2 Chronicles Chapter 16

Asa’s Disappointing End

A. A treaty with Syria.

1. (2 Chronicles 16:1-3) Asa makes a treaty with Syria to strengthen himself against Israel.

“In the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Asa, Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah and built Ramah, that he might let none go out or come in to Asa king of Judah. Then Asa brought silver and gold from the treasuries of the house of the LORD and of the king’s house, and sent to Ben-Hadad king of Syria, who dwelt in Damascus, saying, ‘Let there be a treaty between you and me, as there was between my father and your father. See, I have sent you silver and gold; come, break your treaty with Baasha king of Israel, so that he will withdraw from me.’”

After decades of blessing and rest under God’s protection, Asa faces a challenge not from distant enemies like Ethiopia, but from Baasha, king of Israel. The chronicler now introduces the tragic turning point in Asa’s reign. The same king who once cried out to the LORD in helpless dependence now responds with political maneuvering rather than prayer. His failure is not due to overwhelming danger but to misplaced trust, revealing the danger of relying on past victories rather than present obedience.

a. “Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah, and built Ramah, that he might let none go out or come in to Asa king of Judah.”

Baasha’s strategy was strategic and suffocating. By fortifying Ramah — a town situated only five miles north of Jerusalem on the main road — he effectively imposed a military blockade on Judah. This move would restrict both trade and pilgrimage, cutting Judah off from the northern population who had previously defected to Asa’s side because they saw that “the LORD his God was with him” (2 Chronicles 15:9).

Baasha aimed to reverse that trend. Preventing religious pilgrimage was a direct assault on Judah’s spiritual influence, for many faithful Israelites had begun to flow southward to worship at the true temple.

i. Selman identifies Ramah with er-Ram.

This confirms the strategic nature of Baasha’s move. By obstructing the main north–south route, Baasha sought to isolate Asa economically, politically, and religiously. His goal was not immediate invasion but slow, suffocating pressure that would force Asa into concessions or submission.

b. “Asa brought silver and gold from the treasuries of the house of the LORD and of the king’s house, and sent to Ben-Hadad king of Syria.”

Here is where Asa’s decline becomes unmistakable. In earlier years, Asa had trusted the LORD when facing an enemy twice the size of Judah. Now, with a smaller threat before him, he turns to bribery and political alliances. Worse, he uses dedicated treasures from the temple — wealth belonging to God — to secure favor from a pagan king.

This act reflects a dangerous spiritual regression. Asa robs God in order to hire human help. He turns from divine covenant protection to foreign political leverage.

i. Spurgeon rebukes Asa’s actions sharply.

Spurgeon notes:

• Asa might do as he pleased with his own treasury.

• But he had no right to use the LORD’s treasury to buy the help of a pagan king.

• In doing so, he robbed God to strengthen unbelief.

This exposes the heart of the issue: Asa trusted the arm of flesh rather than the arm of God.

c. “Let there be a treaty between you and me, as there was between my father and your father.”

Asa appeals to historical precedent, referencing a former alliance between their fathers. He attempts to cloak his political maneuvering with tradition. But this was a grave mistake.

Asa’s covenant was with God — not with Syria. The covenant renewal recorded in 2 Chronicles 15 was still fresh. Yet Asa now abandons its spiritual commitments and seeks security through diplomacy with an idolatrous nation.

i. Asa forgot that his protection was the LORD, not political alliances.

By forming a treaty with Ben-Hadad, Asa acted as if God could not or would not defend Judah. His trust shifted. The one who once cried, “O LORD, do not let man prevail against You” (2 Chronicles 14:11) now acts as if victory depends on Ben-Hadad.

ii. This alliance will prove disastrous.

As Spurgeon warns, Syria will later become a far greater and more destructive enemy to Judah than Israel ever was. Asa traded one threat for a worse one.

iii. Spurgeon highlights the psychological cause of Asa’s failure.

Spurgeon points out that Asa trusted God when facing the Ethiopian million-man army because the threat was obviously beyond his strength. But now, facing a smaller threat, he relied on human strategy.

Small trials often reveal greater unbelief than large ones.

• Great dangers drive us to prayer.

• Lesser dangers tempt us to self-sufficiency.

Asa’s failure arose not from overwhelming fear but from misplaced confidence in his own ability.

iv. Trapp notes the tragic nature of Asa’s decline.

Trapp writes:

“Here good Asa began to decline; which was the worse in him, because in his old age, after so great a victory, and so strict a covenant to cleave close to the Lord.”

The tragedy is not that Asa sinned, but that he sinned after decades of walking with God, after revival, after covenant renewal, after experiencing miraculous deliverance.

His fall was not dramatic but subtle — trust shifted slowly from God to human alliances.

