Глава 16

Reign of Ahaz, 12th king of Judah (cf. 2 Chronicles 28). 1–4. General (pagan) character of the reign of Ahaz. 5–9. The invasion of the kings of Syria and Israel into Judea and the tributary of Ahaz to the king of Assyria. 10–14. The new altar in the Jerusalem temple, built by Ahaz according to the model of Damascus. 15–18. Other changes introduced by Ahaz in the Jerusalem temple and cult to please the Assyrian king. 19–20. Death of Ahaz and accession of Hezekiah. 2 Kings 16:1. In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah, Ahaz the son of Jotham king of Judah reigned. 2 Kings 16:2. Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem, and he did not do what was right in the sight of the Lord his God, as David his father did. 2 Kings 16:3. but he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, and even made his son pass through the fire, imitating the abominations of the nations whom the Lord drove out from before the children of Israel, 2 Kings 16:4. and he offered sacrifices and incense on the high places and on the hills and under every shady tree. The chronological date of Ahaz's age: 20 years at the time of his accession and 16 years of reign, next, death at the age of 36 years (v. 2), presents the difficulty that Ahaz's son Hezekiah entered the kingdom at the age of 25 (2 Kings 18:2), next. born to Ahaz when he was 10–11 years old. This inconsistency can be eliminated by accepting the reading of some Greek codes, as well as the Syriac and Arabic translations, according to which Ahaz began to reign for 25 (and not 20) years. Ahaz’s imitation of the kings of Israel (v. 3) or Jeroboam son of Nebat king of Israel (Greek codes in Gilmes: 11, 44, 52, 55, 56, 74, 92, 106, 119, 120, 121, 134, 144, 158, 236, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246; cf. Slavic translation), did not consist in the introduction of the cult of bulls in Judea, about which nothing is known and which seems completely incredible in view of the hostile relations of that time (2 Kings 15:37, etc.) between the two Jews, but in the same violation of the basic theocratic law of unconditional loyalty to Jehovah and infatuation, like, for example, the kings of the dynasty of Ahab (1 Kings 16:32; 2 Kings 3:2, 10:26), pure paganism, like the cult of Baal (2 Chronicles 28:2), and Moloch (v. 3, 2 Chronicles 28:3). Although this passage in the fourth book of Kings does not directly mention the latter, the parallel passage (2 Chronicles 28:3) definitely speaks of Ahaz’s burning of his son, of course, in honor of Moloch (cf. 2 Kings 23:10; Lev. 18:21; Jer. 32:35 and others; cf. Josephus “Antiquities of the Jews” 9:12, 1), and not of a simple cleansing by fire (cf. Numbers 31:23) - a custom very widespread in ancient times in Western Asia, India, Africa and America, as well as among the Greeks (Blessed Theodorit, question 47), and in Russia, for example, on the night of Ivan Kupala: to see here this symbolic act or simply a superstitious custom (as Blessed Theodorit, Grotius, Spencer, Prof. Gulyaev and others do) the general meaning of the place (characteristic of the wickedness of Ahaz) and the mentioned biblical parallels do not allow (see Explanatory Bible, vol. I, pp. 207–209; compare M. Palmov “Idolatry among the ancient Jews,” pp. 257, etc.). The Semites' custom of offering human sacrifices to the gods, especially children, at the most critical moments (cf. 2 Kings 3:27), could have been especially supported by the Jews under the influence of the difficult circumstances of the time, when the usual means of serving and pleasing God seemed insufficient to propitiate God (Mic. 6:7). 2 Kings 16:5. Then Rezin king of Syria and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel went against Jerusalem to conquer it, and they kept Ahaz under siege, but they could not prevail. 