His reign was characterized by idolatry and alliances with pagan nations, which were condemned by the prophets (Isaiah 7:10-13). This phrase indicates a moral and spiritual failure, contrasting with the ideal of kingship exemplified by David. The "eyes of the LORD" phrase emphasizes God's omniscience and the divine standard by which all actions are judged.

Instead, he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel
This phrase indicates a departure from the ways of the kings of Judah, who were expected to follow the covenantal laws given to them by God. The "kings of Israel" refers to the northern kingdom, which had a history of idolatry and rebellion against God. This behavior contrasts with the Davidic line in Judah, which, despite its flaws, had moments of reform and adherence to God's laws. The phrase suggests a deliberate choice to follow a path known for its disobedience and idolatry, as seen in the actions of kings like Jeroboam, who set up golden calves in Bethel and Dan (1 Kings 12:28-30).

and even made cast images of the Baals
The making of "cast images" refers to the creation of idols, which was strictly forbidden in the Mosaic Law (Exodus 20:4). The "Baals" were Canaanite deities associated with fertility and weather, often worshiped through rituals that included immoral practices. This act of creating images for Baal worship signifies a deep level of apostasy, as it not only breaks the first two commandments but also aligns the king with the pagan practices of the surrounding nations. This idolatry was a recurring issue for Israel and Judah, leading to prophetic warnings and eventual judgment, as seen in the ministries of prophets like Elijah and Hosea. The worship of Baal is also a stark contrast to the worship of Yahweh, who is spirit and cannot be represented by physical images (John 4:24).

Moreover, Ahaz burned incense in the Valley of Ben-hinnom
Ahaz, the king of Judah, engaged in idolatrous practices, which were strictly forbidden by the Mosaic Law. The Valley of Ben-hinnom, located southwest of Jerusalem, became infamous for its association with pagan worship and child sacrifice. This valley later became synonymous with Gehenna, a term used in the New Testament to describe hell. The burning of incense was a common practice in idol worship, often intended to appease or invoke the favor of false gods.

and sacrificed his sons in the fire
This horrific act of child sacrifice was a practice associated with the worship of the Canaanite god Molech. Such practices were explicitly condemned in Leviticus 18:21 and Deuteronomy 18:10. The sacrifice of children was seen as the ultimate abomination, demonstrating the depth of Ahaz's apostasy and the influence of surrounding pagan cultures on Israel. This act was a direct violation of God's commandments and a rejection of the sanctity of life.

according to the abominations of the nations
The term "abominations" refers to practices that are detestable and repugnant to God. The nations mentioned here are the Canaanite peoples whom God had driven out before the Israelites due to their wickedness. These abominations included idolatry, child sacrifice, and other morally corrupt practices. The Israelites were warned repeatedly not to adopt these customs (Deuteronomy 12:31).

that the LORD had driven out before the Israelites
This phrase recalls the conquest of Canaan, where God commanded the Israelites to dispossess the land's inhabitants due to their sinful practices (Deuteronomy 9:4-5). The driving out of these nations was both a judgment on their sin and a means to protect Israel from their corrupting influence. Ahaz's actions represented a tragic return to the very sins that led to the Canaanites' expulsion, highlighting the cyclical nature of sin and the need for repentance and faithfulness to God.

And he sacrificed and burned incense on the high places
This phrase refers to the practices of King Ahaz of Judah, who engaged in idolatrous worship. The "high places" were elevated sites often used for worship, both for Yahweh and for pagan deities. These locations were typically chosen for their height, symbolizing a closer proximity to the divine. In the context of Israelite history, high places were initially used for legitimate worship before the construction of the Temple in Jerusalem. However, they became associated with idolatry and syncretism, as seen in Ahaz's reign. This practice was condemned by the prophets and was contrary to the centralized worship that God commanded in Deuteronomy 12:2-5. The use of high places for idol worship was a recurring issue in the history of Israel and Judah, leading to spiritual decline.

on the hills
The mention of "hills" emphasizes the widespread nature of Ahaz's idolatry. Hills were often chosen for worship due to their natural elevation, which was thought to bring worshippers closer to the gods. This practice was common among the Canaanites, whose religious customs influenced the Israelites. The use of hills for pagan worship was a direct violation of God's command to destroy such sites (Numbers 33:52). The persistence of this practice highlights the challenge of maintaining pure worship amidst surrounding pagan cultures. It also reflects the failure of the kings of Judah to lead the nation in faithfulness to God.

and under every green tree
The phrase "under every green tree" is a common biblical expression denoting widespread idolatry. Green trees, often associated with fertility and life, were used in Canaanite religious practices, particularly in the worship of Asherah, a fertility goddess. This imagery is used in several prophetic books (e.g., Isaiah 57:5, Jeremiah 2:20) to describe the pervasive nature of Israel's unfaithfulness. The use of trees in idol worship was not only a physical act but also symbolized spiritual adultery against God. This practice was a direct affront to the covenant relationship between God and Israel, as it involved adopting the religious customs of the surrounding nations. The reference to "every green tree" underscores the extent of Ahaz's apostasy and the nation's departure from the worship of Yahweh.

So the LORD his God delivered Ahaz into the hand of the king of Aram
This phrase highlights the divine judgment upon Ahaz, the king of Judah, due to his unfaithfulness and idolatry. The "LORD his God" indicates a covenant relationship that Ahaz has violated. The "king of Aram" refers to Rezin, king of Syria, who historically allied with Pekah, king of Israel, against Judah. This event is part of the Syro-Ephraimite War, where Aram and Israel sought to pressure Judah into joining their coalition against Assyria. The deliverance into the hands of enemies is a recurring theme in the Old Testament, often serving as a consequence of Israel's disobedience (Judges 2:14).

who attacked him and took many captives to Damascus
The attack by Aram resulted in significant losses for Judah, with many captives taken to Damascus, the capital of Syria. This reflects the geopolitical tensions of the 8th century BC, where regional powers frequently clashed. The taking of captives was a common practice in ancient warfare, serving both as a means of weakening the enemy and as a source of labor and wealth. Damascus, a major city in the ancient Near East, was a center of Aramean power and culture.