2. (2 Chronicles 16:4-6) The success of Asa’s plan.

“So Ben-Hadad heeded King Asa, and sent the captains of his armies against the cities of Israel. They attacked Ijon, Dan, Abel Maim, and all the storage cities of Naphtali. Now it happened, when Baasha heard it, that he stopped building Ramah and ceased his work. Then King Asa took all Judah, and they carried away the stones and timber of Ramah, which Baasha had used for building; and with them he built Geba and Mizpah.”

To all outward appearances, Asa’s strategy worked. Ben-Hadad responded to Asa's bribe, broke his treaty with Baasha, and launched a military campaign against the northern kingdom. Israel’s northern cities — Ijon, Dan, Abel Maim, and the storage cities of Naphtali — were struck. Pressure mounted on Baasha from the north, forcing him to abandon his blockade at Ramah. On the surface, this outcome may look like tactical brilliance. Yet Scripture will soon reveal that what appears successful in the eyes of man can be catastrophic in the eyes of God.

a. “So Ben-Hadad heeded King Asa, and sent the captains of his armies against the cities of Israel.”

Ben-Hadad was a powerful regional king, and the gold and silver Asa offered persuaded him to act. With the treaty now broken, Syria attacked the northern border of Israel, striking key cities and storage centers. These locations were vital to the northern kingdom’s defense and supply chain.

i. Selman notes the connection between “storage cities” and Kineroth.

Selman observes that “storage cities” corresponds to “Kineroth” in 1 Kings 15:20, a region that later became known as Gennesaret, referenced by Josephus. This area was agriculturally rich and strategically important. Ben-Hadad’s attacks inflicted significant economic and military damage on Israel, weakening Baasha’s position.

b. “Now it happened, when Baasha heard it, that he stopped building Ramah and ceased his work.”

Asa’s plan achieved its immediate objective. Baasha abandoned the fortification of Ramah. His blockade of Judah was broken, and the threat against Jerusalem was removed. Humanly speaking, Asa’s political maneuver succeeded. The chronicler now allows us to see the irony. The king who once trusted God for victory now trusts in foreign alliances, and the alliance appears to work. But success achieved through disobedience is not true success. It is deception.

i. Spurgeon’s rebuke of results-based theology.

Spurgeon warns:

“Many people in the world judge actions by their immediate results. If a Christian does a wrong thing, and it prospers, then at once they conclude he was justified in doing it. But, ah! Brethren, this is a poor, blind way of judging the actions of men and the providence of God. Do you not know that there are devil’s providences as well as God’s providences?”

Asa’s treaty produced favorable outcomes. But that does not make it righteous. Results do not sanctify disobedience.

ii. Morgan’s warning on deceptive success.

Morgan adds:

“Things which appear successful may be in the life of faith most disastrous.”

Asa solved the problem, but he damaged his soul. He removed the external threat, but forfeited internal faithfulness. His strategy was effective politically but devastating spiritually.

c. “Then King Asa took all Judah, and they carried away the stones and timber of Ramah… and with them he built Geba and Mizpah.”

Asa capitalized on Baasha’s retreat. He dismantled the fortification at Ramah and repurposed the materials to strengthen Judah’s own defensive cities of Geba and Mizpah. On the surface, this looks like wise stewardship and quick strategic action. But the chronicler emphasizes success only so that the reader will soon understand the tragedy behind it.

Asa’s reform era was marked by trust in the Lord. His later years are marked by trust in human politics. This shift — subtle at first — becomes the foundation of his spiritual decline.

Though Asa improves Judah’s defenses, he weakens Judah’s dependence on God. His success becomes the gateway to later judgment.

B. God’s rebuke to King Asa and the king’s response.

1. (2 Chronicles 16:7-9) The word from Hanani the Seer.

“And at that time Hanani the seer came to Asa king of Judah, and said to him: ‘Because you have relied on the king of Syria, and have not relied on the LORD your God, therefore the army of the king of Syria has escaped from your hand. Were the Ethiopians and the Lubim not a huge army with very many chariots and horsemen? Yet, because you relied on the LORD, He delivered them into your hand. For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is loyal to Him. In this you have done foolishly; therefore from now on you shall have wars.’”

God responds immediately to Asa’s misplaced trust. He does not send military defeat but a prophetic rebuke, which is far more significant. Hanani confronts Asa not with political analysis, but with spiritual truth. Asa’s sin is not simply diplomatic failure or unwise strategy. It is unbelief.

a. “Hanani the seer.”

This prophet emerges with boldness similar to Azariah in chapter 15. Although little is known about him, Scripture shows his prophetic lineage. His son will later confront both Baasha of Israel (1 Kings 16:1, 7) and Jehoshaphat of Judah (2 Chronicles 19:2). Hanani therefore stands in a family of courageous men who fear God more than kings.

