In the seventeenth year of Pekah son of Remaliah
This phrase situates the events within a specific historical context. Pekah was the king of Israel, the northern kingdom, and his reign is marked by political instability and idolatry. The seventeenth year of his reign would be around 735 BC. Pekah's rule was characterized by alliances with foreign powers, notably with Rezin of Aram, against the Assyrian threat. This period was tumultuous for both Israel and Judah, with external pressures and internal strife. The mention of Pekah highlights the divided nature of the Israelite kingdom, with Israel and Judah often at odds.

Ahaz son of Jotham
Ahaz was the son of Jotham, who was a relatively righteous king of Judah. However, Ahaz's reign marked a significant departure from his father's ways. Ahaz is known for his idolatry and for leading Judah into practices that were abominable in the sight of the Lord, such as child sacrifice. His reign is a turning point for Judah, as he sought alliances with Assyria, rather than relying on God. This decision had long-lasting consequences for the kingdom. Ahaz's actions are often contrasted with those of his son, Hezekiah, who sought to restore proper worship in Judah.

became king of Judah
Ahaz's ascension to the throne of Judah marks a significant moment in the history of the southern kingdom. Judah, unlike Israel, had a line of kings that were direct descendants of David, fulfilling God's promise to David of an enduring dynasty. However, Ahaz's reign is noted for its spiritual decline. The political and religious decisions made during his rule set the stage for future conflicts and challenges. The kingdom of Judah, with its capital in Jerusalem, was the center of worship for the Israelites, and the actions of its king had profound implications for the nation's faithfulness to God.

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 pressures, both politically and religiously. The age of twenty suggests a lack of experience, which could have impacted his decision-making and leadership style.

and he reigned in Jerusalem sixteen years
Ahaz's reign in Jerusalem, the capital of Judah, lasted for sixteen years, from approximately 732 to 716 BC. This period was marked by significant political turmoil and threats from surrounding nations, including Assyria and Israel. Jerusalem, as the center of worship and governance, was crucial in maintaining the spiritual and political integrity of Judah. Ahaz's reign is noted for its departure from traditional worship practices, which had long-term consequences for the kingdom.

And unlike David his father
The reference to David highlights the ideal standard of kingship in Judah. David, known for his heart after God, set a benchmark for faithfulness and obedience to the LORD. The term "father" here is used in a broader ancestral sense, as Ahaz was a descendant of David. This comparison underscores Ahaz's failure to live up to the covenantal expectations established by David, which included loyalty to God and adherence to His commandments.

he did not do what was right in the eyes of the LORD his God
Ahaz's reign is characterized by actions that were contrary to the will of God. This phrase indicates a moral and spiritual failure, as he engaged in practices that were detestable to the LORD, such as idolatry and alliances with pagan nations. His actions are documented in other parts of Scripture, such as 2 Chronicles 28, where his idolatrous practices and reliance on Assyria are detailed. This deviation from righteousness had significant implications for Judah, leading to spiritual decline and eventual judgment.

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 laws and commandments given by God through Moses. The "ways of the kings of Israel" refers to the practices of the northern kingdom, which were often characterized by idolatry and disobedience to God. This is significant because the kings of Israel, starting with Jeroboam, led the people into sin by establishing golden calves and other forms of idol worship (1 Kings 12:28-30). The phrase suggests a rejection of the Davidic covenant, which promised blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience (2 Samuel 7).

and even sacrificed his son in the fire
This act is a reference to the practice of child sacrifice, which was strictly forbidden in the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 18:21; Deuteronomy 18:10). The phrase "sacrificed his son in the fire" is often associated with the worship of the Canaanite god Molech, a detestable practice that involved offering children as burnt offerings. This act of sacrificing his son highlights the extent of the king's apostasy and moral decline. It also serves as a stark contrast to the faith of Abraham, who was willing to sacrifice Isaac but was stopped by God (Genesis 22), demonstrating obedience rather than idolatry.