Ahaz was also delivered into the hand of the king of Israel
The "king of Israel" refers to Pekah, who ruled the northern kingdom. This phrase underscores the compounded judgment on Ahaz, as he faces threats from both Aram and Israel. The northern kingdom of Israel, despite being related to Judah, often found itself in conflict with its southern neighbor. This internal strife among the Israelites is a recurring theme, highlighting the division and discord that followed the united monarchy of David and Solomon.

who struck him with great force
The phrase "struck him with great force" indicates the severity of the defeat inflicted by Pekah. This military defeat is a direct consequence of Ahaz's failure to trust in God and his reliance on foreign alliances, such as his appeal to Assyria for help (2 Kings 16:7-9). The "great force" signifies not only the physical might of Israel's army but also the spiritual and moral implications of Ahaz's leadership failures. This event foreshadows the eventual downfall of both Israel and Judah due to their persistent disobedience and idolatry.

For in one day
The phrase "in one day" emphasizes the suddenness and severity of the judgment that fell upon Judah. This rapid destruction serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of turning away from God. In biblical history, swift judgments often highlight the seriousness of sin and the need for repentance.

Pekah son of Remaliah
Pekah was the king of Israel, reigning during a tumultuous period marked by political instability and idolatry. His reign is noted for its aggression against Judah, reflecting the divided kingdom's internal strife. Pekah's actions were part of a larger conflict known as the Syro-Ephraimite War, where Israel allied with Syria against Judah.

killed 120,000 valiant men in Judah
The number 120,000 signifies a massive loss for Judah, indicating a significant military defeat. The term "valiant men" suggests that these were not ordinary soldiers but skilled and courageous warriors, highlighting the magnitude of the disaster. This event underscores the vulnerability of Judah when it strayed from God's protection.

This happened because they had forsaken the LORD
The phrase points directly to the spiritual cause of Judah's defeat. Forsaking the LORD implies a deliberate turning away from God's commandments and covenant. Throughout the Old Testament, Israel and Judah's prosperity and protection were contingent upon their faithfulness to God. This principle is reiterated in passages like Deuteronomy 28, where blessings and curses are outlined based on obedience or disobedience.

the God of their fathers
This phrase emphasizes the covenantal relationship between God and the ancestors of Judah, such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It serves as a reminder of the historical faithfulness of God to His people and their obligation to remain faithful in return. The reference to "the God of their fathers" also highlights the continuity of God's promises and the expectation of loyalty across generations.

Zichri, a mighty man of Ephraim
Zichri is identified as a warrior from the tribe of Ephraim, one of the tribes of Israel. Ephraim was a dominant tribe in the northern kingdom, often associated with strength and military prowess. The mention of Zichri as a "mighty man" highlights his valor and skill in battle, which was significant during the period of the divided kingdom when Israel and Judah were often at odds. This reflects the internal strife and division within the nation of Israel, as Ephraim was part of the northern kingdom, while the events described occurred in Judah.

killed Maaseiah the son of the king
Maaseiah, identified as the son of King Ahaz of Judah, signifies the direct impact of the conflict on the royal family. The killing of a king's son underscores the severity of the defeat Judah faced at the hands of Israel. This event is part of the broader narrative of God's judgment on Ahaz for his idolatry and unfaithfulness, as detailed in the surrounding chapters. The death of Maaseiah can be seen as a fulfillment of prophetic warnings against the house of Ahaz.

Azrikam the governor of the palace
Azrikam held a significant position as the governor of the palace, indicating his high status and influence within the kingdom of Judah. The palace was not only a royal residence but also a center of administration and governance. His death at the hands of Zichri suggests a breakdown in the political and administrative structure of Judah, further emphasizing the chaos and vulnerability of the kingdom during Ahaz's reign.

and Elkanah the second to the king
Elkanah's role as "the second to the king" implies that he was a high-ranking official, possibly akin to a modern-day prime minister or chief advisor. His position would have made him a key figure in the king's court, responsible for advising and assisting in governance. The killing of such a prominent official highlights the extent of the defeat and the penetration of enemy forces into the heart of Judah's leadership. This event serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of turning away from God, as the leadership of Judah was decimated due to their unfaithfulness.

Then the Israelites took 200,000 captives from their kinsmen—women, sons, and daughters.
This event occurs during the reign of King Ahaz of Judah, a time marked by his idolatry and unfaithfulness to God. The Israelites, referring to the Northern Kingdom of Israel, were at war with Judah, the Southern Kingdom. The capture of 200,000 people highlights the severity of the conflict and the internal strife among the tribes of Israel, who were originally united under kings like David and Solomon. The term "kinsmen" underscores the tragic nature of this civil war, as these were fellow descendants of Jacob. The taking of women and children as captives was a common practice in ancient warfare, often intended to weaken the enemy and assimilate the captives into the victor's society. This act of taking captives is reminiscent of the consequences outlined in Deuteronomy 28:41, where disobedience to God would lead to such calamities.

