Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Kings 14:1
In the second year of Joash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel reigned Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah.
Ch. 2Ki 14:1-7. Reign of Amaziah, king of Judah. He slays his father’s murderers. His victory over the Edomites (2Ch 25:1-4)
1. In the second year of Joash king of Israel ] See above on 2Ki 13:1.
Joash son of Jehoahaz ] R.V. Joahaz. This variation of the orthography is in the Hebrew.
reigned Amaziah king of Judah ] R.V. began Amaziah king of Judah to reign. In verse 23 of this chapter the A.V. renders the same form of the verb (as is often done) by ‘began to reign’.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The history of Judah is resumed 2 Kings 14:1-22, followed by a brief account of the contemporary history of Israel under Jeroboam II 2Ki 14:23-29. The earlier narrative runs parallel with 2 Chr. 25.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
2Ki 14:1-2
In the second year of Joash . . . And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord.
Amaziah
This is, in few but comprehensive words, the character of Amaziah, king of Judah. The commendatory part of it is with the sacred chroniclers a sort of general expression for the obedience of Jewish princes, to the laws of God by Moses, especially to the preservation of the Jewish worship, and the proscription of idolatry in their dominions; and governing their kingdom by these laws, was doing right in His sight. Some monarchs have this commendation, qualified, or with a notice added, that it must be in their case understood with some considerable limitation or restriction. Thus it is said of King Jehoash, that he did that which was right before the Lord, while he remained under the direction of Jehoiada. Thus again, of Amaziah in our text, that he did that which was right, yet not like David his progenitor; or not with a perfect heart, with true sincerity and unreservedness of purpose. He was, at the best, of a mixed character; unsound in principle, and thus unstable in well-doing. It was the exhortation of Jehovah to the Jewish patriarch, that he should walk before Him and be perfect; or, as the word means, unfeigned and upright, in obedience to His commandments. Hezekiah pleads it in the extremity of his affliction, that he walked before Him with a perfect heart. And Asas heart is said to have been perfect with Him, or devoted to Him, while he sat upon the throne of Judah. A deficiency, therefore, in soundness of religious principle and feeling is denoted by a heart not perfect with Him. It is so denoted m the case of Solomon, upon his falling off to idol worship; as, in this place, of that unfaithfulness of Amaziah which was manifest by his inconstancy of life.
1. The first thing which requires notice in the history of Amaziah, is his conduct in the punishment of those who slew his father, Joash. Amaziahs conduct in this instance received unqualified approval. He discharged with fortitude the duty of a prince, in bringing the criminals to justice; and as they were men of power and credit in the realm, it was attended with some danger; hut he avoided all indulgence of revenge, and was content with punishing the murderers alone, although, according to the practice of those times, he might have sacrificed their children also to his vengeance; and in this he had respect, we are informed, to the provision of that law of God, a law in those days greatly disregarded, which forbids that children should be punished for the crimes of their parents. It may always be considered a hopeful sign, when a regard is felt and manifested for the precepts of the word of God as opposed to common practice; and it is still more hopeful, if, in such a case, the influence of strong passions is on the side of custom, and prompts to the breach of Gods commandments. The moderation of this young prince, on religious grounds, was a presumptive evidence that he was partly sincere, although but partly, as appeared soon after. And thus many who prove afterwards unsound, have, in early years and in important instances, perhaps given proof of some hopeful principles, and promises of a life of piety and true obedience to God. And the conclusion to be drawn from this fact is, that the promise thus held out by favourable beginnings, or on some particular occasion, is not to be too confidently trusted. The more mixed and chequered any character is found to be, the more doubtful the evidence of its Christian integrity.
2. The next incident on record of the conduct of this prince is one in which we have a glimpse of a wrong disposition even while he in act obeyed the command of God, and this is a point of some importance. Being engaged in a war against the Edomites, and having raised three hundred thousand men of his own kingdom for this purpose, he proceeded further to augment his force by hiring a large army of Israelites. That people, being at this time idolators, lay under the displeasure of God; and on this ground, when the expedition was about to march, a command was sent from Jehovah by a prophet to the king, enjoining him, as he expected the Divine protection, to dismiss these hired legions; for the Lord, said the messenger, is not among them. But, if thou wilt go, do it, and be strong for battle. God shall make thee fall before the enemy. And here it was that feelings were betrayed which indicated Amaziahs weakness. A considerable sum was given in part of payment of these hired troops; and the first thought in his mind upon receiving such a message was the great loss to which his obedience would expose him. A mind truly devoted to the service of God would not have harboured such a thought; and much less would it have dared to urge such an objection in reply to the Divine command. This showed that worldly motives were of weight with him against religious principle: a disposition was evinced to weigh the loss or inconvenience with the clear duty of obeying. There was not that prompt decisive resolution which a heart upright before God would have conceived and taken on these circumstances. And although he did at length comply on being promised compensation, yet his hesitation in complying was at least an unfavourable symptom. He thus manifested that defect as well of soundness as of firmness of religious principle which led afterward to fatal errors. It will happen frequently that men who are but half sincere, give certain indications of this state of mind before they yield to temptation. There is inclination shewn, as in the instance now before us, to raise difficulties and to make objections; to indulge complaints and murmurings perhaps, rather than yield at once, and with the singleness of a devoted and an upright heart, to the authority of God in His commandments. What will the consequences then be if I obey? Am I to lose the pains and cost I have been at in forming such a project; or some plan, suppose for profit, pleasure, or ambition, which must not be carried further? How is such and such a detriment to be repaired: or such and such an inconvenience to be avoided. How am I to be set free from the connections, or get rid of the engagements, I unhappily have formed for purposes which I am called on to abandon? On what plea, or with what credit, can I now recede, being committed as I am, in such a matter? How, in short, shall I escape embarrassing vexation, if I yield to God and to my conscience? Such are frequently the feelings with which His precepts are obeyed by persons of the character before us. Nay, at last, perhaps, it is fear only which inclines the scale upon the side of duty. Amaziah, we are told, was threatened with defeat if he persisted in his project. Fear of the wrath of God will, indeed, very commonly remain when every trace of apparent love and obedience to Him has long ceased to be visible. They may, indeed, in a sense, do what is right as to the outward action; but not doing it from a real desire to conform to the will of God, their doing wrong may be expected speedily, nay, is but one step further in declension.
3. The next thing, accordingly, which stands on record of this prince is, that he sinned wantonly and greatly against God, by the introduction of idolatry among his subjects. It had pleased God to give him great success in an expedition into Edom. He had ample compensation for his hundred talents by his acquisition both of honour and of treasure in the contest. But instead of feeling so much the more obliged to serve and honour the great Power who gave him victory on this occasion, and pouring contempt upon those idols which were unable to protect their votaries, he adopted them for his gods, and put contempt upon Jehovah. For he brought the gods of Seir, says the inspired historian, and set them up as his gods; he bowed down before them and burnt incense to them, and built altars for them in his realms, as though it were to them, and not to the Almighty, that he owed his splendid triumphs. The offence was also the more daring on his part, because the king his father had fallen into this very transgression, and was punished for it. But his heart was by these circumstances lifted up within him. He was now set free from all restraint. He felt himself above religious fears, and was resolved to do not that which was right in the sight of God, but that which was so in his own eyes. It is here to be observed how very easily a fatal turn of character takes place, when minds are in that doubtful undecided state which we have seen was that of Amaziah. But a little increase in the strength of his temptations; or a little more excitement of his passions; or a little wider opening of the door to sin; or but a little more encouragement from bad example; or a little stronger feeling of security, or ground for a presumption of impunity in sinning; and then those who had at the least till now been cautious; who had shewn some reverence for religion and for God, and been unwilling utterly to disregard his word, or to expose themselves to the certainty of his displeasure, may soon become the open violators of the laws; nay, the contemners both of His authority and honour. It Is thus that some, on entering the world, are found to break at once through the restraining influences of a moral and religious education. It is thus that others, having set out decently, and for a time maintained some appearance of godliness, are observed upon some prosperous change of circumstances, or it may be in the course of an advancing fortune, to reverse their life and habits, to neglect religions duties which they were once careful in discharging, to forsake the sanctuary and profane the Sabbath; to break off the intercourse with pious men, and to make light of sacred things; to indulge openly in sinful pleasures, to adopt without scruple the view and maxims of the world, which are subversive of religion; and to show in these and many other ways, that they have utterly cast off their fear of God and their regard to His commandments. Cases like these are very different from those in which good men are, by the violence, or the surprise, or importunity of a temptation, seen to fall occasionally into open sin against their honest and decided resolutions. There the cause is inadvertence, or supineness, or an infirmity, as St. Paul calls it, of the flesh; or a defeat, perhaps, such as the best men have sustained, after long struggling with temptation. Then, moreover, we see speedy recollection and repentance, and no settled change of life and habits such as this under consideration. But in this the heart is secretly disposed to all the sin which follows. There is no strong feeling or resolve against it.
