connection with the new altar the worship of the gods of Damascus (2 Chronicles 28:23, in

connection with ver. 24). Certain it is that an exclusive place was assigned to it. Apparently

Urijah, the priest, had originally set it at the rear of the old altar of burnt-offering, which stood

"before the Lord," that is, "before the house," in other words, fronting the entrance into the

sanctuary. But as this would have indicated the inferiority of the new altar, the king, on his return

from Damascus, brought the two altars into juxtaposition.* In the words of the sacred text (2

Kings 16:14): "And the altar, the brazen [one]** a which [was] before Jehovah he brought near

[placed in juxtaposition], from before the house [the sanctuary], from between the altar [the new

Damascus altar] and the house of Jehovah, and he put it at the side of the altar [the new Damascus

altar], northwards."

* (...) : "he brought near" (2 Kin gs 16:14, A.V. 'he brought"), i.e. he brought the one near to the

** The old altar of burnt offering, so called in contradistinction to the "golden altar" of incense in

the Holy Place.

The meaning of this is that the brazen altar, which had hitherto faced the entrance to the sanctuary,

eastwards, was now removed to the north side of the new altar, so that the latter became the

principal, nay, the sole sacrificial altar. Accordingly, by command of the king, all sacrificial

worship* was now celebrated at this new heathen altar, the disposal of the old altar being left for

further consideration.**

* In the mention of the daily morning-sacrifice, the meat-offering is omitted; in that of the evening

sacrifice, the burnt offering. But in both cases special mention was not required, since every burnt

sacrifice had its meat-offering (Numbers 7:87; 15:2-12); while the evening sacrifice smoked all

night on the altar (Leviticus 6:12, 13), so that its consummation could not be witnessed by the

** The best rendering of the difficult expression in 2 Kings 16:15: "the brazen altar shall be for me

to inquire by" (A.V. and R.V.) (...) is: "shall before me to consider." Comp. Proverbs 20:25 and

Nowack ad loc.

The new place of sacrifice rendered other changes in the Temple furniture almost necessary. The

old altar of burnt-offering was ten cubits, or about fifteen feet high (2 Chronicles 4:1). Hence there

was an ascent to it, and a circuit around, on which the ministering priests stood. As the pieces o f

the sacrifice laid on the altar had to be washed, the "ten lavers of brass" for this purpose, which

surrounded the altar, were placed on high "bases" or rather stands, so that the officiating priests

could wash the sacrificial pieces without coming down from the circuit of the altar. The side

pieces which formed the body of these stands were of brass, richly ornamented alternately with

figures of lions and oxen with wreaths underneath them, and cherubim (comp. 1 Kings 7:27-40).

For the new altar such high stands were no longer required, and accordingly Ahaz "broke away the

sidepieces of the stands" [A. V. "cut off the borders of the bases"]. Similarly he lowered "the sea,"

by removing it from the pedestal of the "brazen oxen," and placing it on "a base* of stone."

Possibly the king may also have been influenced by a desire to make other use of these valuable

pieces of Temple furniture than that for which they had been originally designed. At any rate they

remained in the Temple till a later period (comp. Je remiah 52:17-20).

* So, as the LXX. rightly render it, and not "pavement" as in the A.V. and R.V.

It is more difficult to understand the import of the changes which King Ahaz made "on account of

the king of Assyria" in "the covered Sabbath place," and "the entrance of the king, the outer one"

(2 Kings 16:18). In our ignorance of the precise purpose or locality of these we can only offer such

suggestions as seem in accordance with the language of the original. We conjecture that "the

covered Sabbath place," or stand, "which they had built" -viz., since Solomonic times - was