His presence in Asa’s court shows God’s mercy. Even in Asa’s decline, the LORD sends correction rather than silence.

b. “Because you have relied on the king of Syria, and have not relied on the LORD your God, therefore the army of the king of Syria has escaped from your hand.”

This statement would have shocked Asa. He believed Baasha was the problem, and that Syria was the solution. God reveals the truth: the greatest threat was Syria, not Israel. Judah’s alliance with Syria did not solve a problem; it created a larger one.

Had Asa trusted the LORD, God intended not only to deal with Baasha but to give Asa victory over Syria itself.

Asa’s unbelief forfeited victories he never imagined God would give him.

i. Compromise blinds believers to their true enemies.

Asa thought he was being shrewd. Instead, he aligned himself with the very nation God wanted to judge. Compromise always clouds discernment and leads to alliances with the enemies God desires to defeat.

c. “Because you relied on the LORD, He delivered them into your hand.”

God reminds Asa of his earlier faith when he faced “the Ethiopians and the Lubim… a huge army with very many chariots and horsemen.” That enemy was far greater than Baasha’s blockade. Yet Asa trusted God then, and God honored that faith with miraculous victory.

The tragedy is clear: Asa trusted the LORD in large crises but relied on man in smaller ones.

He forgot that the God who delivered him once could deliver him again.

d. “For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show Himself strong on behalf of those whose heart is loyal to Him.”

This is one of the most profound theological statements in Chronicles. God is not passive. He is actively searching for believers whose hearts are steadfast, to prove Himself strong on their behalf. The issue is not God’s ability, but the believer’s loyalty.

Asa’s distrust deprived God of an opportunity to display His power. Unbelief limits not God’s strength, but the manifestation of it in our lives.

i. Trapp notes that “run to and fro” means deep searching.

God’s eyes do not merely scan lightly. He examines thoroughly. Not one circumstance or one loyal heart escapes His notice.

ii. Meyer marvels at God’s intimate awareness.

There is no heart too dark, no struggle too isolated, no trial too small. God sees all and seeks opportunities to uphold His people. His omniscience is active, not detached.

iii. The issue is loyalty, not magnitude of need.

God delivered Asa against the massive Ethiopian army. He could have easily dealt with Baasha. What God seeks is not political wisdom nor military strength, but a loyal heart.

e. “Therefore from now on you shall have wars.”

Asa’s unbelief carries consequences. By trusting Syria, he invited instability, conflict, and the very thing he hoped to avoid. God's rebuke shows the cascading effects of misplaced trust.

i. Payne outlines the full scope of Asa’s failure.

At one stroke Asa:

• forfeited blessings God had given and intended to continue,

• enticed Syria into treachery and future aggression,

• triggered a century of Syrian interference in Israel’s affairs, and

• abandoned trust in the LORD to seek security in “the arm of flesh” (Jeremiah 17:5).

The decision seemed small — a diplomatic arrangement — yet it altered the spiritual and geopolitical landscape for generations.

2. (2 Chronicles 16:10) Asa rejects the message from Hanani.

“Then Asa was angry with the seer, and put him in prison, for he was enraged at him because of this. And Asa oppressed some of the people at that time.”

Instead of repentance, Asa responds with rage. His downfall accelerates not because he sinned but because he refused correction.

a. “Asa was angry with the seer, and put him in prison.”

He silences the prophet rather than listening to the prophet. This is the tragic pattern of spiritual decline. He who once sought God’s word eagerly now imprisons God’s messenger.

Asa’s pride becomes the driving force of his final years.

i. Asa’s story reveals the danger of spiritual drift.

A man who walked faithfully for decades can still fall late in life when pride replaces humility. The shock is intensified because Asa’s earlier reforms were courageous and genuine. Yet when confronted with sin, he hardened his heart.

ii. Selman notes the uncertain nature of Hanani’s imprisonment.

The “house of stocks” indicates harsh confinement. Asa not only rejected correction but punished it.

b. “And Asa oppressed some of the people at that time.”

Asa lashes out not only at Hanani but at loyal believers in Judah. His rage demonstrates the spiritual insecurity of a compromised man. Those who live in disobedience cannot tolerate the presence of the obedient.

Conviction becomes irritation.
Truth becomes hostility.
The faithful become enemies.

Asa’s early reign was marked by courage, reform, faith, and joy. His later reign is marked by unbelief, pride, oppression, and anger.

3. (2 Chronicles 16:11-14) The sad end of the otherwise promising reign of King Asa of Judah.

“Note that the acts of Asa, first and last, are indeed written in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel. And in the thirty-ninth year of his reign, Asa became diseased in his feet, and his malady was severe; yet in his disease he did not seek the LORD, but the physicians. So Asa rested with his fathers; he died in the forty-first year of his reign. They buried him in his own tomb, which he had made for himself in the City of David; and they laid him in the bed which was filled with spices and various ingredients prepared in a mixture of ointments. They made a very great burning for him.”

The Chronicler ends Asa’s narrative not with triumph but with tragedy. Asa’s life began with faith, courage, and reform. He stood boldly against idolatry, restored true worship, trusted God in war, and led the nation into covenant renewal. Yet the closing years of his reign reveal the danger of spiritual drift. His legacy is mixed: righteous beginnings, but a disappointing ending. Scripture does not hide this reality. Asa is remembered as a good king who did not finish well.

a. “Asa became diseased in his feet, and his malady was severe.”

Asa’s physical decline mirrors his spiritual decline. His foot disease struck him late in life and was serious enough to weaken him for two years before his death. Scholars debate the exact diagnosis, but the point of the text is theological, not medical.

Wiseman notes that gout was uncommon in ancient Palestine, suggesting instead peripheral vascular disease leading to gangrene, which would explain both the severity and fatal outcome. Whatever the precise illness, it was painful, debilitating, and humiliating for a king who once stood strong and fearless.

Clarke, following tradition, suggests gout, while Trapp sees the disease poetically connected to Asa’s sin: the king who “laid the prophet by the heels” now suffers in his feet. Though figurative, it captures a moral truth. His physical affliction reflects spiritual stubbornness.

This was not simply a medical problem. It was the culmination of Asa’s refusal to hear God’s correction through Hanani. This disease is not portrayed as punishment so much as the natural outworking of a hardened heart.

b. “Yet in his disease he did not seek the LORD, but the physicians.”

This verse captures the essence of Asa’s tragic decline. The man who once prayed, “Help us, O LORD our God, for we rest on You” (2 Chronicles 14:11), now refuses to seek the LORD at all. His unbelief in the political crisis led to unbelief in personal suffering. The pattern is unmistakable:

• He refused to rely on God against Syria.

• He refused God’s prophetic correction.

• Now he refuses God’s help in his illness.

Asa’s heart had grown cold. His earlier faith did not automatically carry into old age.

i. Asa lost faith in God because he refused correction.

Spiritual decline rarely happens instantly. Asa hardened himself across several moments, and his refusal to repent made his heart unresponsive to God. The Chronicler offers this as a sober warning for his post-exilic audience — and for us. Past faithfulness does not sanctify present unbelief.

ii. Scripture supports medical care but forbids trusting physicians instead of God.

The Bible speaks positively of physicians:

• Luke, the beloved physician (Colossians 4:14)

• Paul and others healing through means and prayer (Acts 28:9)

• Elders praying and anointing the sick (James 5:14-15)

• Paul advising Timothy to take medicinal wine (1 Timothy 5:23)

Medical care is part of God’s common grace. What Asa did was not using doctors, but replacing the LORD with doctors.

iii. Spurgeon notes that Asa’s physicians were likely occult healers.

Spurgeon warns that ancient physicians often engaged in pagan rituals, charms, and magical arts. Consulting them could involve participation in idolatrous practices. But even if they had been legitimate medical practitioners, Asa’s sin would still have been the same: trust in man instead of trust in God.

iv. Morgan describes Asa’s life as flawed yet sincere.

Morgan’s reflection is gracious: Asa’s deepest desire was right, even though he stumbled. His life brought more blessing than curse. The Chronicler intends us to see both truth and warning. Asa began well, led well, but finished poorly. His story shows how easily a believer can drift late in life.

c. “They made a very great burning for him.”

Asa received full royal honors in burial. His tomb was prepared in advance, a sign of dignity and kingly foresight. His body was laid upon a bed saturated with expensive spices and ointments — a practice used for kings (cf. 2 Chronicles 21:19). The burning refers not to cremation — which Israel did not practice — but to the burning of aromatic spices in massive quantities as a ceremonial sign of mourning and national honor (cf. Jeremiah 34:5).

As Trapp beautifully states:

“He that could drive out that huge army of the Ethiopians, could not drive away death.”

Death is the great equalizer. Asa’s victories could not save him. His faithfulness long ago could not preserve him. His failure in later years did not erase the good he did, but it left a lasting warning.

The Chronicler wants this generation, and every generation, to see the lesson:

It is possible to begin well, to serve God boldly, to experience His power…
and still fail at the end if the heart turns from humble trust to self-reliance.

Asa’s reign ends with both honor and grief. He is remembered as a good king, but a king who stopped seeking the LORD.