2 Kings 16:6. At that time Rezin, king of Syria, returned Elath to Syria and drove the Jews out of Elath; and the Edomites entered Elath, and live there to this day. 2 Kings 16:7. And Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, saying, I am thy servant and thy son; come and protect me from the hand of the king of Syria and from the hand of the king of Israel, who have risen up against me. 2 Kings 16:8. And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasuries of the king's house, and sent it to the king of Assyria as a gift. 2 Kings 16:9. And the king of Assyria listened to him; and the king of Assyria went to Damascus, and took it, and moved its inhabitants to Cyrus, and put Rezina to death. The hostile relations of the kings that began under Jotham: the Syrian Rezin (LXX: ῾Ραασσών, slav.: “Raasson”, which is closer than the Hebrew form to the reading in the inscriptions: “Razunnu”) the Israeli Pekah to Judea (2 Kings 15:37), now, under Ahaz, expressed itself in the campaign of the allies against Judea and the siege of Jerusalem (v. 5, (2 Chron. 28:5), etc.; (Is. 7: 1), etc.), with the goal of conquering Judea, overthrowing the reigning family of David and making some son of Tabbilov king of Judah (Is. 7: 6), perhaps one of the Syrian military leaders. About the conquests and devastations of the allies within the kingdom of Judah, about the transition of Ahaz of Judah into vassalage of the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pilezer 6 and about the devastations made by the latter within the borders of the Israeli and Syrian kingdoms, see the note to (2 Kings 15:29). In Assyrian inscriptions, Ahaz appears under the name Iahuhazi. Here in Art. 6 mentions the loss for Judah, as a result of the Syro-Israelite war, of Idumea, which was occupied and strengthened by the Jews under Amaziah and Uzziah (2 Kings 14:7,22). The important and only trading port of Elath was lost to Judah, taken by Rezin of Syria (cf. 1 Kings 9:26; 2 Kings 14:22). Having expelled the Jews from here, Rezin gave Elath to its original owners - the Edomites (in the accepted Jewish text, Article 6 actually stands: Arameans, Hebrews, but in the codes: 1, 4, 89, 112, 128, 149, 150, 160, 174, 176, 182, 187, 195, 206, 210, 224, 225, 227, 253, 297, 319, 335, 337, 342, 356, 366, 403, 423, 428, 431, 434, 451, 459, 471, 475, 477, 490, 505, 514, 526, 531, 540, 543, 559, 562, 587, 590, 596, 598, 601, 606, 612, 614, 616, 636, 648 in Kenniccott: adomim , i.e. Edomites - and in general in the Heri of this verse (LXX: ῾Ιδουμαῖοι, Vulg.: Idumaei 7: the Edomites, taking advantage of the difficulties of Judea, tried in every possible way to harm the Jews (2 Chronicles 20:17), probably in alliance with the Syrians; at the same time The Philistines, conquered by Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26:6), regained their freedom and carried out raids on the cities of Judah (2 Chronicles 28:18). According to Josephus (“Antiquities of the Jews” 9:12, 1), the Syrian king, “having exterminated the Jewish garrisons in the border fortresses (on the way from Elath) and in the surrounding areas and seized enormous booty, then returned with his army to Damascus.” At the same time, the siege of Jerusalem had to end, and the opportunity opened for Ahaz to send an embassy for help to the Assyrian king (vv. 7–8). The well-known prophecy of the prophet Isaiah about the birth of Immanuel from a Virgin relates to this moment (Is. 7:14): against all dangers from both external and internal enemies, the prophet pointed Ahaz to heavenly help and miraculous protection for the house of David (Is. 7: 4, 10-16), and for turning to the help of the king of Assyria, he threatened Ahaz with grave disasters ( Is. 7: 17-25). However, the wicked and cowardly Ahaz neglected the prophetic admonitions and sent an embassy to the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pilezer III with a humiliating declaration of vassal submission (“I am your servant and your son”, v. 7) with a rich indemnity (“gift”, Hebrew shochad, actually: “bribery”), for the preparation of which he had to seize the treasures of the church and his own palace (v. 8). “And Tiglathpileser king of Assyria came to him, but was a burden to him instead of helping him” (2 Chronicles 28:20), and yet the vassal dependence of the kingdom of Judah on Assyria has now become a fact. About the conquests of the Assyrian king within the kingdom of Israel, the biblical text of this chapter does not repeat what was said in the previous one (2 Kings 15:29) and speaks only about the reprisal of the Assyrian king with the ally of the king of Israel - Rezin of Syria: the latter was killed, and the population of Damascus, according to