[1]Damascus, which smote him: and he said, Because the gods of the kings of Syria helped them, therefore will I sacrifice to them, that they may help me. But they were the ruin of him, and of all Israel. 24And Ahaz gathered together the vessels of the house of God, and cut in pieces
upon it. The altar at Damascus was probably the one used by Tiglath-pileser and therefore an Assyrian rather than a Damascene altar. The use of such an altar was an act of apostasy from Jehovah, for a foreign altar implied a foreign god; cp. 2 Kin. v. 17.
the gods . . . which smote him] Early passages of the O.T. show that the Israelites for long believed the gods of other peoples to be no less real than Jehovah. Later, when the teaching of the great prophets had impressed on the people the sense of Jehovah's supreme majesty, the alien deities, though still conceived as real Beings holding sway over the nations worshipping them, were felt to be incomparable with Jehovah, hardly deserving therefore the title of God. Still later, in certain circles, all reality whatever was denied to the gods of the heathen; they were nothing at all (cp. Isaiah xl.—xlviii., passim). Almost certainly the last opinion would be the belief of the Chronicler and of most orthodox Jews of his time; so that it is unnecessary to suppose that the present phrase "which smote him" is more than a convenient way of speaking. It does not indicate that the Chronicler, or even his source in Kings, believed in the existence of these gods of Damascus. On the other hand the Chronicler (and his source) does imply in this verse that Ahaz had a lively belief in the efficacy and reality of the gods of his foes; and therein no doubt he correctly represents the condition of thought in that period.
the gods of the kings of Syria helped them] At this time the Syrians of Damascus had been conquered by the Assyrians under Tiglath-pileser (2 Kin. xvi. 9), so that either we must suppose a confusion in the Chronicler's mind, or else the statement needs to be corrected by reading "kings of Assyria (Asshur)" for "kings of Syria (Aram)." The reading "Syria" might be due to some writer or scribe, who lived at a time when one Empire extended from Babylon to the Mediterranean and included both Syria and Assyria. Such was the case under the Persians and under the successors of Alexander down to the time of the Maccabees. The Romans similarly failed at first to distinguish the ancient empire east of the Euphrates, i.e. Assyria (= Asshur), from the peoples west of the Euphrates, the Arameans, whom they mistakenly called "Syrians" (a shortened form of "Assyrians"), whose chief cities were Antioch, Hamath, and Damascus. This use of "Syrian" has passed over into English, but the more accurate designation is "Aramean"; cp. Gen. xxviii. 5 (R.V.).
helped them] Render "help them."
24. cut in pieces the vessels] Presumably in order to smelt them
- ↑ Heb. Darmesek.