according to the abominations of the nations
The term "abominations" refers to practices that are detestable and offensive to God. These were the customs and religious rites of the Canaanite nations that inhabited the land before the Israelites. The Israelites were explicitly commanded to avoid these practices (Deuteronomy 12:31). The use of the word "abominations" underscores the severity of the king's actions and aligns them with the sinful practices that led to the Canaanites' expulsion from the land.

that the LORD had driven out before the Israelites
This phrase recalls the conquest of Canaan, where God commanded the Israelites to drive out the inhabitants of the land due to their wickedness (Deuteronomy 9:4-5). The driving out of these nations was both a fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham (Genesis 15:16) and a judgment against the Canaanites' sinful practices. The king's actions are thus portrayed as a reversal of God's work, as he adopts the very practices that led to the Canaanites' downfall. This serves as a warning of the consequences of turning away from God's commandments and embracing the ways of the world.

And he sacrificed and burned incense on the high places
This phrase refers to King Ahaz of Judah, who engaged in idolatrous practices. 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 closeness to the divine. Despite God's command to worship only in the temple in Jerusalem, many Israelites continued to use these sites, which were often associated with Canaanite religious practices. This disobedience reflects a recurring theme in Israel's history, where the people turned away from exclusive worship of Yahweh, leading to spiritual decline and eventual judgment.

on the hills
The mention of "hills" emphasizes the widespread nature of Ahaz's idolatry. Hills were commonly used for pagan worship due to their prominence in the landscape, making them visible and accessible. This practice was contrary to the centralized worship God had established in Jerusalem. The use of hills for worship is condemned in other parts of Scripture, such as in Deuteronomy 12:2, where God commands the destruction of these sites. Ahaz's actions demonstrate a deliberate rejection of God's instructions and a preference for the religious customs of surrounding nations.

and under every green tree
The phrase "under every green tree" indicates the pervasiveness and accessibility of idol worship during Ahaz's reign. Green trees, often associated with fertility and life, were used as sites for pagan rituals, including those dedicated to Asherah, a Canaanite goddess. This imagery is used throughout the Old Testament to describe idolatrous practices (e.g., Jeremiah 2:20, Ezekiel 6:13). The use of trees in worship highlights the blending of Canaanite religious elements with Israelite practices, which was strictly forbidden by God. This syncretism led to moral and spiritual corruption, distancing the people from their covenant relationship with God.

Then Rezin king of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel came up to wage war against Jerusalem.
Rezin was the king of Aram, also known as Syria, a region located to the northeast of Israel. Aram had a long history of conflict with Israel and Judah. Pekah, the son of Remaliah, was the king of Israel, the northern kingdom, which had separated from Judah after the reign of Solomon. This alliance between Aram and Israel was part of a larger geopolitical struggle in the region, as they sought to resist the expanding power of the Assyrian Empire. The coalition aimed to force Judah, under King Ahaz, to join their resistance against Assyria. This event is part of the Syro-Ephraimite War, a significant conflict in the 8th century BC. The historical context is crucial, as it sets the stage for the eventual downfall of both Aram and Israel to Assyria. The alliance's attack on Jerusalem is also mentioned in Isaiah 7, where the prophet Isaiah assures King Ahaz that their plans will not succeed.

They besieged Ahaz but could not overcome him.
Ahaz was the king of Judah, ruling from approximately 732 to 716 BC. His reign was marked by idolatry and a lack of faith in God, as he sought alliances with foreign powers rather than relying on divine protection. The siege of Jerusalem by Rezin and Pekah was a significant threat, as the city was the political and religious center of Judah. However, despite their efforts, the coalition could not capture Jerusalem. This outcome was not due to Ahaz's military prowess but rather the intervention of God, as prophesied by Isaiah. The inability of Rezin and Pekah to overcome Ahaz fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy that their plans would not succeed (Isaiah 7:7). This event foreshadows the ultimate protection and deliverance that God provides to His people, a theme that resonates throughout the Bible. It also highlights the importance of faith and reliance on God rather than human alliances, a lesson that is echoed in the New Testament through the teachings of Jesus Christ.