the usual Assyrian policy in relation to conquered regions and peoples (cf. 2 Kings 15:29), resettled to the place of the primitive habitat of the Syrians (Am.9:7), the region of Cyrus. The position of this country, found in the Bible almost only in connection with references to the Syrians (2 Kings 16:9; Am.1:5,9:7; cf. Is.22:6), is not entirely clear. LXX and Slavs completely omit this name; Vulgata: Cirene, Eusebius: Κυρίνη, blessed. Jerome: Cirene (Onomasticon, 623): in all three cases Cyrus is completely mistakenly identified with Cyrenaica, a city in Northern Libya, Africa, very famous in the post-exilic history of the Jews (1 Mac. 15:23; Matt. 27:32; Acts 2:11). I. Flavius ​​(Ant. Jude 9:12, 3), Cyrus believes in upper Media, which can be supported by the rapprochement of the prophet Isaiah (Is. 22:6) between Cyrus and Elam (Greek Susiana). Now Cyrus is identified with Gulistan or, in general, with the area along the Kura River (Κῦρις, Κύῥῤος). Prof. Gulyaev says: “on the maps of the ancient east two rivers with the name Kira are indicated. One is the current Kura, flowing from the Caucasian mountains and flowing into the Caspian Sea in the south of the Russian Transcaucasian possessions, in the Shirvan region; the other is a small desert river south of Tehran, now shown on maps under the name Kanj. Of course, the latter is of course here, since, on the one hand, there is no reason to assume that the dominion of the Ashurians would spread too far, north of the focal point at which all biblical events took place; on the other hand, other places mentioned in this story are located near this area. This river is located, according to an approximate calculation, 1500 versts northeast of Damascus” (p. 341). In this resettlement of the inhabitants of Damascus to Cyrus, the terrible prophecy of Amos ( Amos 1:5 ) against Damascus and the Aramaic people was literally fulfilled. Both the fall of Damascus and the fact of Ahaz’s subordination and indemnity to Tiglath-Pilezer are confirmed by wedge-shaped inscriptions: according to them, the capture of Damascus followed a long siege, in 732 (BC) (Keilinschriftt. Bibl. II, 32 ft.); about the campaign of the Assyrian king it says that it extended to the land of the Philistines, which can throw light on the above passage (2 Chronicles 28:20), etc., according to which the campaign of the Assyrian king and the kingdom of Judah, despite the indemnity paid by Ahaz, brought many disasters instead of the protection Ahaz sought. 2 Kings 16:10. And King Ahaz went to meet Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria in Damascus, and saw the altar that was in Damascus, and King Ahaz sent to Uriah the priest an image of the altar and a drawing of its entire structure. 2 Kings 16:11. And the priest Uriah built an altar according to the pattern which King Ahaz had sent from Damascus; and the priest Uriah did so before the arrival of King Ahaz from Damascus. 2 Kings 16:12. And the king came from Damascus, and the king saw the altar, and the king came to the altar and sacrificed on it; 2 Kings 16:13. and he burned his burnt offering and his grain offering, and poured out his drink offering, and sprinkled the blood of the peace offering on his altar. 2 Kings 16:14. And he moved the bronze altar, which was before the Lord, from the front side of the church, from the place between the new altar and the house of the Lord, and placed it on the side of this altar to the north. 2 Kings 16:15. And King Ahaz gave orders to Uriah the priest, saying, “On the great altar you shall burn the morning burnt offering and the evening grain offering, and the burnt offering from the king, and his grain offering, and the burnt offering from all the people of the earth, and their grain offering, and their drink offering, and sprinkle it with all the blood of the burnt offerings and with all the blood of the sacrifices, and the altar of brass shall remain for me.” discretion. 2 Kings 16:16. And the priest Uriah did everything as King Ahaz ordered. 2 Kings 16:17. And King Ahaz broke off the rims of the stands, and removed the lavers from them, and took the sea from the brass oxen that were under it, and set it on the stone floor. 