4. There was one step more, and only one, which could aggravate the offences of this monarch. He had not yet openly defied the power of God, when by His prophet He remonstrated against false gods. But the next thing which we find in his unhappy history is, that he at length became so daring in impiety, as to insult and even threaten one of the prophets who was sent to him upon this very errand. Why hast thou sought after the gods of Seir? was the awakening demand on this occasion. And it might have been conceived that recollection of the past, and a consciousness of his extreme offence, would have produced some feelings of compunction in a mind which once appeared open to the influences of religion. But the answer was, Art thou of the kings council? Are affairs of state any concern of thine? or wilt thou prescribe what gods the king shall adore, or shall set up for worship in his realms? Be prudent and forbear. Why shouldest thou be smitten? which thou wilt be certainly, as he evidently designed to imply, if thou persistest to speak further of the matter. We see here how thoroughly all fear of God was conquered in the mind of Amaziah, and what hardness and insensibility may be induced by habits of sin, even where there were once hopeful appearances of piety. And was this the man who, in his early life, had been so scrupulous in the observance of Gods statutes? To despise the message and insult the messengers of Heaven is an excess, on which many who still are great offenders might not venture. Many retain even in their worst wickedness such a degree of at least servile awe for religion as restrains them from such direct and positive affronts to it and its great Author. Though they are not conscientious in obeying His commands, they do not choose to brave His anger. Yet to such a fearful length may sinners go, even though once fearful of offending; nay, disposed to suffer loss rather than wilfully disobey Him. Let us then learn the danger of a heart not perfect, not truly subdued to the faith of Christ and obedience to God. (Christian Observer.)
Significant facts in Gods government
In this chapter we have a sketch of a succession of kings both of Judah and Israel. Here are two kings of Judah, Amaziah and Azariah, and Joash, Jeroboam, and his son Zachariah, kings of Israel. The whole chapter suggests certain significant facts in Gods government of mankind. The first fact which strikes us is–
I. The enormous freedom of action which he allows wicked men. Here we learn–
1. That God allows wicked men to form wrong conceptions of Himself. All these kings, although descendants of Abraham, who was a monotheist, became idolaters. The high places were not taken away, as yet the people did sacrifice, and burnt incense on the high places. Golden calves, symbols of Egyptian.. worship, were erected at Dan and Bethuel, at the extremities of the dominions. Terribly strange it seems to us that the Almighty Author of the human mind should permit it to think of Him as some material object in nature, or as some production of the human hand. What human father, had he the power, would permit his children to form not only wrong but wicked impressions of himself? For what reason this is permitted, I know not. Albeit it shows His practical respect for that freedom of action with which He has endowed us. Here we learn–
2. That God allows wicked men to obtain despotic dominion over others. All these kings were wicked, Amaziah, Joash, Jeroboam, and Zachariah, and yet they obtained an autocratic dominion over the rights possession, and lives of millions. It is said of Jeroboam, who reigned forty-one years, that he did evil in the sight of the Lord, and departed not from the sins of his father. Antecedently one might have concluded that if a wicked man was allowed to live amongst his fellows, he should be doomed to obscurity and to social and political impotence, but it is not so, Why? Who shall answer? Another fact is–
II. God punishes wicked men by their own wickedness.
1. A wicked man is punished by his own wickedness. Amaziahs conduct is an example. Elated with his triumph over the Edomites, he sought occasion of war with the King of Israel. He sent messengers to Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz, son of Jehu, King of Israel, saying, Come, let us look one another in the face, etc. (verses 8-14). About fifteen years after his defeat he fled from Jerusalem to Lachish to escape assassination, but the assassin pursued him and struck him dead. It is ever so. Wickedness is its own punishment. The wicked passions of a corrupt man are his tormenting devils. Sin is suicidal.
2. A wicked man is punished by the wickedness of others. The thousands of these despotic kings reduced to anguish, destitution, and death, were idolators and rebels against Heaven, and by the hand of wicked men they were punished. Thus it ever is: devils are their own tormentors. Sin converts a community of men into tormenting fiends, man becomes the Satan of man. (David Thomas, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER XIV
Amaziah begins to reign well; his victory over the Edomites,
1-7.
He challenges Jehoash, king of Israel, 8.
Jehoash’s parable of the thistle and the cedar, 9, 10.
The two armies meet at Beth-shemesh; and the men of Judah are
defeated, 11, 12.
Jehoash takes Jerusalem, breaks down four hundred cubits of
the wall; takes the treasures of the king’s house, and of the
temple; and takes hostages, and returns to Samaria, 13, 14.
The death and burial of both these kings, 15-20.
Azariah, the son of Amaziah, made king; he builds Elath,
21, 22.
Jeroboam the second is made king over Israel: his wicked reign
and death, 23-29.
NOTES ON CHAP. XIV
Verse 1. In the second year of Joash] This second year should be understood as referring to the time when his father Jehoahaz associated him with himself in the kingdom: for he reigned two years with his father; so this second year of Joash is the first of his absolute and independent government.-See Calmet.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
In the second year of Joash, i.e. after he began to reign alone; for he reigned two or three years with his father; of which See Poole “2Ki 13:10“.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
In the second year of Joash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel reigned Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah. As Joash king of Israel began to reign in the thirty seventh of Joash king of Judah, 2Ki 13:10, who reigned forty years, Amaziah must therefore begin his reign in the fourth of Joash king of Israel; this therefore must be understood of his second year after he reigned alone, for he reigned two or three years in his father’s lifetime.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Reign of Amaziah of Judah (cf. 2 Chron 25). – 2Ki 14:1-7. Length and spirit of his reign, and his victory over the Edomites. – 2Ki 14:1. Amaziah began to reign in the second year of Joash of Israel. Now as Joash of Israel ascended the throne, according to 2Ki 13:10, in the thirty-seventh year of Joash of Judah, the latter cannot have reigned thirty-nine full years, which might be reckoned as forty (2Ki 12:1), according to the principle of reckoning the current years as complete years, if the commencement of his reign took place a month or two before Nisan, and his death occurred a month or two after, without its being necessary to assume a regency.
2Ki 14:2-4 Amaziah reigned twenty-nine years in the same theocratical spirit as his father Joash, only not like his ancestor David, i.e., according to the correct explanation in 2Ch 25:2, not with (see at 1Ki 11:4), since Amaziah, like his father Joash (see at 2Ki 12:3), fell into idolatry in the closing years of his reign (cf. 2Ch 25:14.). – Only the high places were not taken away, etc.
2Ki 14:5-6 After establishing his own government, he punished the murderers of his father with death; but, according to the law in Deu 24:16, he did not slay their children also, as was commonly the custom in the East in ancient times, and may very frequently have been done in Israel as well. The Chethb is correct, and the Keri is an unnecessary alteration made after Deuteronomy.
