Melakhim II Chapter 16 | The Reign of Achaz

Achaz disrupts the significant lineage of righteous kings in the Kingdom of Yehuda (Yehoash, Amatzyahu, Uziya, Yotam). He follows the ways of the kings of Israel, burning his son in fire and offering sacrifices and incense on the high shrines. In Divrei HaYamim, this description is expanded to include Baal worship, reminiscent of earlier kings. The consequences of his actions manifest in a significant decline in the kingdom’s greatness: since the days of Uziya, the Kingdom of Yehuda had controlled the crucial port of Eilat, a key gateway for trade via the Red Sea. During Achaz's reign, the Arameans capture Eilat and hand it over to the Edomites under their protection (note the 'kri' and 'ktiv' discrepancy between Arameans [ארם] and Edomites [אדם]). The Arameans do not stop at capturing Eilat; they join forces with the Kingdom of Israel, led by Pekach son of Remalyahu, to lay siege to Jerusalem itself. The full plan of the Aramean-Israelite siege is detailed in Yeshaya: to replace the king with a ruler of their choosing: “For Aram has conspired to harm you, along with Efrayim, and Remalyahu's son: 'We shall go up to Jerusalem, bring about her end; We shall break her walls open for ourselves and set a new king over here: the son of Taval." (Yeshaya 7:5–6).

The very alliance between Aram and Israel should surprise us. Throughout the Book of Melakhim, we read of conflicts between these two kingdoms, yet suddenly, they collaborate against Yehuda. What led to this cooperation, and what did they seek from the Kingdom of Yehuda?

One interpretation is that the fear of the Assyrian threat drove Aram and Israel to form a coalition in an attempt to resist Assyria. This alliance sought Yehuda's participation, but Achaz refused, choosing a pro-Assyrian policy. In response, they decided to conquer Jerusalem and force Yehuda to join them.

In an article published in 'Tarbiz', Professor Oded Bustenay challenges this conventional view and proposes an alternative interpretation: it is unlikely that an alliance aiming to resist Assyria would expend resources on a preliminary conflict with Yehuda. Moreover, if Achaz’s loyalty to Assyria were the cause of the war, it would not make sense for him to need to bribe the king of Assyria to come to his aid; the Assyrian king would have been motivated to do so without special inducement. Bustenay instead suggests that the conflict was a localized struggle over territories east of the Jordan River. During Uziyahu’s reign, the Kingdom of Yehuda expanded and captured fertile lands east of the Jordan. Aram and Israel decided to unite forces to reclaim these territories. For further exploration, you are welcome to read the attached article.

The conclusion of Achaz’s reign serves as a counter-image to the early days of Shlomo. Both build altars and offer sacrifices on them, and both accounts mention dealings with the stands and the sea in the Temple. However, the differences are stark. While Shlomo offers sacrifices to God on the newly built Temple altar, Achaz replicates the altar of foreign gods from Aram. While Shlomo constructs the sea and the stands, Achaz dismantles them to send as tribute to the king of Assyria. Whereas God declares of Shlomo, “he will be a son to Me” (Shmuel II 7:14), Achaz insists that he is instead a servant and son of the king of Assyria. This deliberate contrast in the Tanakh underscores the decline of the monarchies of Yehuda and Israel, from the golden era of Shlomo's united kingdom to the lowest point during Achaz's reign.