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 threats from surrounding nations. This era is characterized by the Syro-Ephraimite War, where the northern kingdom of Israel (Ephraim) and Aram (Syria) formed an alliance against Judah.

Rezin king of Aram
Rezin was the last king of Aram-Damascus, a significant power in the region. His reign is noted for his alliance with Pekah, king of Israel, against Judah. This alliance is mentioned in Isaiah 7, where the prophet Isaiah advises King Ahaz not to fear Rezin and Pekah. Rezin's actions are part of the larger geopolitical struggles of the time, as Aram sought to expand its influence.

recovered Elath for Aram
Elath, also known as Eloth, was a strategic port city on the Red Sea, important for trade and military purposes. It had previously been under the control of Judah, as mentioned in 1 Kings 9:26, when Solomon built a fleet there. Rezin's recovery of Elath signifies a shift in power and control over this vital region, impacting Judah's economic and military capabilities.

drove out the men of Judah
This indicates a military action where Rezin expelled the Judean forces or settlers from Elath. The loss of Elath would have been a significant blow to Judah, both economically and strategically. It reflects the weakening position of Judah during Ahaz's reign, as they faced pressure from multiple fronts.

and sent the Edomites into Elath
The Edomites, descendants of Esau, were traditional enemies of Israel and Judah. By sending the Edomites into Elath, Rezin not only secured the city for Aram but also ensured that Judah would face continued hostility from the Edomites. This move would have further isolated Judah and complicated their political situation.

where they live to this day
This phrase suggests that the Edomites maintained control over Elath for an extended period. It underscores the lasting impact of Rezin's actions and the enduring consequences for Judah. The phrase "to this day" is a common biblical expression indicating the situation at the time of the text's writing, emphasizing the historical reality of the events described.

So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria
Ahaz, the king of Judah, sought assistance from Tiglath-pileser III, the powerful king of Assyria. This action reflects a significant political and spiritual decision, as it indicates Ahaz's reliance on a foreign power rather than trusting in God for deliverance. Historically, Assyria was a dominant empire during this period, known for its military prowess and expansionist policies. The decision to seek Assyrian help would have long-term consequences for Judah, as it led to increased Assyrian influence and eventual subjugation.

saying, “I am your servant and your son.
By referring to himself as a "servant" and "son," Ahaz is expressing submission and loyalty to Tiglath-pileser. This language indicates a vassal relationship, where Ahaz acknowledges the superiority of the Assyrian king. In the ancient Near Eastern context, such terms were often used in treaties to denote allegiance and dependency. This act of submission contrasts with the biblical ideal of Israelite kings relying on God as their ultimate sovereign.

Come up and save me
Ahaz's plea for salvation from Tiglath-pileser highlights his desperation and lack of faith in God's protection. The request for military intervention underscores the immediate threat faced by Judah. Biblically, this reliance on human power rather than divine intervention is often criticized, as seen in other scriptures where trust in God is emphasized as the true source of deliverance (e.g., Psalm 20:7).

from the hands of the kings of Aram and Israel
The kings of Aram (Syria) and Israel formed a coalition against Judah, posing a significant threat to Ahaz's reign. This alliance is part of the Syro-Ephraimite War, where Rezin of Aram and Pekah of Israel sought to pressure Judah into joining their resistance against Assyria. The geopolitical tension of the time is evident, as smaller states navigated the pressures of larger empires and regional conflicts.

who are rising up against me.”
The phrase indicates the active aggression and imminent danger posed by the coalition of Aram and Israel. This conflict is a pivotal moment in the history of Judah, as it leads to Ahaz's controversial decision to seek Assyrian aid. The rising threat also fulfills the prophetic warnings given by Isaiah, who advised Ahaz to trust in God rather than foreign alliances (Isaiah 7:1-9). This situation foreshadows the eventual downfall of both Aram and Israel, as Assyria would later conquer them, fulfilling God's judgment against these nations.

Ahaz also took the silver and gold found in the house of the LORD
Ahaz, the king of Judah, is noted for his unfaithfulness to God, as he sought alliances with foreign powers rather than relying on the LORD. The silver and gold in the house of the LORD were sacred, dedicated to God, and intended for worship and the maintenance of the temple. By taking these treasures, Ahaz demonstrated a lack of reverence for the sanctity of the temple and a willingness to compromise his faith for political gain. This act can be contrasted with the actions of faithful kings like Hezekiah, who sought to restore and honor the temple (2 Kings 18:4-6).

and in the treasuries of the king’s palace
The treasuries of the king's palace were meant for the prosperity and security of the nation. By depleting these resources, Ahaz was prioritizing immediate political concerns over the long-term welfare of Judah. This reflects a broader theme in the Old Testament where reliance on human strength and alliances often leads to downfall, as seen in Isaiah 31:1, which warns against relying on Egypt for help instead of God.

and he sent it as a gift to the king of Assyria
Ahaz sent these treasures to Tiglath-Pileser III, the king of Assyria, seeking his assistance against the threats from Israel and Aram. This act of sending a gift can be seen as a form of tribute or bribe, indicating subservience and a lack of trust in God's protection. Historically, Assyria was a dominant power, and aligning with them was a common political strategy, though it often led to further subjugation. This decision by Ahaz is criticized by prophets like Isaiah, who urged trust in God rather than foreign alliances (Isaiah 7:10-13). Theologically, this act foreshadows the eventual downfall of Judah, as reliance on Assyria would later contribute to its own invasion and exile.

So the king of Assyria responded to him
This phrase refers to Tiglath-Pileser III, the king of Assyria, who reigned from 745 to 727 BC. His response was to Ahaz, the king of Judah, who sought Assyrian assistance against the coalition of Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah, king of Israel. This reflects the political dynamics of the time, where smaller nations often sought alliances with powerful empires for protection. The Assyrian Empire was known for its military prowess and expansionist policies, which often involved responding to requests for aid in exchange for vassalage or tribute.

marched up to Damascus, and captured it
Damascus was the capital of Aram (Syria) and a significant city in the ancient Near East. The capture of Damascus by Assyria marked a pivotal moment in the region's history, as it demonstrated Assyria's dominance and the weakening of Aram. This event fulfilled the prophecy found in Isaiah 7:16, where it was foretold that the land of the two kings Ahaz dreaded would be laid waste. The capture of Damascus also had significant implications for the balance of power in the region, as it removed a key player from the anti-Assyrian coalition.

He took its people to Kir as captives
The deportation of the people of Damascus to Kir reflects the Assyrian policy of mass deportations, which aimed to prevent rebellion by displacing conquered peoples. Kir is mentioned in Amos 1:5 as a place associated with Aram, suggesting it was a region under Assyrian control where the Arameans were resettled. This practice of deportation was intended to integrate conquered peoples into the Assyrian Empire and reduce the likelihood of uprisings by breaking their connection to their homeland.

and put Rezin to death
Rezin was the last king of Aram, and his death marked the end of Aramean independence. The execution of Rezin by the Assyrians was a common practice for dealing with defeated kings, serving as a warning to others who might oppose Assyrian rule. This act also fulfilled the prophecy in Isaiah 7:1-9, where it was foretold that Rezin's plans against Judah would not succeed. The death of Rezin and the fall of Damascus underscored the futility of opposing the Assyrian Empire and highlighted the consequences of political alliances that went against God's will for His people.

Then King Ahaz went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria.
King Ahaz of Judah reigned during a tumultuous period marked by the rise of the Assyrian Empire. His journey to Damascus signifies a political alliance with Tiglath-pileser III, the powerful Assyrian king. This alliance was a strategic move to secure protection against threats from neighboring kingdoms, particularly Israel and Aram. Historically, this reflects the geopolitical dynamics of the 8th century BC, where smaller states often sought the favor of dominant empires for survival. Theologically, Ahaz's reliance on Assyria rather than God is seen as a lack of faith, contrasting with the covenantal trust expected of Judah's kings.

On seeing the altar in Damascus,
The altar in Damascus likely belonged to the Aramean god Hadad, reflecting the syncretistic practices common in the ancient Near East. Ahaz's interest in this altar indicates his openness to foreign religious influences, which was contrary to the exclusive worship of Yahweh commanded in the Mosaic Law. This act foreshadows the spiritual decline of Judah, as it symbolizes the introduction of idolatrous practices into the temple worship in Jerusalem.

King Ahaz sent Uriah the priest a model of the altar and complete plans for its construction.
Uriah the priest's involvement suggests a troubling collaboration between the religious and political leadership in adopting foreign religious practices. The detailed plans and model indicate Ahaz's intent to replicate the altar precisely, showing a deliberate shift in worship practices. This action is reminiscent of the Israelites' earlier struggles with idolatry, as seen in the golden calf incident (Exodus 32). It also contrasts with the detailed instructions God gave for the construction of the tabernacle and temple, emphasizing divine design over human innovation. This episode highlights the tension between faithfulness to God's commands and the temptation to conform to surrounding cultures.

And Uriah the priest built the altar
Uriah, the priest, was a significant religious figure during the reign of King Ahaz. His actions here reflect the influence of the king over religious practices, which was contrary to the traditional role of the priesthood as guardians of the covenant and worship. The building of the altar signifies a departure from the divinely ordained worship practices established in the Mosaic Law, highlighting the spiritual decline in Judah. This act can be seen as a precursor to the later reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah, who sought to restore proper worship.

according to all the instructions King Ahaz had sent from Damascus,
King Ahaz's instructions from Damascus indicate his desire to adopt foreign religious practices, specifically those of the Assyrians, whom he sought as allies. This reflects a broader pattern of syncretism, where the worship of Yahweh was mixed with pagan practices, leading to spiritual corruption. The altar's design likely mirrored those used in Assyrian worship, which was a direct violation of the commandment against idolatry. This act of adopting foreign religious elements foreshadows the eventual downfall of Judah due to its unfaithfulness.

and he completed it before King Ahaz returned.
The completion of the altar before Ahaz's return suggests a sense of urgency and compliance by Uriah, possibly out of fear or political pressure. This haste underscores the king's authority over religious matters, which was not typical in Israelite tradition where the king and priest had distinct roles. The completion of the altar signifies a pivotal moment where the king's influence led to significant changes in worship practices, setting a precedent for future kings who would either follow or reject such syncretism. This event is a reminder of the importance of adhering to God's commands and the dangers of compromising with worldly influences.

When the king came back from Damascus
This phrase refers to King Ahaz of Judah, who traveled to Damascus to meet with Tiglath-Pileser III, the king of Assyria. This journey signifies a political alliance and submission to Assyria, which was a dominant power at the time. Damascus was the capital of Aram, a region that had been conquered by Assyria. Ahaz's visit indicates his reliance on foreign powers rather than trusting in God, contrasting with the faithfulness expected of a king of Judah.

and saw the altar
Ahaz saw an altar in Damascus that impressed him, leading him to replicate it in Jerusalem. This altar was likely associated with Assyrian or Aramean religious practices, which were contrary to the worship of Yahweh as prescribed in the Mosaic Law. The introduction of a foreign altar into the temple precincts represents a significant departure from the religious traditions of Israel, highlighting Ahaz's syncretism and disregard for the covenantal laws.

he approached it
Ahaz's approach to the altar signifies his personal involvement and endorsement of this new form of worship. This act symbolizes a shift in religious practices and priorities, as the king himself leads the nation in adopting foreign rituals. It reflects a broader theme in the Old Testament of leaders influencing the spiritual direction of the people, often leading them away from true worship.

and presented offerings on it
By presenting offerings on the altar, Ahaz actively participates in a form of worship that is not sanctioned by God. This act of offering sacrifices on a foreign altar is a direct violation of the commands given to Israel regarding worship and sacrifices, which were to be conducted at the altar in the temple as prescribed by God. This action can be seen as a type of idolatry, drawing parallels to other instances in Scripture where leaders led the people into false worship, such as Jeroboam's golden calves (1 Kings 12:28-30). It underscores the theme of covenant unfaithfulness and the consequences that follow, as seen throughout the prophetic literature.

He offered his burnt offering and his grain offering
In the context of 2 Kings 16:13, King Ahaz of Judah is performing these offerings on an altar he had constructed based on a model he saw in Damascus. The burnt offering and grain offering were central to Israelite worship, symbolizing atonement and dedication to God (Leviticus 1, 2). However, Ahaz's actions reflect a departure from the prescribed worship in the temple, indicating a shift towards pagan practices. This act of offering on a foreign altar signifies a compromise in faith and a move towards syncretism, which was condemned by the prophets (Isaiah 7:10-13).

poured out his drink offering
The drink offering, typically wine, was poured out as a libation accompanying other sacrifices (Numbers 15:5-10). It symbolized the outpouring of one's life in service to God. Ahaz's use of this offering on a non-sanctioned altar further illustrates his deviation from the covenantal worship established by God. This act can be seen as a metaphor for Ahaz's life being poured out in service to foreign gods, contrasting with the Apostle Paul's description of his life as a drink offering in service to Christ (Philippians 2:17).

and splattered the blood of his peace offerings on the altar
The peace offering, or fellowship offering, was meant to symbolize reconciliation and communion with God (Leviticus 3). By splattering the blood on an altar modeled after a pagan design, Ahaz was not only violating the sanctity of the temple worship but also misrepresenting the peace and fellowship that should exist between God and His people. This act of defilement is reminiscent of the warnings given in Deuteronomy 12:13-14, where God commands that sacrifices be made only at the place He chooses. Ahaz's actions foreshadow the eventual downfall of Judah due to idolatry and unfaithfulness, as prophesied by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 7:30-34).

He also took the bronze altar that stood before the LORD
The bronze altar, originally constructed under the guidance of Moses (Exodus 27:1-8), was a central element in Israelite worship, symbolizing atonement and sacrifice. It stood before the LORD, indicating its role in facilitating the people's approach to God. This altar was a place where offerings were made, signifying the people's devotion and repentance. The act of moving it suggests a significant departure from established worship practices, reflecting King Ahaz's disregard for divine instructions.

from the front of the temple
The altar's original position at the front of the temple signified its importance in the sacrificial system. It was strategically placed to be the first point of contact for worshipers entering the temple, emphasizing the necessity of sacrifice before approaching God. This placement was in accordance with divine instructions, highlighting the centrality of sacrifice in maintaining a covenant relationship with God.

(between the new altar and the house of the LORD)
The new altar, constructed by King Ahaz, was modeled after an altar he saw in Damascus (2 Kings 16:10-11). This reflects Ahaz's syncretism, blending pagan practices with Israelite worship. The positioning of the bronze altar between the new altar and the house of the LORD indicates a shift in focus from the divinely ordained practices to those influenced by foreign nations. This act symbolizes a compromise in the purity of worship and a deviation from the covenantal faithfulness expected of Israel.

and he put it on the north side of the new altar
Moving the bronze altar to the north side represents a demotion of its significance. The north side was not the prescribed location, indicating a deliberate alteration of worship practices. This action by Ahaz can be seen as a rejection of God's established order, prioritizing human innovation over divine command. It reflects a broader theme in Scripture where deviation from God's instructions leads to spiritual decline. This act foreshadows the eventual downfall of Judah due to persistent unfaithfulness, as prophesied by the prophets.

Then King Ahaz commanded Uriah the priest
King Ahaz, the twelfth king of Judah, is noted for his unfaithfulness to God, as he adopted pagan practices and sought alliances with foreign powers. Uriah the priest, mentioned here, was complicit in Ahaz's reforms, which included altering the temple worship to align with Assyrian customs. This reflects a period of spiritual decline in Judah, where the king's authority over religious practices overshadowed the priestly duty to uphold God's commandments.

Offer on the great altar the morning burnt offering, the evening grain offering
The "great altar" refers to the new altar Ahaz had constructed, modeled after one he saw in Damascus. The morning and evening offerings were part of the daily sacrifices commanded by God in Exodus 29:38-42, symbolizing continual dedication and reliance on God. Ahaz's use of a foreign altar for these offerings indicates a departure from the prescribed worship, showing a blending of pagan and Hebrew practices.

and the king’s burnt offering and grain offering
These offerings were likely personal sacrifices made by the king, which were not part of the regular temple service. The inclusion of the king's offerings on the new altar suggests Ahaz's desire to integrate his personal religious practices with the national worship, further indicating his influence over religious matters in Judah.

as well as the burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings of all the people of the land
This phrase shows that Ahaz's changes affected not only the royal offerings but also those of the entire nation. The burnt, grain, and drink offerings were integral to Israelite worship, representing atonement, dedication, and fellowship with God. By altering the place and manner of these offerings, Ahaz led the people away from the covenantal worship established by God.

Splatter on the altar all the blood of the burnt offerings and sacrifices
The splattering of blood was a significant part of the sacrificial system, symbolizing atonement and purification (Leviticus 17:11). By commanding this act on the new altar, Ahaz was attempting to legitimize his changes by maintaining some elements of the traditional worship, despite the underlying disobedience to God's instructions.

But I will use the bronze altar to seek guidance
The bronze altar, originally built by Solomon, was the legitimate altar for sacrifices in the temple. Ahaz's decision to use it for seeking guidance, possibly through divination or other unauthorized means, further illustrates his departure from true worship. This act reflects a syncretism that compromised the distinctiveness of Israel's faith, contrasting with the biblical call to exclusive worship of Yahweh (Deuteronomy 6:13-14).

So Uriah the priest
Uriah was a high priest during the reign of King Ahaz of Judah. His role as a priest was to serve as a mediator between God and the people, offering sacrifices and maintaining the temple's sanctity. However, his actions in this passage show a deviation from his sacred duties. The name Uriah means "Yahweh is my light," which is ironic given his compliance with Ahaz's unfaithful commands. This highlights the tension between religious duty and political pressure, a recurring theme in the Old Testament.

did just as King Ahaz had commanded
King Ahaz was known for his unfaithfulness to God, as he introduced idolatrous practices into Judah, including the worship of foreign gods. His reign is marked by a departure from the worship of Yahweh, as he sought alliances with pagan nations like Assyria. Ahaz's command to Uriah involved altering the temple's altar to resemble one he saw in Damascus, reflecting his syncretism and disregard for the Mosaic Law. This act of compliance by Uriah signifies a failure of spiritual leadership, as he prioritized the king's orders over God's commandments. It serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of compromising faith for political expediency. This event foreshadows the eventual downfall of Judah, as it strayed further from God's covenant.

King Ahaz also cut off the frames of the movable stands
King Ahaz, the twelfth king of Judah, is noted for his unfaithfulness to God, as described in 2 Kings 16. The movable stands, or bases, were part of the temple furnishings originally crafted by King Solomon (1 Kings 7:27-39). These stands were intricately designed and used to support the basins for washing. Ahaz's actions reflect his disregard for the sacred traditions and the temple's sanctity, aligning with his broader pattern of idolatry and political alliances with Assyria (2 Kings 16:7-8).

and removed the bronze basin from each of them.
The bronze basins were essential for the priests' ritual purification, symbolizing the need for cleanliness before approaching God (Exodus 30:17-21). By removing these basins, Ahaz disrupted the established order of worship and the priestly functions, indicating a shift away from the covenantal practices established by God through Moses. This act can be seen as a physical manifestation of Ahaz's spiritual apostasy.

He took down the Sea from the bronze oxen that were under it
The "Sea" refers to the large bronze laver, also crafted by Solomon, which stood on twelve bronze oxen (1 Kings 7:23-26). This massive basin was used for the priests' ceremonial washing. The twelve oxen symbolized the twelve tribes of Israel, representing the nation's unity and strength under God's covenant. Ahaz's removal of the Sea from its original position signifies a break from the divinely ordained order and a move towards secularization and foreign influence.

and put it on a stone base.
By placing the Sea on a stone base, Ahaz further desecrated the temple's sacred objects. This act may have been an attempt to align with Assyrian practices or to repurpose the temple furnishings for his political agenda. The stone base, lacking the symbolic significance of the bronze oxen, represents a departure from the spiritual heritage of Israel. This change underscores Ahaz's prioritization of political expediency over religious fidelity, contrasting with the faithfulness expected of a Davidic king (2 Samuel 7:12-16).

And on account of the king of Assyria
This phrase indicates the political pressure and influence exerted by the Assyrian empire over Judah during the reign of King Ahaz. The Assyrians were a dominant power in the region, and Ahaz sought their favor and protection against threats from neighboring kingdoms. This reliance on Assyria reflects a lack of trust in God’s protection and a departure from the covenantal faithfulness expected of the kings of Judah.

he removed the Sabbath canopy they had built in the temple
The Sabbath canopy likely refers to a structure or covering associated with the observance of the Sabbath, possibly used for ceremonial purposes. Its removal signifies a disregard for the sanctity of the Sabbath and the temple, which were central to Israelite worship and identity. This action demonstrates Ahaz's willingness to compromise religious practices to appease foreign powers, contrasting with the reforms of later kings like Hezekiah and Josiah who sought to restore proper worship.

and closed the royal entryway outside the house of the LORD
Closing the royal entryway suggests a significant alteration to the temple complex, possibly to prevent access or to repurpose the area for Assyrian interests. This act symbolizes the encroachment of foreign influence into the sacred spaces of Judah, highlighting the spiritual decline under Ahaz’s leadership. It also reflects a broader theme in the Old Testament of the struggle between faithfulness to God and the temptation to conform to surrounding cultures and political pressures.

As for the rest of the acts of Ahaz
Ahaz was the king of Judah from approximately 732 to 716 BC. His reign is noted for its significant departure from the religious practices of his predecessors. Ahaz is often criticized for his idolatry and for leading Judah into practices that were contrary to the worship of Yahweh. His acts include making alliances with foreign powers, such as Assyria, which had long-term negative consequences for Judah. This phrase suggests that there were many other actions and decisions made by Ahaz that are not detailed in this particular biblical account.

along with his accomplishments
Despite his negative portrayal, Ahaz did have accomplishments, though they are often viewed through the lens of his failures. He is known for his political maneuvers, such as seeking the aid of Tiglath-Pileser III of Assyria to fend off threats from Israel and Aram. However, these accomplishments are overshadowed by his religious reforms, which included the introduction of Assyrian religious practices and the alteration of the temple in Jerusalem. These actions are seen as leading Judah further away from the covenant with God.

are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah?
This phrase refers to a historical record that is no longer extant but was likely a detailed account of the reigns of the kings of Judah. The Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah is distinct from the biblical books of Chronicles and served as a source for the authors of Kings. This reference underscores the historical nature of the biblical narrative, suggesting that the events of Ahaz's reign were well-documented and known to the original audience. It also implies that the biblical account is selective, focusing on theological and moral lessons rather than exhaustive historical detail.

And Ahaz rested with his fathers
This phrase indicates the death of King Ahaz, who was the 12th king of Judah. The expression "rested with his fathers" is a common biblical euphemism for death, suggesting a joining with ancestors in the afterlife. Ahaz's reign was marked by idolatry and alliances with foreign powers, which were contrary to God's commands. His death signifies the end of a tumultuous period for Judah, characterized by spiritual decline and political instability.

and was buried with them in the City of David
The City of David refers to Jerusalem, specifically the area that was the original settlement of King David. Being buried in the City of David was an honor, indicating royal status and lineage. However, 2 Chronicles 28:27 notes that Ahaz was not buried in the tombs of the kings, suggesting a lack of honor due to his unfaithfulness to God. This burial location underscores the importance of Jerusalem as the political and spiritual center 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 (2 Kings 18:1-6). His reign is characterized by religious reforms and a return to covenant faithfulness. Hezekiah's leadership is often seen as a foreshadowing of Christ, as he acts as a savior figure for Judah, delivering them from Assyrian threats and leading a spiritual revival.