2 Chronicles Chapter 28

What is the meaning of 2 Chronicles 28?

Introduction to 2 Chronicles 28

2 Chronicles 28 presents a sobering account of one of Judah’s most spiritually dark periods under the reign of King Ahaz. This chapter serves as a powerful cautionary tale about the devastating consequences of rejecting יהוה (Yahweh) and embracing idolatry. Through the tragic reign of Ahaz, we witness how spiritual apostasy leads to national catastrophe, yet also reveals יהוה’s remarkable faithfulness even in the midst of His people’s unfaithfulness.

The chapter stands as a stark contrast to the previous accounts of righteous kings, particularly Ahaz’s father Jotham, demonstrating how quickly a nation can fall when its leader abandons the ways of יהוה. However, even in this darkness, we see glimpses of divine mercy through the prophetic intervention that leads to the release of Judean captives.

Context of 2 Chronicles 28

This chapter is situated within the broader narrative of the divided kingdom period, specifically during the tumultuous 8th century BCE. The northern kingdom of Israel was nearing its end, while Judah was experiencing severe decline under Ahaz’s leadership. The surrounding context shows a pattern of alternating faithful and unfaithful kings in Judah, with Ahaz representing one of the lowest points in this pattern.

The immediate literary context places this chapter between the account of his father Jotham’s righteous reign (2 Chronicles 27) and his son Hezekiah’s remarkable religious reforms (2 Chronicles 29). This positioning creates a powerful narrative contrast that highlights the consequences of either following or rejecting יהוה’s ways.

Within the larger biblical narrative, this chapter corresponds to the contemporary prophecies of Isaiah and Micah, who were actively ministering during this period. Their prophetic messages provide additional context for understanding the spiritual and political climate of Ahaz’s reign, particularly Isaiah’s famous encounter with Ahaz regarding the sign of Immanuel (Isaiah 7).

Ancient Key Word Study

• וַיַּעַשׂ הָרַע (va’ya’as ha’ra) – “He did evil” (2 Chronicles 28:1): This phrase uses the intensive form of the verb “to do,” emphasizing the deliberate nature of Ahaz’s evil actions. The construction suggests not merely passive wrongdoing but active pursuit of evil.
• בְּעָלִים (Ba’alim) – “The Baals” (2 Chronicles 28:2): The plural form indicates multiple manifestations of this Canaanite deity, reflecting a complete embrace of pagan polytheism. The term carries connotations of ownership and mastery, ironically contrasting with יהוה’s true lordship.
• וַיַּקְטֵר (va’yakter) – “He burned incense” (2 Chronicles 28:3): This technical term for offering incense was specifically associated with legitimate Temple worship, making its use in pagan contexts particularly offensive. The word emphasizes the perversion of proper worship.
• בֶּן־הִנֹּם (Ben-Hinnom) – “Valley of Ben-Hinnom” (2 Chronicles 28:3): This location, later called Gehenna, became synonymous with judgment and evil. The name itself carries overtones of wailing and lamentation, foreshadowing its later significance.
• חֲמַת אַף־יְהוָה (chamat af-Yahweh) – “The burning anger of יהוה” (2 Chronicles 28:9): This construct combines two Hebrew words for anger, intensifying the expression. The phrase suggests not just divine displeasure but active judgment.
• אֲשָׁם (asham) – “Guilt” (2 Chronicles 28:10): This term carries both legal and moral connotations, indicating liability for punishment. It’s the same word used in Levitical sacrificial contexts, suggesting the need for atonement.
• הַשִּׁבְיָה (hashivyah) – “The captives” (2 Chronicles 28:11): This term specifically refers to those taken in war, carrying undertones of humiliation and displacement. Its use here emphasizes the severity of brother fighting against brother.
• וַיִּכָּנְעוּ (vayikan’u) – “They humbled themselves” (2 Chronicles 28:19): This key verb is central to the Chronicler’s theology, often marking the turning point in divine-human relationships. Here, its absence in relation to Ahaz is notable.

Compare & Contrast

• Verse 1’s description of Ahaz not doing “right in the eyes of יהוה” (וְלֹא־עָשָׂה הַיָּשָׁר) deliberately contrasts with the standard formula used for righteous kings. The Hebrew construction emphasizes the complete nature of his departure from divine standards, using a absolute negative rather than a qualified one.
• The phrase “made molten images for the Baals” in verse 2 uses the verb וַיַּעַשׂ (va’ya’as) rather than the more common יִצֹק (yitzok) for casting metal. This choice emphasizes the deliberate craftsmanship invested in idolatry, making the offense more egregious.
• Verse 3’s reference to child sacrifice employs the euphemistic “made his sons pass through the fire” rather than directly stating “sacrificed.” This linguistic choice reflects both the horror of the practice and the chronicler’s reluctance to directly associate such barbarism with a Davidic king.
• The description of Ahaz’s defeats in verses 5-8 uses military terminology that emphasizes divine agency rather than enemy strength, showing that these were not merely political defeats but divine judgment.
• Verse 19’s statement that Ahaz “acted unfaithfully” uses the intensive form of the verb מָעַל (ma’al), suggesting not just occasional infidelity but a systematic rejection of יהוה’s covenant.
• The account of Ahaz stripping the Temple (verses 21-24) deliberately parallels earlier accounts of righteous kings enriching it, creating a stark contrast through similar vocabulary used for opposite purposes.
• The final summary of Ahaz’s reign notably omits the standard formula “slept with his fathers,” suggesting his complete alienation from the covenant community even in death.