2 Kings 16:18. And he abolished the covered Sabbath passage, which was built at the church, and the outer royal entrance to the house of the Lord, for the sake of the king of Assyria. And yet, the cowardly Ahaz, with his unbelief in the power of Jehovah and with his devotion to idolatry, considered it his duty to go to the Assyrian king personally to thank him for his help, to testify to him his loyalty and to secure his favor (of course, with the bringing of new rich gifts for the future). This journey of Ahaz to Damascus, where the king of Assyria had a temporary stay, regardless of the extreme humiliation for the hitherto independent kingdom of Judah, had the consequence not only of simple cultural borrowings from foreigners - like, for example. sundial or “steps of Ahaz” (2 Kings 20:9–11; Isaiah 38:8) - a mechanism based, in any case, on astronomical calculations of Assyro-Babylonia and transferred by Ahaz, perhaps from Damascus to his Jerusalem palace. Ahaz, with particular passion, began to borrow elements of the religious cult of the victorious pagans - the Syrians and Assyrians. First of all, in Damascus itself “he made sacrifices to the gods of Damascus, (thinking that) they struck him, and said: the gods of the kings of Syria help them; I will sacrifice to them, and they will help me. But they were a ruin for him and for all Israel” (2 Chronicles 28:23). Not content with this personal apostasy (reminiscent of the act of Amaziah, 2 Chronicles 25:14), Ahaz decided to transfer elements of the Syrian, or rather Assyrian pagan cult, into the very public worship of the Jerusalem temple. Captivated by the design of the pagan altar he saw in Damascus (whether it was the marching movable altar of Tiglath-Pilezer, as the historian Duncker thinks [Geschichte des Alterthums. Bd. II, 2. Leipzig, 1886. p. 318; cf. Kittel, Die Bucher der Konige, p. 270], or the main altar of Damascus and his king Rezin, who had just been killed, as Stade believes [Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 1, s. 598], the biblical text does not say; The passage cited in favor of Stade's assumption (2 Chronicles 28:23)) and having found it the best altar of burnt offerings in the Jerusalem temple, Ahaz sends to Jerusalem, to the high priest Uriah (probably identical with that mentioned in the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 8:2)) a drawing and model of the Damascus altar with the order to build a new altar exactly to this scale. Although the altar of Solomon’s Temple (“the brazen altar”, v. 14, cf. (2 Chron. 4:1)) was built on the model of the ancient altar of the tabernacle, created by the direct command of God (Ex. 27: 1 et seq.), and therefore was not subject to arbitrary replacement with a new, moreover, pagan type of altar, the high priest Uriah, speaking to the prophet Isaiah, as a “faithful witness” (Is. 8:2), in this case showed unforgivable servility and compliance with the royal arbitrariness: perhaps to avert the great horrors of the royal terror and even worse pagan innovations on the part of Ahaz. Uriah hastily, before Ahaz returned from Damascus, built a new, “great one” (v. 15) the altar on which Ahaz, upon arrival, with his own hand (like Jeroboam I of Israel, 1 Kings 12.32–33) offered sacrifices: “he approached the altar and ascended to it” (v. 12): “this one expression indicates a special form of the altar, according to which it was necessary to ascend to it in order to offer sacrifices. Moreover, a little further on it is directly called large, in comparison with the previous one, which had a length and width of 20 cubits (about 15 arsh.) and 10 cubits (about 7 1/2 arsh.) in height (Prof. Gulyaev, p. 342). “Who did Ahaz order to build the altar in God’s church?” asks the blessed one. Theodoret (question 48) and answers: “I think that the altar was not built to the God of All, but to a false-named god. The book of Chronicles gives reason to guess about this... (2 Chronicles 28:22-24)... He took out of the church the copper altar built by Solomon, and in its place he put the desired one again.” Apparently, however, Ahaz this time did not mean and did not dare to directly remove the worship of the true God from the temple of Solomon: he leaves this worship in force and in accordance with the law of Moses (v. 15), but only in the name of his own whim he commands