They also carried off a great deal of plunder
The plundering of Judah by Israel signifies not only a military victory but also a stripping away of resources and wealth. In the ancient Near East, plunder was a common outcome of warfare, serving as both a reward for the victors and a means to cripple the defeated. This act of taking plunder can be seen as a fulfillment of the curses for disobedience found in Leviticus 26:17 and Deuteronomy 28:29-33, where God warns that enemies will take away the fruits of the land and labor. The plunder would have included livestock, goods, and possibly sacred items, further emphasizing the humiliation and loss experienced by Judah.

and brought it to Samaria.
Samaria was the capital of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, established by King Omri and later fortified by King Ahab. Bringing the captives and plunder to Samaria indicates the centralization of power and wealth in the capital city. Samaria was a significant city both politically and religiously, often associated with idolatry and apostasy, as seen in the actions of its kings. The mention of Samaria also foreshadows its eventual downfall and the Assyrian conquest, as prophesied in passages like Hosea 13:16. The act of bringing the spoils to Samaria can be seen as a temporary triumph that ultimately leads to further judgment upon Israel for their own unfaithfulness to God.

But a prophet of the LORD named Oded was there
Oded is identified as a prophet, a spokesperson for God, which underscores the importance of divine communication in Israel's history. Prophets often served as God's mouthpiece, delivering messages of warning, judgment, or hope. The presence of Oded highlights God's continued involvement and concern for His people, even during times of moral and spiritual decline. Prophets like Oded were crucial in guiding the Israelites back to covenant faithfulness.

and he went out to meet the army that returned to Samaria
Samaria was the capital of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. The army's return to Samaria indicates a military campaign, likely against Judah, which was common during the divided monarchy period. The act of going out to meet the army suggests urgency and courage on Oded's part, as prophets often confronted kings and armies to deliver God's message, regardless of personal risk.

“Look,” he said to them
The word "Look" serves as an imperative, drawing attention to the seriousness of the message. Prophets often used direct and commanding language to ensure their audience understood the gravity of the situation. This introduction sets the stage for a divine rebuke, emphasizing the need for the army to heed the forthcoming message.

“because of His wrath against Judah, the LORD, the God of your fathers, has delivered them into your hand
This phrase acknowledges God's sovereignty and justice. The mention of "wrath" indicates divine judgment, often a response to covenant unfaithfulness. The reference to "the God of your fathers" connects the current generation to the covenantal promises and responsibilities given to the patriarchs. The delivery of Judah into Israel's hands is portrayed as an act of God, not merely a military victory, emphasizing that God uses nations to accomplish His purposes.

But you have slaughtered them in a rage that reaches up to heaven
The phrase "in a rage that reaches up to heaven" suggests excessive violence and injustice, which God condemns. This echoes the biblical principle that while God may use nations to execute judgment, He holds them accountable for their actions. The imagery of reaching "up to heaven" implies that the sin is so great it demands divine attention and intervention. This serves as a warning that God's people must act justly, even in warfare, reflecting His character and commands.

And now you intend to reduce to slavery the men and women of Judah and Jerusalem.
This phrase highlights the intention of the Israelites to enslave their fellow Israelites from Judah and Jerusalem. Historically, this occurred during the reign of King Ahaz of Judah, when the kingdom was weakened by idolatry and sin. The Israelites, led by King Pekah of Israel, had defeated Judah in battle and taken many captives. The act of enslaving fellow Israelites was against the Mosaic Law, which emphasized the unity and brotherhood of the tribes of Israel (Leviticus 25:39-46). This situation reflects the broader theme of division and conflict between the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah, which had been ongoing since the split after Solomon's reign.

But are you not also guilty before the LORD your God?
This rhetorical question serves as a rebuke to the Israelites, reminding them of their own sinfulness and guilt before God. It underscores the principle that all have sinned and fall short of God's standards (Romans 3:23). The prophet Oded, who delivered this message, was calling the Israelites to self-examination and repentance. This reflects the biblical theme of accountability before God, where even those who are victorious in battle must consider their spiritual standing. The question also points to the justice and holiness of God, who holds all nations and individuals accountable for their actions. This call to recognize one's own guilt is a precursor to the New Testament message of repentance and forgiveness through Jesus Christ, who offers redemption to all who acknowledge their sin and turn to Him (1 John 1:9).

Now therefore, listen to me
This phrase is a call to attention and obedience, often used by prophets or leaders in the Bible to emphasize the importance of the message that follows. In the context of 2 Chronicles 28, the speaker is Oded, a prophet, who is addressing the leaders of Israel. The use of "listen" underscores the urgency and divine authority behind the message. This echoes other biblical instances where prophets call for repentance and action, such as in Isaiah 1:10 and Jeremiah 7:2.

and return the captives you took from your kinsmen
The captives referred to are from Judah, taken by the Israelites during the reign of King Ahaz. This highlights the internal strife and division within the nation of Israel, as both Judah and Israel are descendants of Jacob, making them "kinsmen." The call to return the captives is a plea for mercy and justice, aligning with the Mosaic Law, which emphasizes the humane treatment of fellow Israelites (Leviticus 25:39-46). This act of returning captives is also a precursor to the New Testament teachings on forgiveness and reconciliation, as seen in Matthew 5:23-24.

for the fierce anger of the LORD is upon you.
This phrase indicates divine displeasure and impending judgment due to the actions of the Israelites. The "fierce anger of the LORD" is a recurring theme in the Old Testament, often resulting from idolatry, injustice, or disobedience to God's commands. In this context, it serves as a warning that their actions have provoked God's wrath, similar to the warnings given to other nations and leaders throughout the scriptures, such as in Deuteronomy 9:8 and 2 Kings 17:18. The concept of God's anger is balanced by His mercy, as the call to return the captives offers a chance for repentance and restoration.