2 Chronicles 28 Unique Insights

The chapter contains several remarkable theological and historical elements that deserve special attention. One fascinating aspect is the prophet Oded’s intervention in verses 9-11, which presents a unique instance of a prophet successfully appealing to Israel’s armies to show mercy to their Judean captives. This episode has no parallel in biblical literature and demonstrates how prophetic authority could transcend political boundaries in times of crisis.

The description of Ahaz’s apostasy includes a peculiar detail about him sacrificing to “the gods of Damascus who had defeated him” (2 Chronicles 28:23). This reflects an ancient Near Eastern concept where military defeats were interpreted as evidence of superior deities. The chronicler’s editorial comment that this led to his downfall reveals a sophisticated theological critique of such pagan logic.

Ancient Jewish commentaries note that the sequence of Ahaz’s actions – from child sacrifice to Temple desecration – follows a pattern of increasingly severe covenant violations. The Midrash Rabbah suggests that each step represented not just a further departure from יהוה but also a deliberate attempt to prevent repentance, symbolized by his finally “closing the doors of יהוה’s house” (2 Chronicles 28:24).

The text’s description of multiple simultaneous enemies attacking Judah (Arameans, Israelites, Edomites, and Philistines) recalls the covenant curses of Deuteronomy 28, particularly the warning that unfaithfulness would result in attacks from all directions. This literary connection reinforces the theological message that Ahaz’s troubles were not merely political but covenantal in nature.

2 Chronicles 28 Connections to Yeshua

This chapter’s account of Ahaz’s reign provides several profound connections to the Messianic mission of Yeshua. The most direct link comes through the contemporary prophecy of Isaiah, where Ahaz’s refusal to ask for a sign led to the famous Immanuel prophecy (Isaiah 7:14). This rejection of divine help parallels the later rejection of Messiah by the religious leadership, yet in both cases, יהוה’s purposes prevailed despite human obstinance.

The theme of divine mercy triumphing over human cruelty, seen in the release of the Judean captives, foreshadows the greater release from captivity that Yeshua would bring. Just as the prophet Oded appealed to shared covenant identity to secure the captives’ release, so too does our Great High Priest appeal to our shared humanity in securing our redemption (Hebrews 2:14-17).

2 Chronicles 28 Scriptural Echoes

This chapter resonates with numerous biblical passages, creating a rich tapestry of interconnected themes. The description of Ahaz’s idolatry explicitly recalls the warnings of Deuteronomy 12:29-31 regarding child sacrifice. His closure of the Temple doors finds its positive contrast in Hezekiah’s reopening them (2 Chronicles 29:3).

The theme of brotherhood between Judah and Israel, highlighted in Oded’s intervention, echoes the prophetic hope of reunification found in Ezekiel 37:15-28. The pattern of divine judgment followed by mercy anticipates the New Covenant promise of restoration after discipline (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

Ahaz’s rejection of divine help parallels Saul’s pattern of disobedience, while the subsequent reformation under Hezekiah mirrors David’s restoration of proper worship. The chapter’s themes of idolatry leading to national calamity are later echoed in the prophets, particularly Jeremiah 2 and Ezekiel 16.

2 Chronicles 28 Devotional

This chapter challenges us to examine our own hearts regarding spiritual compromise and trust in יהוה. Like Ahaz, we often face pressures that tempt us to seek security in sources other than God. The chapter asks us: Where do we turn in times of crisis? Do we, like Ahaz, multiply our wrong choices when under pressure, or do we turn to יהוה in trust?

The account of the captives’ release reminds us that showing mercy to others, even our enemies, is a divine attribute we are called to emulate. It challenges us to consider how we treat those in our power and whether we recognize our shared humanity and need for compassion.

Did You Know

• The Aramaic Targum tradition suggests that Ahaz’s closure of the Temple doors was accompanied by the placement of a dragon image, symbolizing his complete rejection of traditional worship.
• Archaeological evidence from 8th century BCE Jerusalem confirms the biblical account of Ahaz’s religious innovations, with numerous small pagan altars and figurines found in excavation layers from this period.
• The Valley of Ben-Hinnom, mentioned in verse 3, later became known as Gehenna and served as the image Jesus used to describe eternal judgment.
• The mention of “captives” in verse 11 uses a Hebrew term that specifically refers to those taken in battle, different from terms used for economic slaves or indentured servants.
• Ahaz is one of the few Judean kings whose name appears on extrabiblical archaeological evidence, specifically on a seal impression found in Jerusalem.
• The reference to “gods of Damascus” likely refers to Hadad-Rimmon, the storm deity whose worship is attested in numerous Syrian inscriptions from this period.
• The chapter’s description of multiple simultaneous attacks on Judah is confirmed by Assyrian records from the period, which mention tribute payments from all the nations involved.
• The prophetic intervention preventing the enslavement of Judean captives represents the only successful prophetic intervention in an ongoing military action recorded in the Bible.
• Rabbinic tradition maintains that Ahaz’s refusal to ask for a sign (Isaiah 7) was rooted in his desire to avoid any divine interaction that might lead to repentance.
• The chapter’s chronological setting coincides with the founding of Rome, according to traditional dating, providing an interesting historical parallel between the decline of one kingdom and the rise of another.