to move the altar (“copper”), made under Solomon (2 Chronicles 4:1), to the side northern side (v. 14), and to the central place of the priestly courtyard of the church, hitherto occupied by him, to put a new one, built according to the Assyrian model, and on it to perform all the functions of the sacrificial cult. Ahaz, apparently, did not want to completely and forever appropriate priestly functions to himself: perhaps, out of fear of the punishment that befell Uzziah for such sacrilege, having once personally made sacrifices on the newly built altar (v. 13), he then gives the command to Uriah (and through him to the priesthood in general) to perform all kinds of sacrifices on this altar - constant or daily sacrifices, morning and evening (v. 15, cf. Ex.29:38–42; Num.28:3–8), and special private sacrifices, both from the people and their individual members, and from the king (cf. (Lev.4:22), etc.; (Ezek.46:17), etc.). This place (v. 15, cf. 13) is important for characterizing the sacrificial practice of this time (8th century BC). X.) and, in particular, can be cited as one of the historical evidence against the origin of the complex sacrificial ritual assumed by many Western biblical criticism only after the captivity, just as parts of the Pentateuch (in its middle books, the so-called “priestly code”) containing the law on this ritual are assumed to have occurred no earlier than the Babylonian captivity. Contrary to this, Art. 13 and 15, indisputably prove that 1) even under the wicked Ahaz, morning and evening sacrifices were regularly offered in the temple of Jerusalem in strict accordance with the law (Ex. 29:1; Num. 28:1) and 2) that sacrifices were distinguished by certain terms: bloody (Heb. ola, burnt offering; shlamim, peace offering) and bloodless (Heb. mincha) , gift - “grain offering”, neseh - “libation”) - also in accordance with the law of Moses (Num. 15: 2-12), and in general the entire sacrificial rite appears here to be a matter of a long-standing historical, liturgical tradition (cf. Stade, Gesch. d. Volk, Jsr. I, s. 598: Kittel, Bucher d. Konige, s. 270-271). Ahaz also showed his indecisiveness in introducing the pagan element into the liturgical structure of Judaism by decreeing that (v. 15) “the brass (Solomon’s) altar should remain at his discretion” (Heb. lebakker, Vulg. ad. volimtatem meam (erit paratum)). LXX mixed heb. verb bakar with noun. boker - “morning”: ' έσται μοι είς το πρωί , glav.: “let it be for me in the morning”, which does not make sense in this context 8: apparently, Ahaz did not dare to immediately and completely remove the ancient altar from the church and, of course, revered by the people, but wanted to wait to see what impression it would make on the people the innovation he allowed in the church, and only then make further deviations from the purity of the Old Testament cult. But the path of religious syncretism, mixing revealed religion with paganism, which Ahaz was the first of the kings of Judah to embark on, turned out to be very tempting: Ahaz more and more introduced into the worship of God elements of various pagan cults: emblems, idols, altars and heights for serving various pagan gods, Ahaz spread in large numbers throughout Jerusalem and other Jewish cities ( 2 Chronicles 28:24–25 ). In addition to the native, Canaanite cults, for example, Moloch (Art. 3 of the chapter under consideration) of Baal (2 Chronicles 28:3), as well as the Canaanite superstition - questioning the dead (Is. 8:19 - prohibited in the law, Lev. 19:31; Deut. 18:15), Ahaz with particular zeal performed the Assyro-Babylonian cult of “the whole army heavenly" and "constellations" (signs of the Zodiac) with the dedication of altars on the roofs of palaces to these luminaries, and special horses placed by Ahaz in the outer courtyard of the church were dedicated to the sun (see 2 Kings 23:5,12; Jer.19:13,32:29; Zeph.1:5). Thus, the reign of Ahaz, both in the civil and political life of the kingdom of Judah, marks the beginning of the vassal dependence of this kingdom on Assyria, and in the religious field it represents a new degree of decline of true religion in the kingdom of Judah, namely the invasion of Assyro-Babylonian Sabeism here (Cf. M. Palmov, “Idolatry among the Ancient Jews,” pp. 