Page:The Books of Chronicles (1916).djvu/357

Rh he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem: and he did not that which was right in the eyes of the, like David his father: but he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, and made also molten images for the Baalim. Moreover he burnt incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and burnt his children in the fire, according to the abominations

therefore be incorrect. The Pesh. in this verse reads "twenty-five years old," which is more suitable and may be right, but the coincidence would be strange if three kings in succession ascended the throne at twenty-five years of age (cp. xxvii. 1 and xxix. 1).

he did not that which was right] It is not said of Ahaz as of Manasseh, the worst of all the Judean kings, that "he did that which was evil" (xxxiii. 2).

3. the valley of the son of Hinnom] The name in Heb. Gē-ben-hinnōm or Gē-hinnōm is more familiar in the Greek form Gehenna (Matt. v. 22, R.V. mg.). The valley was S. and S.W. of Jerusalem. The evil reputation of the place perhaps was due originally to some connection with the worship of Molech (Jer. vii. 31, 32). Later it appears that the refuse of Jerusalem and the corpses of criminals were deposited in this valley, and as the verse Is. lxvi. 24 "they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched " was associated with this valley, the name Gehenna was eventually used to signify the place of eternal punishment (cp. Mk. ix. 43).

burnt his children in the fire] There is no doubt that actual sacrifice of the child's life by fire is implied in this formula and in parallel phrases such as "made his son to pass through the fire" (2 Kin. xvi. 3). Unfortunately the gruesome evidence regarding child-sacrifice among the ancients—Greeks and Romans as well as Semites—is far too strong to allow the theory that always or even generally branding or some symbolical dedication by fire was employed (see Barnes on 1 Kin. xi. 5). It seems that the horrible custom, which was common with the early Canaanites and Phoenicians, was very rare among the early Israelites and the kindred people of Moab (see Judg. xi. 31 and 39; 2 Kin. iii. 27), and was called forth only by the pressure of extreme need. Evidently in the break-up of the national faith which attended the imminent downfall of the State of Judah the evil authority of Ahaz and Manasseh made the practice common (see xxxiii. 6; 2 Kin. xxi. 6; Mic. vi. 7; Jer. vii. 31; Ps. cvi. 37 f.). Gen. xxii. 1—18 may be regarded as a magnificent repudiation of the rite in the worship of Jehovah, and the practice is expressly forbidden in the Law, Lev. xviii. 21; Deut. xviii. 10.

his children] In Kings, "his son" (sing.), a better reading. It is possible that the sacrifice was intended to avert the danger threatened by the Syro-Ephraimite alliance.