“For he sacrificed unto the gods of Damascus, which smote him: and he said, Because the gods of the kings of Syria help them, therefore will I sacrifice to them, that they may help me. But they were the ruin of him, and of all Israel.”
My Notes
What Does 2 Chronicles 28:23 Mean?
"For he sacrificed unto the gods of Damascus, which smote him: and he said, Because the gods of the kings of Syria help them, therefore will I sacrifice to them, that they may help me. But they were the ruin of him, and of all Israel." Ahaz applies faulty logic to theology: Syria defeated him, so Syria's gods must be powerful, so worshiping Syria's gods should give him that power. The reasoning treats gods like technology — adopt the winner's system and you'll win too. The logic is perfectly rational and perfectly wrong.
The devastating irony is embedded in the sentence structure: "the gods of Damascus, which smote him" — the gods associated with his defeat become the gods he worships. He bows to the power that hurt him. He sacrifices to the source of his suffering. The victim adopts the abuser's system hoping it will make him powerful instead of powerless.
The Chronicler's verdict is absolute: "they were the ruin of him, and of all Israel." The gods he adopted for their power became the cause of his destruction. The strategy designed to save him destroyed him. The help he sought from foreign gods became the mechanism of his ruin.
Reflection Questions
- 1.What 'gods of Damascus' — systems that seem to work for others — are you tempted to adopt?
- 2.How does worshiping what hurt you reveal the danger of pragmatic theology?
- 3.What does Ahaz's personal worship decision having national consequences teach about influence?
- 4.Where are you treating worship as a strategic investment rather than genuine devotion?
Devotional
The logic sounds reasonable: Syria won, so Syria's gods work, so I'll worship Syria's gods. It's the theology of pragmatism — worship whatever produces results. Adopt the winner's system. Follow the power.
But the Chronicler sees what Ahaz can't: the gods that 'smote him' didn't help him. They hurt him. And now he's bowing to the very power that wounded him, hoping it will heal him. He's worshiping his own destruction. The victim is adopting the abuser's religion.
The 'therefore will I sacrifice to them, that they may help me' reveals the transactional theology underneath: Ahaz treats worship as a strategic investment. I'll sacrifice to whichever god produces the best return. The highest-performing deity gets my worship. It's worship as portfolio management — diversify your religious investments based on recent performance.
But the final sentence collapses every calculation: 'they were the ruin of him, and of all Israel.' The gods he adopted for help became his ruin. The strategy designed to save him destroyed him — and destroyed everyone connected to him. His pragmatic theology didn't just fail him. It failed all Israel. His personal worship decision had national consequences.
What 'gods of Damascus' are you adopting because they seem to work for someone else? What system, value, or practice are you importing because it produced visible results — without asking whether it's producing invisible ruin?
Commentary
Trusted original commentary from respected historical Bible scholars and theologians.
And in every city of Judah he made high places to burn incense unto the gods,.... The gods of Damascus, and other idols;…
His adoption of the Syrian gods, Hadad, Rimmon, and others, as objects of worship, no doubt preceded the destruction of…
He sacrificed unto the gods of Damascus, which smote him - "This passage," says Mr. Hallet, "greatly surprised me; for…
Here is, I. The great distress which the kingdom of Ahaz was reduced to for his sin. In general, 1. The Lord brought…
the gods of Damascus In 2 Kin. the statement is that Ahaz made a copy of an altar which he saw at Damascus and…
Cross References
Related passages throughout Scripture