Then some of the leaders of the Ephraimites—
The Ephraimites were one of the tribes of Israel, descended from Ephraim, the son of Joseph. Ephraim was often used to represent the northern kingdom of Israel, which had split from Judah after Solomon's reign. The leaders mentioned here were significant figures within this tribe, indicating their authority and influence. The tribe of Ephraim held a prominent position in the northern kingdom, often leading in military and political matters.

Azariah son of Jehohanan, Berechiah son of Meshillemoth, Jehizkiah son of Shallum, and Amasa son of Hadlai—
These individuals are named specifically, suggesting their importance and possibly their righteousness or wisdom in this context. Naming them highlights their role in the narrative and their courage to stand against the prevailing actions of their peers. The mention of their fathers' names is typical in biblical genealogies, providing legitimacy and context to their authority. This practice also emphasizes the importance of lineage and heritage in Israelite society.

stood in opposition to those arriving from the war.
The context here involves a conflict between the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah. The leaders of Ephraim opposed the actions of their fellow Israelites who had taken captives from Judah. This opposition reflects a moral stance, as the captives were their fellow Israelites, and such actions were against the covenantal laws that called for unity and compassion among the tribes. This moment of opposition can be seen as a call to repentance and a return to the covenantal obligations that the Israelites had with God. It also foreshadows the eventual reunification of the tribes under a future messianic king, a type of Christ who would bring peace and unity.

“You must not bring the captives here,” they said,
This phrase refers to the leaders of Ephraim addressing the returning Israelite army. The context is the aftermath of a battle where the Northern Kingdom of Israel had defeated Judah and taken captives. The leaders, recognizing the moral and spiritual implications, urge the army not to bring the captives into their territory. This reflects a moment of conscience and awareness of God's laws, which prohibited the mistreatment of fellow Israelites (Leviticus 25:39-43). It also shows a rare instance of compassion and adherence to divine principles during a period of widespread apostasy.

“for you are proposing to bring guilt upon us from the LORD”
The leaders acknowledge that their actions could incur divine wrath. In the Old Testament, guilt often refers to the state of being liable for punishment due to sin. The Israelites were aware that their actions were accountable to God, who had established a covenant with them. This reflects the understanding that sin has communal consequences, not just individual ones, as seen in other instances like Achan's sin in Joshua 7. The leaders' awareness of potential guilt indicates a recognition of the seriousness of violating God's commands.

“and to add to our sins and our guilt.”
This phrase highlights the cumulative nature of sin. The leaders recognize that their nation is already burdened with sin, and adding to it would exacerbate their situation. This reflects the biblical principle that sin has a compounding effect, leading to greater separation from God. The acknowledgment of existing sin suggests a consciousness of their spiritual state, which is crucial for repentance. It echoes the sentiments found in Isaiah 1:18, where God invites His people to reason together and find forgiveness.

“For our guilt is great,”
The leaders confess the magnitude of their guilt, indicating a deep awareness of their spiritual condition. This admission is significant because it shows a moment of humility and recognition of their need for divine mercy. The acknowledgment of great guilt is a step towards repentance, as seen in the prayers of confession in Nehemiah 9 and Daniel 9. It underscores the biblical theme that recognizing one's sinfulness is essential for seeking God's forgiveness and restoration.

“and fierce anger is upon Israel.”
This phrase refers to the divine judgment that Israel is experiencing due to their disobedience. The concept of God's anger is prevalent in the Old Testament, often depicted as a response to covenant unfaithfulness. The leaders' statement reflects an understanding that their current suffering is a result of divine displeasure. This aligns with the warnings given by prophets like Amos and Hosea, who spoke of God's impending judgment on Israel for their sins. The mention of fierce anger serves as a reminder of the seriousness of sin and the need for repentance to restore the relationship with God.

So the armed men
This phrase refers to the soldiers of Israel who had captured the people of Judah. Historically, this event occurs during the reign of King Ahaz of Judah, who was defeated by the northern kingdom of Israel. The "armed men" are likely part of the Israelite army that had been victorious in battle. This reflects the ongoing conflict between the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah, a recurring theme in the historical books of the Old Testament.

left the captives
The captives were from Judah, taken during the conflict with Israel. This act of leaving the captives is significant because it demonstrates a moment of mercy and obedience to prophetic instruction. The prophet Oded had confronted the Israelite army, urging them to release their captives to avoid further wrath from God. This act of releasing captives can be seen as a foreshadowing of the liberation and redemption themes found in the New Testament, particularly in the ministry of Jesus Christ.

and the plunder
Plunder refers to the goods and valuables taken during the conquest. In ancient warfare, taking plunder was a common practice, often used to enrich the victors and weaken the defeated. The decision to leave the plunder, along with the captives, indicates a significant act of repentance and acknowledgment of wrongdoing by the Israelites. This act aligns with biblical principles of justice and mercy, as seen in other scriptures such as Micah 6:8.

before the leaders and all the assembly
The leaders and assembly refer to the elders and representatives of the Israelite community. This public act of returning the captives and plunder signifies accountability and communal responsibility. It highlights the importance of leadership in guiding the people towards righteousness and obedience to God's commands. This scene can be compared to the New Testament church's emphasis on communal decision-making and accountability, as seen in passages like Acts 15.

Then the men who were designated by name arose
This phrase indicates a specific group of men chosen for a task, suggesting a formal and organized response. In the context of ancient Israel, being designated by name implies a sense of responsibility and authority. This reflects the importance of leadership and accountability in biblical narratives, where God often appoints individuals for specific missions.

took charge of the captives
The captives here refer to the people of Judah who were taken by the Israelites during the conflict. This act of taking charge signifies a shift from hostility to compassion, highlighting a moment of repentance and obedience to prophetic instruction, as the prophet Oded had earlier admonished the Israelites to release their captives.

and provided from the plunder clothing for the naked
Providing clothing from the plunder demonstrates a reversal of fortune and a gesture of mercy. In biblical times, clothing was a basic necessity and a symbol of dignity. This act fulfills the biblical principle of caring for the needy, as seen in passages like Isaiah 58:7, which calls for sharing with those in need.

They clothed them, gave them sandals and food and drink
This comprehensive care for the captives reflects the holistic approach to restoration and mercy. Sandals, food, and drink were essential for survival and comfort, especially for those who had been through the trauma of captivity. This mirrors the biblical theme of hospitality and provision, akin to the Good Samaritan parable in Luke 10:33-34.

anointed their wounds
Anointing wounds with oil was a common ancient practice for healing and soothing injuries. This act of compassion and care is reminiscent of the healing ministry of Jesus, who often tended to the physical and spiritual needs of individuals, as seen in Matthew 9:35.

and put all the feeble on donkeys
Providing transportation for the weak demonstrates a concern for the well-being of the vulnerable. Donkeys were valuable animals for travel, indicating a significant effort to ensure the captives' safe and comfortable return. This act of kindness aligns with the biblical call to support the weak, as seen in 1 Thessalonians 5:14.

So they brought them to Jericho, the City of Palms, to their brothers
Jericho, known as the City of Palms, was a significant location in Israel's history, symbolizing a place of refuge and rest. Bringing the captives to their brothers in Jericho signifies reconciliation and the restoration of community ties. This act fulfills the biblical mandate of unity and peace among God's people, as emphasized in Psalm 133:1.

Then they returned to Samaria
The return to Samaria marks the completion of their mission and a return to normalcy. Samaria, the capital of the Northern Kingdom, was often at odds with Judah, yet this act of mercy and obedience to God's command through the prophet Oded represents a moment of unity and repentance. This reflects the biblical theme of reconciliation and the hope for peace among divided peoples, as seen in Ephesians 2:14-16.

At that time
This phrase situates the events within a specific historical context. The time referred to is during the reign of King Ahaz of Judah, a period marked by political instability and spiritual decline. Ahaz reigned from approximately 732 to 716 BC. This was a time when the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah were under threat from surrounding nations, particularly the Assyrians and the Arameans.

King Ahaz
Ahaz was the twelfth king of Judah and is often remembered for his unfaithfulness to God. He is described in the Bible as a king who did not do what was right in the eyes of the Lord, following the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites. His reign is characterized by idolatry and alliances with foreign powers, which were contrary to the covenantal faithfulness expected of the Davidic kings.

sent for help
This action reflects Ahaz's lack of faith in God and his reliance on human alliances for security. Instead of seeking the Lord's guidance and protection, Ahaz turned to political and military solutions. This decision is a significant departure from the example set by earlier kings like David, who sought the Lord's counsel in times of trouble. It also contrasts with the prophetic counsel given by Isaiah, who urged trust in God rather than foreign alliances (Isaiah 7:4-9).

from the king of Assyria
The king of Assyria at this time was Tiglath-Pileser III, a powerful ruler known for his military conquests and expansion of the Assyrian Empire. Assyria was a dominant force in the ancient Near East, and its kings were often seen as formidable allies or enemies. By seeking help from Assyria, Ahaz was aligning Judah with a nation that would later become a significant threat to both Israel and Judah. This alliance had long-term consequences, as it eventually led to Assyrian dominance over the region and the eventual fall of the Northern Kingdom of Israel in 722 BC.

The Edomites had again come
The Edomites were descendants of Esau, Jacob's brother, and had a long history of conflict with Israel. This phrase indicates a recurring pattern of hostility. The Edomites' attacks were often opportunistic, taking advantage of Judah's weakened state. Historically, Edom was located to the southeast of Judah, in a region known for its rugged terrain. The repeated incursions by Edomites reflect the ongoing enmity between the two nations, which began with the struggle between Esau and Jacob (Genesis 25:23).

and attacked Judah
Judah, the southern kingdom, was often vulnerable to attacks due to its strategic location. During the reign of King Ahaz, Judah was particularly weak, both politically and spiritually, as Ahaz had led the nation into idolatry and away from God. This attack by the Edomites is part of a series of military defeats that Judah suffered during Ahaz's reign, highlighting the consequences of turning away from God. The attack also fulfills the warnings given by prophets that disobedience would lead to foreign invasions (Deuteronomy 28:49-52).

and carried away captives.
Taking captives was a common practice in ancient warfare, serving both as a means of weakening the enemy and as a source of labor or ransom. The carrying away of captives by the Edomites would have been a devastating blow to Judah, further depleting its population and resources. This act of captivity echoes the broader biblical theme of exile and redemption, seen most prominently in the Babylonian exile. It also foreshadows the ultimate deliverance and freedom found in Jesus Christ, who came to set the captives free (Isaiah 61:1, Luke 4:18).

The Philistines had also raided the cities of the foothills and the Negev of Judah
The Philistines were long-standing enemies of Israel, often clashing with them throughout the Old Testament. The foothills, or Shephelah, and the Negev are regions in Judah known for their strategic and agricultural importance. The Philistine raids during King Ahaz's reign were part of God's judgment on Judah for its idolatry and unfaithfulness. This reflects the cyclical pattern of sin, judgment, repentance, and deliverance seen throughout the history of Israel.

capturing and occupying Beth-shemesh, Aijalon, and Gederoth
Beth-shemesh was a Levitical city, significant in Israel's history, especially in the narrative of the Ark of the Covenant (1 Samuel 6). Aijalon was a city in the tribal territory of Dan, known for its fertile land. Gederoth is less prominent but was part of the lowland cities. The capture of these cities indicates a significant loss for Judah, both strategically and spiritually, as these areas were part of the land given by God to the Israelites.

as well as Soco, Timnah, and Gimzo with their villages
Soco and Timnah were also located in the Shephelah, with Soco being known for its role in the battle between David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17). Timnah was a city associated with Samson's exploits (Judges 14). Gimzo is mentioned only here, indicating its lesser prominence. The mention of "their villages" suggests a comprehensive defeat, affecting not just the main cities but also the surrounding communities, highlighting the extent of Philistine aggression and the vulnerability of Judah during Ahaz's reign.

For the LORD humbled Judah
This phrase indicates divine intervention where God actively brings about a humbling of the nation of Judah. Throughout the Old Testament, God often humbles nations or individuals as a form of judgment or correction (e.g., Deuteronomy 8:2-3). The humbling of Judah is a recurring theme, seen in instances like the Babylonian exile. It serves as a reminder of God's sovereignty and the consequences of disobedience.

because Ahaz king of Israel
Ahaz was actually the king of Judah, not Israel, which highlights a textual nuance. The term "king of Israel" here may reflect his role as a leader of God's people, who were collectively known as Israel. Ahaz's reign is marked by idolatry and alliances with foreign powers, which led to spiritual and political decline (2 Kings 16:1-4). His actions contrast with the covenantal faithfulness expected of a Davidic king.

had thrown off restraint in Judah
This phrase suggests a rejection of God's laws and moral boundaries. Ahaz's reign was characterized by idolatry and the adoption of pagan practices, including child sacrifice (2 Chronicles 28:3). The lack of restraint led to societal chaos and moral decay, reflecting the broader biblical principle that abandoning God's law results in disorder (Proverbs 29:18).

and had been most unfaithful to the LORD
Ahaz's unfaithfulness is highlighted by his worship of foreign gods and neglect of the temple (2 Chronicles 28:24). This unfaithfulness is a breach of the covenant relationship between God and His people, akin to spiritual adultery (Jeremiah 3:6-10). The unfaithfulness of leaders often led to national consequences, as seen in the history of Israel and Judah. This phrase underscores the importance of covenant fidelity and foreshadows the ultimate faithfulness of Jesus Christ, who perfectly fulfills the covenant on behalf of His people.

Then Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria
Tiglath-pileser III was a powerful Assyrian ruler who reigned from 745 to 727 BC. He is known for expanding the Assyrian Empire and implementing significant military and administrative reforms. His interactions with the kingdoms of Israel and Judah are well-documented in both biblical and Assyrian records. The Assyrian Empire, located in what is now northern Iraq, was a dominant force in the ancient Near East, and its kings often exerted influence over smaller neighboring states, including Israel and Judah.

came to Ahaz
Ahaz was the king of Judah from approximately 732 to 716 BC. His reign is noted for its political and religious challenges. Ahaz sought the help of Tiglath-pileser during a time of crisis, specifically when Judah was threatened by the combined forces of Israel and Aram (Syria). This alliance against Judah is detailed in 2 Kings 16 and Isaiah 7. Ahaz's decision to seek Assyrian assistance reflects his lack of faith in God's protection, as he chose to rely on a foreign power rather than trust in the Lord.

but afflicted him rather than strengthening him
Instead of providing the support Ahaz hoped for, Tiglath-pileser imposed heavy burdens on Judah. This affliction likely included tribute demands and political subjugation, which weakened Judah's autonomy. The Assyrian king's actions fulfilled the warnings given by the prophet Isaiah, who cautioned against relying on foreign alliances (Isaiah 7:17-25). This outcome serves as a reminder of the dangers of placing trust in human powers rather than in God. The affliction of Ahaz by Tiglath-pileser can be seen as a form of divine judgment for Ahaz's unfaithfulness and idolatry, as he led Judah away from the worship of Yahweh.

Although Ahaz had taken a portion from the house of the LORD
Ahaz, the king of Judah, is noted for his unfaithfulness to God. The "house of the LORD" refers to the temple in Jerusalem, which was the center of worship and the dwelling place of God's presence among His people. By taking treasures from the temple, Ahaz demonstrated a lack of reverence for God and His sacred space. This act reflects a broader pattern of idolatry and apostasy during Ahaz's reign, as he sought alliances with pagan nations rather than relying on the LORD. This action is reminiscent of other instances in the Old Testament where leaders misused temple resources, such as in 2 Kings 16:8, where Ahaz also took silver and gold from the temple to bribe the king of Assyria.

from the royal palace
The royal palace was the seat of the king's authority and wealth. By taking treasures from his own palace, Ahaz depleted the resources meant for the governance and defense of his kingdom. This act signifies desperation and a willingness to sacrifice the stability and prosperity of his own reign for temporary political gain. Historically, this reflects the political instability of the region during this period, as smaller kingdoms like Judah were caught between larger empires such as Assyria and Egypt.

and from the princes
The princes were the leaders and nobles of Judah, who held significant influence and wealth. By taking from them, Ahaz not only weakened his own political support but also demonstrated a disregard for the welfare of his people. This action likely caused discontent among the ruling class and further destabilized his rule. It highlights the internal strife and division within Judah during Ahaz's reign, as recorded in Isaiah 3:1-5, where the prophet speaks of the removal of support and supply from Jerusalem and Judah.

and had presented it to the king of Assyria
Ahaz sought the aid of Tiglath-Pileser III, the king of Assyria, to protect Judah from its enemies, particularly the alliance of Israel and Aram. This political maneuver reflects the common practice of vassalage in the ancient Near East, where smaller states paid tribute to more powerful empires for protection. However, this reliance on Assyria was contrary to the prophetic counsel given to Ahaz, as seen in Isaiah 7:10-12, where God offered Ahaz a sign to trust in Him instead of foreign alliances.

it did not help him
Despite Ahaz's efforts to secure Assyrian assistance, his actions ultimately failed to bring the desired peace and security to Judah. This outcome underscores the futility of relying on human alliances and wealth rather than trusting in God's provision and protection. The failure of Ahaz's strategy serves as a cautionary tale about the consequences of disobedience and lack of faith, echoing the warnings found in Deuteronomy 28:15-68, where God outlines the curses for covenant unfaithfulness. This phrase also foreshadows the eventual downfall of Judah, as reliance on foreign powers led to further entanglement and eventual exile.

In the time of his distress
This phrase refers to a period of significant trouble and pressure for King Ahaz. Historically, Ahaz faced military threats from the Arameans and Israelites, as well as the Edomites and Philistines. This distress was a consequence of his earlier decisions to forsake the ways of the LORD, leading to divine judgment. Theologically, distress often serves as a test of faith, revealing the true character of individuals. In the Bible, distress can lead to repentance and turning back to God, as seen in the lives of other kings like Hezekiah, but Ahaz's response was different.

King Ahaz
Ahaz was the king of Judah, reigning from approximately 732 to 716 BC. He is noted for his idolatry and alliance with Assyria, which was contrary to God's commands. His reign is documented in 2 Kings 16 and Isaiah 7-8, where his lack of faith and reliance on foreign powers rather than God is criticized. Ahaz's actions had long-term negative effects on Judah, including the introduction of Assyrian religious practices.

became even more unfaithful
This indicates a progression in Ahaz's spiritual decline. Instead of turning to God in his distress, Ahaz further distanced himself from the LORD. His unfaithfulness included sacrificing to the gods of Damascus, which he believed had helped the Arameans. This reflects a common ancient Near Eastern belief that military success was tied to the favor of specific deities. Ahaz's actions demonstrate a lack of understanding of the covenant relationship between God and Israel, which required exclusive worship of the LORD.

to the LORD
The use of "the LORD" emphasizes the covenant name of God, Yahweh, highlighting the personal and relational aspect of Israel's God. Ahaz's unfaithfulness was not just a political or cultural failure but a breach of the covenant relationship established at Sinai. This phrase underscores the gravity of Ahaz's actions, as they were not merely against a generic deity but against the God who had chosen and delivered Israel. Theologically, this points to the importance of faithfulness in the covenant relationship, a theme that runs throughout the Old Testament and is fulfilled in the New Testament through Jesus Christ, who embodies perfect faithfulness to God.

He sacrificed to the gods of Damascus
Ahaz, the king of Judah, turned to the gods of Damascus, reflecting a common ancient Near Eastern practice of adopting the gods of a victorious enemy, believing they held power. This act was a direct violation of the first commandment (Exodus 20:3) and demonstrated Ahaz's lack of faith in Yahweh. The gods of Damascus were likely associated with Hadad, the storm god, and other deities worshiped in Aram.

who had defeated him
The Arameans had previously defeated Ahaz, as recorded in 2 Chronicles 28:5. This defeat was part of God's judgment against Ahaz for his unfaithfulness. The historical context shows that Ahaz sought help from Assyria rather than relying on God, leading to further subjugation and loss.

and he said, “Because the gods of the kings of Aram have helped them
Ahaz's reasoning reflects a syncretistic belief system, where he attributed military success to the power of foreign gods. This contrasts with the biblical teaching that the Lord alone is sovereign over all nations (Isaiah 45:5-7). Ahaz's statement reveals his spiritual blindness and misunderstanding of God's covenant with Israel.

I will sacrifice to them that they may help me.”
Ahaz's decision to sacrifice to these gods was an attempt to manipulate divine favor, a practice common in pagan religions but contrary to the worship of Yahweh, who desires obedience and faithfulness (1 Samuel 15:22). This act further alienated him from God and led to greater spiritual and national decline.

But these gods were the downfall of Ahaz and of all Israel.
The worship of foreign gods led to Ahaz's downfall, fulfilling the warnings given in Deuteronomy 28 about the consequences of idolatry. This phrase highlights the futility of trusting in false gods and serves as a reminder of the importance of exclusive devotion to the Lord. The downfall of Ahaz also had repercussions for the nation, as the king's actions influenced the spiritual state of Israel, leading to further judgment and exile.

Then Ahaz gathered up the articles of the house of God
Ahaz, the king of Judah, took sacred items from the temple, which were used for worship and sacrifices. This act signifies a profound disrespect for the sanctity of the temple. Historically, the temple in Jerusalem was the center of Jewish worship, and its articles were considered holy. Ahaz's actions reflect his apostasy and departure from the faith of his ancestors, aligning with the practices of surrounding pagan nations.

cut them into pieces
By destroying these sacred items, Ahaz demonstrated a complete rejection of the worship of Yahweh. This act can be seen as a symbolic breaking of the covenant between God and Israel. It parallels the actions of other apostate kings in Israel's history who led the nation into idolatry, such as Jeroboam, who set up golden calves (1 Kings 12:28-30).

shut the doors of the house of the LORD
Closing the temple doors effectively halted the worship of Yahweh, preventing the people from offering sacrifices and seeking God’s presence. This action is reminiscent of the spiritual decline during the reigns of other kings who turned away from God. It contrasts with the later reforms of Hezekiah, Ahaz's son, who reopened the temple and restored proper worship (2 Chronicles 29:3).

and set up altars of his own on every street corner in Jerusalem
Ahaz's establishment of altars throughout Jerusalem indicates a shift towards idolatry and syncretism, incorporating pagan practices into the religious life of Judah. This proliferation of altars reflects the influence of surrounding nations and their gods, such as the Canaanite deities. It also highlights the spiritual decay and the king's failure to lead the people in the ways of the Lord, contrasting with the centralized worship commanded in Deuteronomy 12:5-14.

In every city of Judah
This phrase indicates the widespread nature of the idolatry under King Ahaz's reign. Judah, the southern kingdom, was meant to be a place where the worship of Yahweh was centralized, particularly in Jerusalem at the temple. The mention of "every city" suggests a deliberate and systematic effort to introduce idolatry throughout the land, undermining the religious reforms of previous kings like Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah.

he built high places
High places were elevated sites often used for worship in ancient Israel and surrounding regions. These sites were typically associated with pagan rituals and were condemned by the prophets and reforming kings. The construction of high places by Ahaz represents a direct violation of the Deuteronomic law, which commanded the destruction of such sites (Deuteronomy 12:2-3). This action reflects a turning away from the centralized worship in Jerusalem and a return to Canaanite religious practices.

to offer incense to other gods
Offering incense was a common practice in ancient Near Eastern religious rituals, symbolizing prayers or offerings rising to the deity. The phrase "to other gods" highlights the syncretism and apostasy of Ahaz, who not only abandoned the worship of Yahweh but actively promoted the worship of foreign deities. This act of idolatry is reminiscent of the practices condemned by the prophets, such as in Jeremiah 19:4-5, where the burning of incense to Baal is specifically mentioned.

and so he provoked the LORD
Provoking the LORD refers to actions that incite God's anger and judgment. In the context of the covenant relationship between God and Israel, idolatry was seen as spiritual adultery, a betrayal of the exclusive worship owed to Yahweh. The provocation here is not just a breach of religious duty but a personal affront to God, who had chosen Israel as His people. This theme of provocation is echoed in other parts of the Old Testament, such as in Deuteronomy 32:16, where Israel's idolatry is described as provoking God to anger.

the God of his fathers
This phrase emphasizes the continuity of the covenant relationship established with the patriarchs—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—and later reaffirmed with David and Solomon. By referring to "the God of his fathers," the text underscores the historical and spiritual heritage that Ahaz is rejecting. It also serves as a reminder of the faithfulness of God to His promises, despite the unfaithfulness of the people. This covenantal faithfulness is a recurring theme in the Old Testament, as seen in passages like Exodus 3:15, where God identifies Himself as the God of the patriarchs.

As for the rest of the acts of Ahaz and all his ways
Ahaz was the king of Judah, and his reign is detailed in 2 Chronicles 28 and 2 Kings 16. He is known for his idolatry and unfaithfulness to God, which led to significant consequences for Judah. His actions included sacrificing to foreign gods and even offering his own son in the fire, practices condemned in Deuteronomy 18:10. Ahaz's reign was marked by political instability and spiritual decline, contrasting with the faithfulness of his son Hezekiah, who sought to restore true worship in Judah.

from beginning to end
This phrase indicates a comprehensive account of Ahaz's reign, suggesting that his entire life and rule were characterized by his departure from God's commandments. The chronicler emphasizes the totality of his actions, which were consistently against the covenantal expectations set for the kings of Judah. This phrase also implies that Ahaz's reign was thoroughly documented, providing a complete picture of his leadership and its impact on the nation.

they are indeed written in the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel
The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel refers to a historical record that chronicled the reigns of the kings of both the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah. This book is not part of the canonical Bible but served as a source for the biblical authors. The mention of this book underscores the historical accuracy and reliability of the biblical narrative. It also highlights the importance of written records in preserving the history and lessons of the past for future generations. The chronicler's reference to this book suggests that the deeds of Ahaz were well-known and documented, serving as a warning to subsequent generations about the dangers of turning away from God.

And Ahaz rested with his fathers
This phrase indicates the death of King Ahaz, a common biblical expression for passing away, suggesting a joining with ancestors. Ahaz was a king of Judah known for his idolatry and unfaithfulness to God, as detailed in 2 Kings 16 and 2 Chronicles 28. His reign was marked by significant spiritual decline, including the introduction of pagan practices and the closing of the temple doors.

and was buried in the city of Jerusalem
Ahaz was buried in Jerusalem, the capital of Judah and the spiritual center for the Israelites. Despite his unfaithfulness, he was still given the honor of being buried in the city, which underscores the importance of Jerusalem as a burial site for the kings of Judah. This reflects the cultural and historical significance of Jerusalem as the city of David, where many of the kings of Judah were laid to rest.

but he was not placed in the tombs of the kings of Israel
This indicates a significant dishonor, as the tombs of the kings were reserved for those who were respected and honored. Ahaz's exclusion from these tombs highlights the disapproval of his reign and actions. It serves as a cultural and historical marker of disgrace, showing that his idolatry and failure to follow God’s commandments were not forgotten by his successors or the people of Judah.

And his son Hezekiah reigned in his place
Hezekiah's ascension to the throne marks a significant turning point for Judah. Unlike his father, Hezekiah is remembered as a righteous king who sought to restore the worship of Yahweh and purify the temple, as detailed in 2 Chronicles 29-31. His reign is characterized by religious reforms and a return to the covenant with God, making him a type of Christ in his role as a restorer and reformer. Hezekiah's reign is also significant in biblical prophecy, as he is mentioned in the context of the Assyrian threat and the miraculous deliverance of Jerusalem.