513–517). Both dependences on Assyria continued until the death of Ahaz. But if in the civil sphere Ahaz’s loyalty to the assumed (v. 7) duties of a vassal of the Assyrian king could be necessary and useful for the weak kingdom of Judah, then Ahaz’s passion for the pagan cult of his conquerors could only lead to the destruction of his kingdom. Perhaps, in imitation of the structure of the Assyrian churches, and also to extract new valuables from Solomon’s temple to pay a new indemnity to the king of Assyria, Ahaz broke off (v. 17) the decorations and other accessories built by Solomon in the inner courtyard of the lavers - and the copper sea (cf. 1 Kings 7: 23-28), and also abolished the “covered passage (Heb. musakh, in keri musakh) Sabbath" and "the outer royal passage to the house of the Lord" (v. 18). Both last structures were probably erected after Solomon: the nature and purpose of these buildings is difficult to establish with accuracy due to the significant darkness and, perhaps, damage to the text of v. 18. Under the covered entrance (Heb. musah, Vulgata: musach) they usually understood, following the rabbis, a special royal place in the front courtyard, in which (place) the king stood on Saturday (LXX, apparently, they read not musah, but musad - “foundation”, when they conveyed: θεμέλιον τῆς καθεδρας ( τῶν σαββάτων), slav.: “the foundation of the seat”) The “outer royal passage” with a large foundation in the biblical text (1 Kings 14:27ff; 2 Kings 11:4; Ezek.46:1–2) refers to a special covered passage, a gallery with a colonnade, from the royal palace on Zion to the temple on Moriah (cf. prof. Gulyaev, pp. 343–344). Ahaz destroyed all this both out of neglect of the splendor of the church, and out of a desire to bring gifts to the Assyrian king (perhaps the destroyed devices could, for some reason, arouse the wrath of the Assyrian king). Ahaz's wickedness finally culminated in the closing of the doors of Jehovah's church (2 Chronicles 28:24). According to I. Josephus (Ant. Jude 9:12, 3), Ahaz “even reached such a disdainful and insolent attitude (towards the Lord God) that he finally ordered the church to be completely locked, forbade the established sacrifices to be made to the Eternal, and appropriated all the sacrificial offerings to himself.” 2 Kings 16:19. The rest of what Ahaz did was written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah. 2 Kings 16:20. And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David. And Hezekiah his son reigned in his stead. For his wickedness, Ahaz, like Joram (2 Chronicles 21:19–20) and Joash (2 Chronicles 24:25), was deprived of the honor of burial in the royal necropolis (2 Chronicles 28:27). Many scholars consider Tiglathellaser (2 Kings 15:29) to be the same person as Thul (ibid., see 19). See, for example. prof. I. S. Yakimova, Experiences in the agreement of biblical evidence with the testimony of monuments of wedge-shaped writing (Christ. Reading. 1884, vol. II, p. 21 and gave; Prof. A. P. Lopukhina, Biblical history, vol. II. St. Petersburg 1890, p. 548. “According to the current Jewish text,” says Professor M. Gulyaev, “one should translate “Aramians,” as some of the newest ones translate; but the masorets also noticed that instead of “asheoin” one should read: “ashoin”; then the Edomites translate, and finally, the very composition of the words shows that what is meant here is not the Aramians, whose name in Hebrew in the plural is written “ashoin” (p. 341). Prof. Gulyaev (pp. 342–343) says: “70 read: let it remain for me in the morning.” Some of the newest ones, paying attention to the first meaning (chap. “baqar”) “to open,” translate: let it be for me to question Jehovah (i.e., to receive revelation from Him). But the first translation cannot be accepted, after it is said above that Ahaz ordered all the morning and evening sacrifices to be offered on his great altar; the second is impossible both due to its tension, and because Ahaz, a stubborn pagan, not only himself did not express a desire to ask for the revelation of Jehovah on necessary occasions, but even at the time when this was offered to him, he refused (Is. 7:11-12). Meanwhile, the same word is also used in the meaning of “to look carefully, to reflect.” You might be interested in: