Details Of The Commencement Of Ahaz's reign And His Behaviour And Actions In The Eyes Of YHWH (2 Kings 16:1-3).
Ahaz was twenty years old when he commenced his co-regency with his father, and his sole reign ‘in Jerusalem' lasted for sixteen years. As his co-regency with his father was for about eight years he would die at around forty four years old. Hezekiah was twenty five years old when Ahaz died (2 Kings 18:2). Thus on this basis Ahaz would have been about nineteen years old when he begat Hezekiah.
But as a result of the momentous choice that he made when he rejected YHWH's offer to see him safely through all difficulties, he sank into spiritual degradation and behaved like the kings of Israel, and even worse, for in the extremity of his need and despair he introduced child sacrifice into Judah
‘In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah Ahaz the son of Jotham king of Judah began to reign.
Ahaz the son of Jotham of Judah commenced his sole reign in the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah. This was the seventeenth year of Pekah commencing from his becoming deputy and co-regent (or rival ruler) to Pekahiah in Gilead.
The full name of Ahaz was Jeho-ahaz. It may be that his behaviour was seen as so abominable that the name of YHWH was dropped from his name. In an Assyrian list of kings who paid tribute to Assyria he was named as Ya-u-ha-zi of Ya-u-da-aia. But it may even be that Ahaz chose to drop the name of YHWH from his name himself when he became an apostate. The discovery of a seal bearing the inscription, ‘Ashan, official of Ahaz' would appear to confirm the use of the shorter name officially.
‘Twenty years old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem.'
When Ahaz became co-regent to his father he was twenty years old, the co-regency lasted the length of his father's sole reign (eight years), thus he began his sole reign at twenty eight years old and reigned ‘in Jerusalem' (i.e. as sole Davidic ruler) for sixteen years. The name of the queen mother is not given. That may be because she had already died when this was first recorded.
-4 ‘And he did not do what was right in the eyes of YHWH his God, like David his father, but he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yes, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the nations, whom YHWH cast out from before the children of Israel, and he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree.'
Apart from when under the influence of the house of Ahab, the kings of Judah since the days of Asa had ‘done what was right in the eyes of YHWH' even though they had not sufficiently clamped down on the illegitimate high places which had proliferated in the days of Rehoboam (1 Kings 15:23). But now Ahaz did a full turn about and became more evil than all who had gone before him in either Judah or Israel. There were two reasons for this. The first was the political necessity that resulted from his submission to the king of Assyria. The second was as a result of his own reaction to his refusal to respond to YHWH when he rejected YHWH's almost incredible offer to give him any sign that he wanted in heaven or earth so that he might stand firm in his trust in YHWH in the face of all opposition (Isaiah 7:11). It was inevitable that having made such a rejection he would seek refuge elsewhere, in other words in polytheism.
Note the unique way in which this is put in order to bring out the contrast between his behaviour and that of his ‘father' David, and even between his behaviour and that of the kings of Judah who had done evil in the sight of YHWH (Solomon - 1 Kings 11:4-6; Jehoram - 2 Kings 8:18; Ahaziah - 2 Kings 8:27). ‘He DID NOT do what was right in the eyes of YHWH.' Rather he went to the other extreme, behaving like the kings of Israel, and going even further into degradation than them, for he not only offered worship to Baal, but he engaged in child sacrifice, probably by way of the worship of Melek (Molech - which is Melek with the vowels altered by being replaced with the vowels of ‘bosheth' = ‘shame') the god of the Ammonites whose worship had spread wider than Ammon.
The only other incidence of child sacrifice that we have previously come across was that which took place when the king of Moab, in extreme desperation, offered up his son on the walls of Kir-har-a-seth, an incident of such abomination that it caused the forces of Israel, Judah and Edom to withdraw in horror (2 Kings 3:27). Later the practise would become more prevalent in Judah (see 2 Kings 17:17; 2Ki 21:6; 2 Kings 23:10; Micah 6:7; Jeremiah 7:31; Jeremiah 19:5 - ‘to burn their sons as burnt offerings to Baal'; 2 Kings 23:10 - ‘to Molech'; etc). It was primarily carried out in the valley of Hinnom which finally became the rubbish dump of Jerusalem. This was seen as the greatest depth of evil to which a man could sink.
Thus Ahaz's evil is emphasised in three ways:
· Firstly he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, both in their full worship of Baal, and in their ignoring of the covenant of YHWH..
· Secondly he made his sons to pass through the fire according to the abomination of the nations whom YHWH cast out from before the children of Israel. Jeremiah 19:5 makes clear that this refers to child sacrifice, although it must be recognised that child sacrifice had not been common among the Canaanites. It was something indulged in (apart from in the case of the half savage Ammonites) only in extreme circumstances. This illustrates the extremeness of Ahaz's desperation as a result of his rejection of YHWH.
· Thirdly he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills and under every green tree. This had become common practise among many in Judah in the time of Rehoboam (1 Kings 14:23) following on the example of Solomon in his later years, and had never been properly stamped out even by kings who did ‘right in the eyes of YHWH'. But now the king was indulging in it himself. The hills were seen as being nearer to the abode of the gods, and as even being such. The spreading green trees were seen as containing ‘divine' life, in other words, animism.