2Ki 14:7 The brief account of the defeat of the Edomites in the Salt Valley and of the taking of the city of Sela is completed by 2Ch 25:6-16. According to the latter, Amaziah sought to strengthen his own considerable army by the addition of 100,000 Israelitish mercenaries; but at the exhortation of a prophet he sent the hired Israelites away again, at which they were so enraged, that on their way home they plundered several of the cities of Judah and put many men to death. The Edomites had revolted from Judah in the reign of Joram (2Ki 8:20.); Amaziah now sought to re-establish his rule over them, in which he was so far successful, that he completely defeated them, slaying 10,000 in the battle and then taking their capital, so that his successor Uzziah was also able to incorporate the Edomitish port of Elath in his own kingdom once more (2Ki 14:22). On the Salt Valley ( for in the Chronicles), a marshy salt plain in the south of the Dead Sea, see at 2Sa 8:13. According to 2Ch 25:12 of the Chronicles, in addition to the 10,000 who were slain in battle, 10,000 Edomites were taken prisoners and cast headlong alive from the top of a rock. ( the rock) with the article, because the epithet is founded upon the peculiar nature of the city, was probably the capital of the Edomites, called by the Greeks , and bore this name from its situation and the mode in which it was built, since it was erected in a valley surrounded by rocks, and that in such a manner that the houses were partly hewn in the natural rock. Of this commercial city, which was still flourishing in the first centuries of the Christian era, splendid ruins have been preserved in a valley on the eastern side of the ghor which runs down to the Elanitic Gulf, about two days’ journey from the southern extremity of the Dead Sea, on the east of Mount Hor, to which the Crusaders gave the name of vallis Moysi, and which the Arabs still call Wady Musa (see Robinson, Pal. ii. pp. 512ff., and for the history of this city, pp. 574ff., and Ritter’s Erdkunde, xiv. pp. 1103ff.).
2Ki 14:8-14 War with Joash of Israel. – 2Ki 14:8. Amaziah then sent a challenge to the Israelitish king Joash to go to war with him. The outward reason for this was no doubt the hostile acts that had been performed by the Israelitish troops, which had been hired for the war with Edom and then sent back again (2Ch 25:13). But the inward ground was the pride which had crept upon Amaziah in consequence of his victory over the Edomites, and had so far carried him away, that he not only forgot the Lord his God, to whom he was indebted for this victory, and brought to Jerusalem the gods of the Edomites which he had taken in the war and worshipped them, and silenced with threats the prophet who condemned this idolatry (2Ch 25:14.), but in his proud reliance upon his own power challenged the Israelitish king to war.
2Ki 14:9-10 Jehoash (Joash) answered his insolent challenge, “Come, we will see one another face to face,” i.e., measure swords with one another in war, with a similar fable to that with which Jotham had once instructed his fellow-citizens (Jdg 9:8.). “The thorn-bush on Lebanon asked the cedar on Lebanon for its daughter as a wife for his son, and beasts of the field went by and trampled down the thorn-bush.” This fable is, of course, not to be interpreted literally, as though Amaziah were the thorn-bush, and Jehoash the cedar, and the wild beasts the warriors; but the thorn-bush putting itself upon an equality with the cedar is a figurative representation of a proud man overrating his strength, and the desire expressed to the cedar of a wish surpassing the bounds of one’s condition; so that Thenius is not warranted in inferring from this that Amaziah had in his mind the subjugation of Israel to Judah again. The trampling down of the thorn-bush by a wild beast is only meant to set forth the sudden overthrow and destruction which may come unexpectedly upon the proud man in the midst of his daring plans. 2Ki 14:10 contains the application of the parable. The victory over Edom has made thee high-minded. : thy heart has lifted thee up, equivalent to, thou hast become high-minded. , “be honoured,” i.e., be content with the fame thou hast acquired at Edom, “and stay at home.” Wherefore shouldst thou meddle with misfortune? , to engage in conflict or war. Misfortune is thought of as an enemy, with whom he wanted to fight.
2Ki 14:11-12 But Amaziah paid not attention to this warning. A battle was fought at Beth-shemesh (Ain-Shems, on the border of Judah and Dan, see at Jos 15:10); Judah was smitten by Israel, so that every one fled to his home.
2Ki 14:13-14 Jehoash took king Amaziah prisoner, and then came to Jerusalem, and had four hundred cubits of the wall broken down at the gate of Ephraim to the corner gate, and then returned to Samaria with the treasures of the palace and temple, and with hostages. the Chethb is to be pointed , the vowel being placed after , as in several other cases (see Ewald, 18, b.). There is no ground for altering after the Chronicles (Thenius), although the reading in the Chronicles elucidates the thought. For if Jehoash took Amaziah prisoner at Beth-shemesh and then came to Jerusalem, he no doubt brought his prisoner with him, for Amaziah remained king and reigned for fifteen years after the death of Jehoash (2Ki 14:17). The Ephraim gate, which is generally supposed to be the same as the gate of Benjamin (Jer 37:13; Jer 38:7; Zec 14:10; compare Neh 8:16; Neh 12:39), stood in the middle of the north wall of Jerusalem, through which the road to Benjamin and Ephraim ran; and the corner gate was at the north-western corner of the same wall, as we may see from Jer 31:38 and Zec 14:10. If, then, Jehoash had four hundred cubits of the wall thrown down at the gate Ephraim to the corner gate, the distance between the two gates was not more than four hundred cubits, which applies to the northern wall of Zion, but not to the second wall, which defended the lower city towards the north, and must have been longer, and which, according to 2Ch 32:5, was probably built for the first time by Hezekiah (vid., Krafft, Topographie v. Jerus. pp. 117ff.). Jehoash destroyed this portion of the Zion wall, that the city might be left defenceless, as Jerusalem could be most easily taken on the level northern side.
(Note: Thenius takes a different view. According to the description which Josephus gives of this event ( Ant. ix. 9, 3), he assumes that Jehoash had the four hundred cubits of the city wall thrown down, that he might get a magnificent gate (?) for himself and the invading army; and he endeavours to support this assumption by stating that the space between the Ephraim gate and the corner gate was much more than four hundred cubits. But this assertion is based upon an assumption which cannot be sustained, namely, that the second wall built by Hezekiah (2Ch 32:5) was already in existence in the time of Amaziah, and that the gates mentioned were in this wall. The subjective view of the matter in Josephus has no more worth than that of a simple conjecture.)
– The treasures of the temple and palace, which Jehoash took away, cannot, according to 2Ki 12:19, have been very considerable. , sons of the citizenships, i.e., hostages ( obsides , Vulg.). He took hostages in return for the release of Amaziah, as pledges that he would keep the peace.
2Ki 14:15-17 The repetition of the notice concerning the end of the reign of Joash, together with the formula from 2Ki 13:12 and 2Ki 13:13, may probably be explained from the fact, that in the annals of the kings of Israel it stood after the account of the war between Jehoash and Amaziah. This may be inferred from the circumstance that the name of Joash is spelt invariably here, whereas in the closing notices in 2Ki 13:12 and 2Ki 13:13 we have the later form , the one which was no doubt adopted by the author of our books. But he might be induced to give these notices once more as he found them in his original sources, from the statement in 2Ki 14:17, that Amaziah outlived Jehoash fifteen years, seeing therein a manifestation of the grace of God, who would not destroy Amaziah notwithstanding his pride, but delivered him, through the death of his victor, from further injuries at his hands. As Amaziah ascended the throne in the second year of the sixteen years’ reign of Jehoash, and before his war with Israel made war upon the Edomites and overcame them, the war with Israel can only fall in the closing years of Jehoash, and this king cannot very long have survived his triumph over the king of Judah.
2Ki 14:18-19 Conspiracy against Amaziah. – 2Ki 14:19. Amaziah, like his father Joash, did not die a natural death. They made a conspiracy against him at Jerusalem, and he fled to Lachish, whither murderers were sent after him, who slew him there. The earlier commentators sought for the cause of this conspiracy in the unfortunate result of the war with Jehoash; but this conjecture is at variance with the circumstance that the conspiracy did not break out till fifteen years or more after that event. It is true that in 2Ch 25:27 we read “from the time that Amaziah departed from the Lord, they formed a conspiracy against him;” but even this statement cannot be understood in any other way than that Amaziah’s apostasy gave occasion for discontent, which eventually led to a conspiracy. For his apostasy began with the introduction of Edomitish deities into Jerusalem after the defeat of the Edomites, and therefore before the war with Jehoash, in the first part of his reign, whereas the conspiracy cannot possibly have lasted fifteen years or more before it came to a head. Lachish, in the lowlands of Judah, has probably been preserved in the ruins of Um Lakis (see at Jos 10:3).
2Ki 14:20 “They lifted him upon the horses,” i.e., upon the hearse to which the king’s horses had been harnessed, and brought him to Jerusalem, where he was buried with his fathers, i.e., in the royal tomb.
2Ki 14:21 All the people of Judah, i.e., the whole nation, not the whole of the men of war (Thenius), thereupon made his son Azariah (Uzziah) king, who was only sixteen years old. or is the name given to this king here and 2Ki 15:1, 2Ki 15:6, 2Ki 15:8, 2Ki 15:17, 2Ki 15:23, and 2Ki 15:27, and 1Ch 3:12; whereas in 2Ki 15:13, 2Ki 15:30, 2Ki 15:32, 2Ki 15:34; 2Ch 26:1, 2Ch 26:3, 2Ch 26:11, etc., and also Isa 1:1; Isa 6:1; Hos 1:1; Amo 1:1, and Zec 14:5, he is called or (Uzziah). This variation in the name is too constant to be attributable to a copyist’s error. Even the conjecture that Azariah adopted the name Uzziah as king, or that it was given to him by the soldiers after a successful campaign (Thenius), does not explain the use of the two names in our historical books. We must rather assume that the two names, which are related in meaning, were used promiscuously. signifies “in Jehovah is help;” , “whose strength is Jehovah.” This is favoured by the circumstance adduced by Bertheau, that among the descendants of Kohath we also find an Uzziah who bears the name Azariah (1Ch 6:9 and 1Ch 6:21), and similarly among the descendants of Heman an Uzziel with the name Azarel (1Ch 25:4 and 1Ch 25:18).
2Ki 14:22 Immediately after his ascent of the throne, Uzziah built, i.e., fortified, Elath, the Idumaean port (see at 1Ki 9:26), and restored it to Judah again. It is evident from this that Uzziah completed the renewed subjugation of Edom which his father had begun. The position in which this notice stands, immediately after his ascent of the throne and before the account of the duration and character of his reign, may be explained in all probability from the importance of the work itself, which not only distinguished the commencement of his reign, but also gave evident of its power.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Reign of Amaziah. | B. C. 828. |
1 In the second year of Joash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel reigned Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah. 2 He was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem. 3 And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, yet not like David his father: he did according to all things as Joash his father did. 4 Howbeit the high places were not taken away: as yet the people did sacrifice and burnt incense on the high places. 5 And it came to pass, as soon as the kingdom was confirmed in his hand, that he slew his servants which had slain the king his father. 6 But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin. 7 He slew of Edom in the valley of salt ten thousand, and took Selah by war, and called the name of it Joktheel unto this day.
Amaziah, the son and successor of Joash, is the king whom here we have an account of. Let us take a view of him,
I. In the temple; and there he acted, in some measure, well, like Joash, but not like David, v. 3. He began well, but did not persevere: He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, kept up his attendance on God’s altars and his attention to God’s word, yet not like David. It is not enough to do that which our pious predecessors did, merely to keep up the usage, but we must do it as they did it, from the same principle of faith and devotion and with the same sincerity and resolution. It is here taken notice of, as before, that the high places were not taken away, v. 4. It is hard to get clear of those corruptions which, by long usage, have gained both prescription and a favourable opinion.
II. On the bench; and there we have him doing justice on the traitors that murdered his father, not as soon as ever he came to the crown, lest it should occasion some disturbance, but he prudently deferred it till the kingdom was confirmed in his hand, v. 5. To weaken a factious party gradually, when it is not safe to provoke, often proves the way to ruin it effectually. Justice strikes surely by striking slowly, and is often executed most prudently when it is not executed presently. Wisdom here is profitable to direct. Amaziah did thus, 1. According to the rule of the law, that ancient rule, that he that sheds man’s blood by man shall his blood be shed. Never let traitors or murderers expect to come to their graves like other men. Let them flee to the pit, and let no man stay them. 2. Under the limitation of the law: The children of the murderers he slew not, because the law of Moses had expressly provided that the children should not be put to death for the fathers, v. 6. It is probable that this is taken notice of because there were those about him that advised him to that rigour, both in revenge (because the crime was extraordinary–the murder of a king) and in policy, that the children might not plot against him, in revenge of their father’s death. But against these insinuations he opposed the express law of God (Deut. xxiv. 16), which he was to judge by, and which he resolved to adhere to and trust God with the issue. God visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, because every man is guilty before him and owes him a death; so that, if he require the life for the father’s sin, he does not wrong, the sinner having forfeited it already by his own. But he does not allow earthly princes to do thus: the children, before them, are innocent, and therefore must not suffer as guilty.
III. In the field; and there we find him triumphing over the Edomites, v. 7. Edom had revolted from under the hand of Judah in Joram’s time, ch. viii. 22. Now he makes war upon them to bring them back to their allegiance, kills 10,000 and takes the chief city of Arabia the stony (called Selah—a rock), and gave it a new name. We shall find a larger account of this expedition, 2 Chron. xxv. 5, &c.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Second Kings – Chapter 14 AND Second Chronicles – Chapter 25
Amaziah Reigns in Judah Commentary on 2Ki 14:1-7 AND 2Ch 25:1-5
Amaziah, the son of Joash in Judah, became king after the assassination of his father. He was twenty-five years old and reigned a relatively long reign of twenty-nine years. His mother was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem, of whom nothing more in known. A good, but also sad, thing is recorded of Amaziah’s character. “He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, but not with a perfect heart” (Chronicles), “not like David his father” (Kings). The implication seems to be that Amaziah was a morally good man, but lacked-all important heart righteousness before God. He followed the good example of Joash, his father, but like his father allowed those who desired to continue their private worship in the high places and to burn incense to their false gods. Amaziah was like too many today who give lip-service only to the Lord, thinking that is sufficient for their right standing with Him (Mat 15:7-9).
Amaziah began his reign in strict conformity to the law of Moses, also. He took the assassins of his father and had them executed, but was careful to reject the pagan practice of destroying their families as well. This showed him a humane and God-fearing person (see De 24:16).
Amaziah further set about to strengthen Judah, probably to prevent another humiliating attack from outside sources, such as that of Hazael against his father. He mustered the able-bodied men of Judah and Benjamin above twenty years of age. He found there were 300,000 able to go to war and to bear spear and shield. He used them to attack Edom, in the valley of salt, south of the Dead Sea, and slew ten thousand of them. The place he took from Edom was Selah (rock, later called Petra), but he renamed it Joktheel (subdued of God).
2Ch 25:6
Amaziah Goes to War, 2Ch 25:6-16
2Ki 14:7 (see comments above) is the only record in that book of Amaziah’s war with Edom. Considerably more detail is found here in the Chronicles account. It is apparent that Amaziah conscripted the men of Judah and Benjamin for the purpose of going to war with Edom: However, he does not seem to have felt that he yet had sufficient men for success, so hired a mercenary force from the northern kingdom of Israel, numbering 100,000. For their service Amaziah paid 100,000 talents of silver, or about $2,184,000 in today’s valuation.
God sent a prophet to accost the king for hiring these men from the ungodly northern kingdom. He was told that he could not expect to succeed with men who had renounced God and treated lightly His blessings. In fact, Amaziah was warned to be prepared for defeat by the Edomites if he persisted in carrying the Israelites from the north. Amaziah protested concerning the huge sum he had expended to hire them, and was informed by the prophet that God is able to provide much more than the lost silver in blessings for their obedience (cf. De 8:18). So the king was persuaded to separate the mercenaries from his army, and they returned to their homes in great anger.
So Amaziah rallied his men and led them to battle against Edom. The battle occurred in the valley of salt, immediately south of the Dead Sea, and ten thousand Edomites perished in the battle. Ten thousand more were captured and slaughtered in a horrible manner, thrown from the top of a lofty rock to fall crushed and mangled at its foot. So God did allow Amaziah a great victory, and the decimation of the men would make Edom unable to revolt against Judah for some time to come. Actually this was an attempted reconquest of the nation which had been subject to Judah at an earlier time, but was lost to them in the wicked reign of Jehoram, after which they never again were wholly subject to Judah 2Ch 21:8-10).
The men of Israel, whom Amaziah sent homeward, thus denying them the spoil of battle which they desired, took their spoils from the cities of Judah on their return through them to Samaria. Three thousand were smitten, and much spoil taken from them, an act which would precipitate war eventually.
Meanwhile Amaziah was engaged in a very stupid and foolish act. He had captured the Edomite gods, and instead of destroying them as David would have done (2Sa 5:21), he brought them home to Jerusalem with him, set them up, and bowed himself in worship to them. God sent His prophet again, who chided him for worshipping the gods whose people he had shortly defeated. If they could not help the Edomites, their people, how amazing that Amaziah should think they could help him! But King Amaziah interrupted the prophet, demanding to know who had made him one of the king’s councellors. He was threatened with death if he persisted in lecturing the king.
So the prophet desisted from his preaching to the king, for his heart was not right with God, and he refused to hear. The prophet gave him a final warning. God had now determined to destroy King Amaziah because 1) he had turned to the false gods of Edom; 2) he rejected the Lord’s counsel through His prophet (cf. Jer 6:10).
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
AMAZIAH IN JUDAH AND JEROBOAM II. IN ISRAEL
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.
2Ki. 14:1. Amaziah, king of JudahHistorian returns to the records concerning Judah.
2Ki. 14:3. Yet not like David, his fatherChronicles says, Not with a perfect heart, acting in general obedience to Gods law, yet lacking in spiritual loyalty and heartfelt piety.
2Ki. 14:5. Slew his servants which had slain his fatherIt was a Mosaic law that a son shouldas both an act of justice and filial pietyavenge his fathers murder; but he did this without malice, leaving their children untouched, contrary to the prevailing custom of antiquity. This act of revenge was wisely delayed till the kingdom was confirmed in his hand, thus indicating that these servants were men of state influence and eminence.
2Ki. 14:7. Called the name of it JokkeelIts former name, , the rock; , afterwards Arabia Petra, situate amid steep rocks. This ancient Petra is still a scene of splendid ruins. Its new namesignifies given, or conquered by God.
2Ki. 14:8. Come, let us look one another in the faceAn insolent challenge; perhaps inspired by desire to avenge the massacre of his ancestors by Jehu (chapter 9), more probably from elation over his success with the Edomites.
2Ki. 14:9. The thistle that was in LebanonA parable couched in most contemptuous form. Amaziah a mean thistle; cedar of Lebanon being, in its grand contrast, the sovereign of Israel; the wild beast being the desolating army of Israel. But thistle should be briar or briar bush. Give thy daughter to my son to wifeOnly a superior could assume such an air of authority and make such a demand.
2Ki. 14:19. They made a conspiracy against himMal-administration of the kingdom followed upon this fatal war, and was accompanied with spiritual apostasy (2Ch. 25:27); and the ruin of Jerusalem, the sack of the temple, with the captivity of the children carried away as hostages, roused Judah to conspire and overthrow him.
2Ki. 14:20. They brought him on horses , i.e., on the royal equestrian chariot.
2Ki. 14:21. All the people of Judah took AzariahSo that the popular hostility was not against Amaziahs family, but against himself.
2Ki. 14:22. He built Elath, and restored it to JudahElath was the Edomite seaport (see on 1Ki. 9:26).
HOMILETICS OF 2Ki. 14:1-22
MILITARY AMBITION
AMAZIAH was a warrior-king, and throughout his reign we hear the incessant clash of sabres and the hurried movements of the military. He dragged his country down to disaster and defeat, and was himself a victim of the vicissitudes of war. He forsook the Lord and became infatuated with idolatry; and we learn once more how certain and how terrible is the downfall of the man who abandons Jehovah (2Ch. 25:14-16). His career illustrates the different phases of military ambition.
I. Military ambition may be associated with a defective piety (2Ki. 14:1-4). He did what was right, but not with a perfect heart, like David. His standard of right was too low. His piety was not vigorous and independent enough to lift him above all human examples, or even to strive to imitate the best. He chose an inferior example to copy. He did according to all things as Joash his father did. There was a remarkable similarity in the lives of Joash and Amaziah. Both began their reigns, professing zeal for the worship of Jehovah, and afterwards lapsed into idolatry: both ignored the warnings of faithful prophets; and both, having forsaken God, perished by the hands of the assassins. War and religion, though representing directly opposite principles, are often strangely united in the history of nations, but always to the damage of religion. The war-spirit is an enemy to genuine piety. The love of military glory weakens the religions conscience.
II. Military ambition delights in scenes of slaughter and bloodshed (2Ki. 14:5-7). It is mentioned to his credit, that when Amaziah avenged his fathers death by the execution of his murderers, he did not slay the children of the murderers, according to the usual custom in the East. He so far respected the law of God (2Ki. 14:6). But we soon read of great slaughter in his Idumean wars, and of the wanton destruction of 10,000 prisoners, who were thrown down from a precipice and broken to pieces (2Ch. 25:12). When the war-demon is once let loose, it riots in scenes of carriage and cruelty. The indulgence of military ambition begets an indifference and recklessness in the treatment of human life.
III. Military ambition generates a boastful spirit and an insatiable love of conquest (2Ki. 14:8-10). Amaziahs victories in Edom turned his head. He felt equal to anything. He was ambitious to reign over Israel. He challenged the rival kingdom to battle, and the reply of Jehovah, in the form of a sarcastic parable, piqued his vanity and determined him to risk the encounter. There are some minds to whom success is more dangerous than failure.
Good success
Is oft more fatal far than bad, one winning throw,
Cast from a flattering die, tempting a gamester
To hazard his whole fortune.
Chapman.
IV. Military ambition is often humbled by ignominious defeat (2Ki. 14:11-14). It was not long before Amaziah had reason to regret his boastful challenge. By the prompt action of his rival hostilities were precipitated; Judah was utterly defeated, the king taken prisoner, the wall of Jerusalem broken, the temple stripped of its treasures, and hostages taken to prevent any further molestation. Another illustration of Pro. 16:18.
Ah, curst ambition! to thy lures we owe
All the great ills that mortals bear below.
Tickell.
Of all kinds of ambition, military ambition is most disappointing, and subject to great fluctuations of fortune. History teems with examples of how the ambitious warrior is at length defeated with the same weapons and by the same methods with which he sought to defeat and humble others. The stone falls back upon the head of him who casts it into the air.
V. Military ambition is detrimental to good government.
1. It is dangerous to the ruler himself (2Ki. 14:17-20). The disastrous issue of the war with Israel created national dissatisfaction. The nobles were scandalized that their children were draughted away as hostages, and the people were grievously annoyed to see their city invaded and their loved temple pillaged by a despised rival. The disaffections grew into serious proportions. A conspiracy was formed to assassinate Amaziah, as the cause of all their trouble. The fear and anguish of that period would be the bitterest experience of his life. Of what avail now were his military powers and his bannered hosts? The interests of his own people had been sacrificed to his ambitious folly, and he at length becomes the victim of their disaffection and anger. What Hume says of Richard Cur de Lion would apply with equal force to Amaziah: He was better calculated to dazzle men by the splendour of his enterprise than either to promote their happiness or his own grandeur by a sound and well-regulated policy.
2. It entails trouble to his successor (2Ki. 14:21-22). The conquest of Edom by his father required Azariah to capture and fortify the seaport of Elath. The results of past victories can be retained only by ceaseless vigilance and effort. The conquests of the father often impose serious burdens upon the son.
LESSONS:The love of military glory is the bane of any nation.
2. The throne that is won by war is lost by war.
3. It is a nobler ambition to be good than to be great; to build up and consolidate rather than destroy.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
2Ki. 14:1-4. Imperfect piety. I. May be genuine up to a certain point. He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord. II. Is lacking in thorough consecration. Not like David his father. III. Islimited by the example it imitates. He did according to all things as Joash his father did.
2Ki. 14:3. In cases like that of Amaziah, where faith is not completely and sincerely an affair of the heart, it has no firm foundation, and is quickly overwhelmed, either by unbelief or by superstition. A half-and-half disposition in what is good is a bridge that leads to what is evil. In sacred and spiritual affairs we have not to ask, How did our fathers do? but, How would God have us do? Because Amaziah only did as his father had done, he finally fared as his father had fared.Lange.
2Ki. 14:5-6. A revengeful spirit. I. Knows how to wait for its opportunity. II. Carries out its purpose with terrible exactness. III. Is controlled by respect for the Divine law.
It is as much a sin to leave the guilty unpunished, as to punish the innocent. Right and justice are distorted by both courses. Where regicides are allowed to go unpunished, out of pity or weakness, there all justice ceases. The throne and the civil authority are not established by weak concessions, but by righteousness.Lange.
2Ki. 14:6. But the children of the murderers he slew notwherein he showed some faith and courage that he would obey this command of God, though it was very hazardous to himself, such persons being likely to seek revenge for their fathers death.Pool.
2Ki. 14:7-14. The intoxication of success. I. Leads to indiscreet and boastful challenges (2Ki. 14:7-8). II. Indignantly repudiates all advice and warning. (2Ki. 14:9-11). III. Precipitates hmiliating defeat and widespread disaster (2Ki. 14:12-14).
2Ki. 14:7-14. Extraordinary success in our undertakings is a great temptation to arrogance. Those must be strong legs which can support great good fortune and prosperity. God blesses our undertakings in order that we may become not haughty, but humble (Gen. 32:10-11). Every undue self-exaltation robs us of the blessing again.Wurt. Summ.
2Ki. 14:8. We learn from Chronicles that Amaziah had hired a large body of Israelite soldiers for his Iduman war, but, warned by a prophet, had dismissed them. These persons, disgusted at their treatment, ravaged the Jewish territory on their way back to Samaria (2Ch. 25:13), thus affording to Amaziah a sufficient ground of quarrel. This, however, was the occasion rather than the cause of the war. The cause was Amaziahs pride and ambition. His success against Edom had so elated him that he thought himself more than a match for his northern neighbours (comp. 2Ki. 14:10, and 2Ch. 25:19).Speakers Comm.
2Ki. 14:9. People in the East very often express their sentiments in a parabolic form, especially when they intend to convey unwelcome truths, or a contemptuous sneer. This was the design of the admonitory fable related by Joash in his reply. The thistle, a low shrub, might be chosen to represent Amaziah, a petty prince; the cedar, a powerful sovereign of Israel; and the wild beast that trode down the thistle, the overwhelming army with which Israel could desolate Judah. But, perhaps, without making so minute an application, the parable may be explained generally as describing in a striking manner the effects of pride and ambition, towering far beyond their natural sphere, and sure to fall with a sudden and ruinous crash. The moral of the fable is contained in 2Ki. 14:10.Jamieson.
The destroyer is represented as passing by, not as sent out by the cedar. So Jehoash might wish to suggest to Amaziah that in case he meddled with things beyond his province he would be suddenly smitten by some judgment of the Almighty. He does not proudly boast and presume to tread down Amaziah and Judah by his own warriors and martial prowess.Whedon.
2Ki. 14:10. He who desires to correct another for his arrogance must take good care not to fall into the same fault himself. Blame and complaint for the pride and arrogance of others often come from hearts which exalt themselves too much. Do not parade your wisdom and strength, if you really possess them. The Lord breaks down even the cedars of Lebanon (Psa. 29:5; Isa. 2:12-13).Lange.
2Ki. 14:12. The author of Chronicles notes that Amaziahs obstinacy, and his consequent defeat and captivity, came of God (2Ch. 25:20), were judgments upon him for an idolatry into which he had fallen after his conquest of Edom.Speakers Comm.
Oh, the depth of Divine justice and wisdom in these outward administrations! The best cause, the best man, doth not ever fare best. Amaziah did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, Joash evil; Amaziah follows David, though not with equal paces; Joash follows Jeroboam; yet is Amaziah shamefully foiled by Joash. Whether God yet meant to visit upon this king of Judah the still odious unthankfulness of his father Jehoiada, or to plague Judah for their share in the blood of Zechariah and their late revolt to idolatry; or whether Amaziahs too much confidence in his own strength, which moved his bold challenge to Joash, were thought fit to be thus taken down; or whatever other secret ground of Gods judgment there might be, it is not for our presumption to inquire.Bp. Hall.
2Ki. 14:18-22. The vicissitudes of a monarchs life. I. His fame is the great theme of the historian (2Ki. 14:18). II. He is the subject of dark and dangerous conspiracy (2Ki. 14:19). III. Notwithstanding the most anxious precautions, he falls a victim to the assassin (2Ki. 14:19). IV. His dead body may be more reverenced than his character (2Ki. 14:20). V. His successor reaps the benefit of his successes (2Ki. 14:21-22).
2Ki. 14:19. His turning after the gods of Edom (2Ch. 25:27), his defeat by Jehoash, the hostages taken of him, and the spoliation of the temple, all served to make the last half of his reign unpopular. The discontent of the kingdom culminated in conspiracy. So he perished like his father (chap. 2Ki. 12:20).Whedon.
2Ki. 14:20. They conveyed his body back to Jerusalem in the royal chariot and with the horses which had brought him to Lachish. The combination of relentless animosity against the living prince with the deepest respect for his dead remains is very characteristic of an Oriental people.Speakers Comm.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
C. THE REIGN OF AMAZIAH IN THE SOUTH 14:122
Amaziah the thistle king, is another example of a good start and a tragic end. The account of his reign moves through three stages: (1) his hopeful beginning (2Ki. 14:1-7); (2) his disastrous defeat (2Ki. 14:8-14); and (3) his treacherous death (2Ki. 14:15-22).
Eighth King of Judah
AMAZIAH BEN JOASH
796767 B.C.
(Strength of Yahweb)
2Ki. 14:1-20; 2 Chronicles 25
Synchronism
Amaziah 1 = Joash 2
Contemporary Prophets
Several unnamed
Mother: Jehoaddan
Appraisal: Good & Bad
A king ready for battle Job. 15:24
1. AMAZIAHS HOPEFUL BEGINNING (2Ki. 14:1-7)
TRANSLATION
(1) In the second year of Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz king of Israel, Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah began to reign. (2) Twenty-five years old was he when he began to reign, and he ruled twenty-nine years in Jerusalem; and the name of his mother was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem. (3) And he did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, yet not like David his father; according to all which his father Joash did, so did he. (4) Only the high places he did not remove; yet the people were offering sacrifices and burning incense in the high places. (5) And it came to pass when he had the kingdom firmly in his control, that he smote his servants who had smitten his father the king. (6) But the sons of the assassins he did not slay according to mat which is written in the book of the Law of Moses which the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be smitten on account of the sons, nor the sons on account of the fathers; but each man shall be executed for his own sin. (7) He slew of Edom in the vale of salt twenty thousand, and took Selah by war; and the name of it is called Joktheel unto this day.
COMMENTS
The authors of both Kings and Chronicles place Amaziah of Judah among the good kings, and yet in his reign there was much amiss. His reign bears quite a marked similarity to that of his father Joash (2Ki. 14:3). Both kings started out better than they ended. Both were zealous for the Lord at first, but turned to idolatry at last. Both opposed themselves to prophets and treated their rebukers with scorn. Both roused conspiracy against themselves by their misconduct and were murdered by malcontents. Further, both were unsuccessful in war, had to withstand a siege on their capital, and bought off their enemy by the surrender of the greater part of their wealth, including the treasures of the Temple.
Only on one score does Amaziah receive the reproof of the author of Kings: He failed to remove the high places (2Ki. 14:4). It was not until the reign of Hezekiah that any attempt was made to abolish the use of these local shrines and enforce the law that insisted on a central sanctuary for national worship. On the other hand, the author specifically points to one very commendable action of this king. When Amaziah had the kingdom firmly under his control he ordered those who had assassinated his father to be executed (2Ki. 14:5; cf. 2Ki. 12:20). But he refused to follow what was standard policy among rulers in the ancient Near East and have the sons of the assassins slain. Here Amaziah was submitting to the Law of Moses which stipulated that sons were not to be executed for the sins of their fathers (2Ki. 14:6). The particular law referred to is found in Deu. 24:16. The reference to Amaziah governing his conduct by this law is fatal to the modern critical notion that Deuteronomy was written by some anonymous persons sometime early in the reign of Josiah over a century after the times of Amaziah.
Edom had revolted against Judah and had recovered its independence during the reign of Jehoram some forty years before the time of Amaziah (cf. 2Ki. 8:20). Since subjugation of Edom was vital to the prosperity of Judah, Amaziah resolved to launch a massive effort once again to conquer that land. According to Chronicles, he mustered an army of four hundred thousand men, which included a hundred thousand mercenaries from the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Rebuked by a prophet for want of faith in enlisting the services of the Israelite mercenaries, Amaziah consented to dismiss them and lead his army, now reduced by twenty-five per cent, into battle against the Edomites and other southern tribes.
The campaign met with great success. Ten thousand of the enemy fell in battle and an equal number were captured and ruthlessly executed by being thrown from a high cliff (2Ch. 25:12). The valley of salt which was the scene of the battle is usually identified with the sunken plain at the southern extremity of the Dead Sea. The climax of this campaign was the capture of the almost impregnable Edomite capital of Selah, later known to the Greeks as Petra. Following the lead of many great conquerors, Amaziah gave the city a new name Joktheel, i.e., subdued by God. While the new name persisted until the time that the annals of Amaziah were written (2Ki. 14:7), it did not attach itself permanently to the place. By the time of Isaiah, Obadiah and Jeremiah, the city was again known as Selah.
2. AMAZIAH S BOASTFUL CHALLENGE AND DISASTROUS DEFEAT (2Ki. 14:8-14)
TRANSLATION
(8) Then Amaziah sent messengers unto Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz son of Jehu king of Israel, saying, Come let us look at each other face to face. (9) And Jehoash king of Israel sent unto Amaziah king of Judah, saying, The thistle which was in Lebanon sent unto the cedar which was in Lebanon, saying, Give your daughter to my son for a wife. And a wild beast of the field which was in Lebanon passed by and trampled the thistle. (10) You have indeed smitten Edom, and your heart has lifted you up; glory in this, and remain in your house. Why should you mess around with misfortune that you might fall, you and Judah with you? (11) But Amaziah did not hearken, and Jehoash king of Israel went up and they looked one another in the face, he and Amaziah king of Judah in Bethshemesh which belongs to Judah. (12) And Judah was smitten before Israel, and they fled each man to his tent. (13) And Jehoash king of Israel took Amaziah king of Judah the son of Joash, son of Ahaziah, in Beth-shemesh, and he came to Jerusalem, and tore down the wall of Jerusalem from the Ephraim gate unto the corner gate, four hundred cubits. (14) And he took all the gold and silver and all the vessels found in the house of the LORD, and in the treasures of the kings house, and the hostages; and he returned to Samaria.
COMMENTS
Upon returning to Judah, Amaziah discovered that the Israelite mercenaries whom he had dismissed had vented their anger by rampaging through cities of Judah killing some three thousand men and taking much spoil (2Ch. 25:13). His confidence bolstered by his successes in Edom, Amaziah determined to avenge the actions of those Israelite soldiers by challenging the Northern king, Jehoash, to a military showdown (2Ki. 14:8). Josephus adds that Amaziahs message demanded that the Northern state submit to the authority of the Davidic dynasty or else face military action (Ant. IX, 9.2).
Jehoash responded to the challenge of Amaziah by means of a fable. The thistle, the lowest and most despised plant of the forest, sent to the mighty and stately cedar to request the hand of his daughter in marriage. In antiquity to request a mans daughter in marriage was tantamount to a claim to be his equal. But a mere beast of the field happened by and trampled the thistle into the dust of the earth (2Ki. 14:9). The application of the fable is obvious: Amaziah had enjoyed a measure of success against Edom and now, like the thistle, thought he was equal to the cedar, the mightiest of kingdoms Amaziah had best stay at home and glory in his past triumphs. If he ventured forth against Israel he would find himself as easily crushed as the thistle beneath the feet of a wild animal (2Ki. 14:10). Jehoash was as confident of success as was Amaziah. His three triumphs over the powerful Arameans was just as good evidence of his military might as Amaziahs one victory over Edom.
The note from Jehoash did not deter Amaziah, but, if Josephus can be believed, spurred him on the more to make his expedition. Jehoash anticipated that confrontation was inevitable and decided that the best defense was an offense; and so his armies crossed the border to carry the battle into Judah. The two forces met at Beth-shemesh, which lies almost due west of Jerusalem on the western frontier of Judah (2Ki. 14:11). Apparently Jehoash decided to avoid the direct line of attack along the mountain highway and led his troops through the Philistine plain in what must have been planned as a sneak attack.
In this test of strength between the two kingdomsthe first since the days of Abijam over a hundred years earlierthe armies of Judah were utterly crushed with each soldier fleeing to his tent, i.e., his home (2Ki. 14:12). Amaziah himself was captured and brought to Jerusalem where, under threat of death, he was forced to order the gates of Jerusalem opened to Jehoash. The king of Israel broke down the walls of Jerusalem, not as a result of siege operations, but as a conqueror who desired to leave his enemy as defenseless as possible. The gate of Ephraim was the main gate on the north side of the city, known elsewhere as the Benjamin gate (cf. Jer. 37:13; Zec. 14:10). The corner gate is generally thought to have been at the northwestern angle of the wall where it turned southward, but this is uncertain. What is certain is that Jehoash destroyed some four hundred cubits, i.e., two thousand yards, of the northern wall of Jerusalem (2Ki. 14:13). The spoils of war fell to the conquerorthe objects of value which had accumulated in the Temple since Joash of Judah had bribed Hazael with its treasure. The treasures of the kings house, including all the spoils Amaziah had captured in Edom, were also taken, as well as hostages which would discourage a retaliatory attack by Judah at a later time (2Ki. 14:14).
3. AMAZIAHS TREACHEROUS DEATH (2Ki. 14:15-22)
TRANSLATION
(15) Now the rest of the acts of Jehoash which he did, and his might, and how he fought with Amaziah king of Judah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (16) And Jehoash slept with his fathers, and he was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel; and Jeroboam his son reigned in his place. (17) And Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah lived after the death of Jehoash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel fifteen years. (18) And the rest of the acts of Amaziah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (19) And they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem; and he fled to Lachish. And they sent after him to Lachish, and they slew him there. (20) And they put him upon horses, and he was buried in Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David. (21) And all the people of Judah took Azariah who was sixteen years old, and they made him king in the place of his father Amaziah. (22) He built Elath, and restored it to Judah, after that the king slept with his fathers.
COMMENTS
Having just related what must be regarded as the most dramatic and decisive accomplishment of the reign of Jehoash of Israel, the author repeats with only slight variation 2Ki. 13:11-12 which is the concluding statement regarding his reign (2Ki. 14:15-16). Amaziah outlived his Northern adversary by fifteen years (2Ki. 14:17).
Like his father before him, Amaziah died in a conspiracy. He had aroused much dissatisfaction by his importation of foreign idols (2Ch. 25:27), and no doubt by his military inaction after his defeat by Jehoash of Israel. Through the last fifteen years of his life Amaziah seems to have remained passive, cowed by his one defeat. When he got wind of the conspiracy, Amaziah fled to Lachish on the southwestern frontier of Judah. But his enemies were too numerous and too powerful, and Amaziah was assassinated in Lachish (2Ki. 14:19). Though he had died in disgrace at the hands of his own servants, the conspirators were minded to treat the royal corpse with respect. The body of Amaziah was brought back to the capital upon horses, i.e., upon the horse-drawn chariot, and buried in Jerusalem (2Ki. 14:20).
For the first time in the history of Judah the record states that the people took the initiative in selecting the ruler. They elevated Azariah to the throne (2Ki. 14:21). Elsewhere this king is called more frequently, Uzziah.[577] Both names are similar in meaning, Uzziah meaning he whose strength is Yahweh and Azariah meaning he whose help is Yahweh. Some think that upon becoming king the boy changed his name; but the evidence is that this king was known indifferently by two names.
[577] Azariah occurs eight times in 2Kings and once in Chronicles; Uzziah occurs four times in 2Kings, twelve times in II Chronicles and in Isaiah, Hosea, Amos and Zechariah.
The statement that Azariah was sixteen at the time he was made king raises certain chronological problems. 2Ki. 14:21 seems to relate what the people did after the death of Amaziah. However, chronological considerations demand that this action of making Azariah king must have taken place during the lifetime of his father, perhaps not long after Amaziahs ignominious defeat at the hands of Jehoash of Israel. Thiele has Azariah (Uzziah) coming to the throne as coregent in 790 B.C., twenty-three years before the assassination of his father. If this chronology is correct, then Azariah was sixteen years old in 790 B.C. when he became coregent, and thirty-nine when he became sole king.
2Ki. 14:22 seems to confirm the notion that Azariah served as coregent with Amaziah for a time. Azariah built Elath after the king (i.e., Amaziah) slept with his fathers. This statement would be superfluous unless Azariah had spent some time as coregent. The reconstruction of Elath would have opened the southern sea lanes to Judah for the first time since the days of Jehoshaphat.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE
THE KINGDOMS AT HIGH TIDE
2Ki. 13:10 to 2Ki. 15:7
Help came to Israel in the midst of the Aramean oppression from an unexpected quarter. In 802 B.C. the Assyrian king Adadnirari III attacked Damascus and inflicted serious casualties on Benhadad II. From that point on, Israel began to gradually recover her lost territories and emerge from the half century of humiliating submission to Damascus. The text under study in this chapter deals with (1) the period of recovery (2Ki. 13:10 to 2Ki. 14:22); and (2) the heyday period of both Israel and Judah (2Ki. 14:23 to 2Ki. 15:7).
REVIEW OF CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE
I. FACTS TO MASTER
A. How did each of the following figure in the events of this chapter?
1. Jehoash
4. Elisha
7. Azariah
2. Amaziah
5. Hazael
8. Jonah
3. Jeroboam
6. Benhadad
9. Jotham
B. What happened at each of the following locations?
1. Samaria
4. Joktheel
7. Lachish
2. Aphek
5. Edom
8. Elath
3. Selah
6. Beth-shemesh
9. Gath-hepher
C. Of what importance were each of the following?
1. bow and arrows
4. ten thousand men
2. bones
5. four hundred cubits
3. three times
II. QUESTIONS TO PONDER
1.
Why did king Joash refer to Elisha as the chariot of Israel and the horsemen thereof?
2.
Explain what was meant by the two symbolic acts per formed in the death chamber of Elisha.
3.
How did Amaziah manifest obedience to the Lord in the early part of his reign?
4.
What war crime did Amaziah commit in Edom?
5.
How does the career of Amaziah illustrate the folly of pride?
6.
Explain the fable which Jehoash of Israel wrote in reply to a challenge from Amaziah.
7.
Why does the author of Kings devote so little attention to the prosperous reigns of Jeroboam and Azariah (Uzziah)?
8.
How did Azariah come to be a leper?
Drawings by Horace Knowles
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XIV.
THE REIGN OF AMAZIAH IN JUDAH, AND OF JEROBOAM II IN ISRAEL.
(1-17) THE REIGN OF AMAZIAH. (Comp. 2 Chronicles 25)
(2) Jehoaddan.The Hebrew text, which is supported by the LXX., has Jehoaddin (perhaps, Jehovah is delight; comp. Isa. 47:8, and the Divine name Naaman).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
REIGN OF AMAZIAH, KING OF JUDAH, 2Ki 14:1-22.
1. In the second year of Joash Amaziah’s father reigned in Jerusalem forty years. 2Ki 12:1. In his thirty-seventh year Joash the son of Jehoahaz began to reign in Samaria. 2Ki 13:10. Hence it would seem that Amaziah’s accession must have taken place in (not the second, but) the third or fourth year of Joash the son of Jehoahaz. To account for this difficulty some adopt the hypothesis of a co-regency, as stated in note on 2Ki 13:1. But this is unnecessary, as the apparent discrepancy may be more easily accounted for by supposing that the first and last years of the forty years’ reign of Joash king of Judah were only parts of two years. Thus Keil: “These forty years may have amounted only to thirty-eight and a half or thirty-eight and three quarters, in case that Joash attained to the sovereignty a couple of months before Nisan, and his death occurred a few months after Nisan.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Reign Of Amaziah, King Of Judah c. 796-767 BC ( 2Ki 14:1-22 ).
As with many kings of Judah Amaziah’s reign was seen as ‘right in the eyes of YHWH’, although with a decided ‘but’. The ‘but’ explains why he was partly successful, and partly not. It is made clear that on the whole he walked in accordance with the law of Moses (not fully because he did not rid the land of ‘high places’), but that that did not prevent him from foolish pride which led to his downfall, and yet once again the loss of Judah’s treasures. It was probably this foolhardy escapade, and the subsequent loss of treasure, that began the dissatisfaction that would fester on, probably accompanied by more folly, until it resulted fifteen years later in the popular insurrection that led to his assassination and replacement by his capable son Azariah (Uzziah).
Analysis.
a
b And he did what was right in the eyes of YHWH, yet not like David his father. He did according to all that Joash his father had done. However, the high places were not taken away. The people still sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places (2Ki 14:3-4).
c And it came about, as soon as the kingdom was established in his hand, that he slew his servants who had slain the king his father, but the children of the murderers he did not put to death, in accordance with what is written in the book of the law of Moses, as YHWH commanded, saying, “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin” (2Ki 14:5-6).
d He slew of Edom in the Valley of Salt ten thousand, and took Sela by war, and called the name of it Joktheel, to this day (2Ki 14:7).
e Then Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz son of Jehu, king of Israel, saying, “Come, let us look one another in the face” (2Ki 14:8).
f And Jehoash the king of Israel sent to Amaziah king of Judah, saying, “The thistle which was in Lebanon sent to the cedar which was in Lebanon, saying, “Give your daughter to my son to wife,” and there passed by a wild beast which was in Lebanon, and trod down the thistle. You have indeed smitten Edom, and your heart has lifted you up. Glory in it, and remain at home, for why should you meddle to your hurt, that you should fall, even you, and Judah with you?” (2Ki 14:9-10).
e But Amaziah would not hear. So Jehoash king of Israel went up, and he and Amaziah king of Judah looked one another in the face at Beth-shemesh, which belongs to Judah. And Judah was put to the worse before Israel, and they fled every man to his tent (2Ki 14:11-12).
d And Jehoash king of Israel took Amaziah king of Judah, the son of Jehoash the son of Ahaziah, at Beth-shemesh, and came to Jerusalem, and broke down the wall of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim to the corner gate, four hundred cubits. And he took all the gold and silver, and all the vessels which were found in the house of YHWH, and in the treasures of the king’s house, the hostages also, and returned to Samaria (2Ki 14:13-14).
c Now the rest of the acts of Jehoash which he did, and his might, and how he fought with Amaziah king of Judah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? And Jehoash slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel, and Jeroboam his son reigned instead of him (2Ki 14:15-16).
b And Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah lived after the death of Jehoash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel fifteen years. Now the rest of the acts of Amaziah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2Ki 14:17-18).
a And they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem, and he fled to Lachish, but they sent after him to Lachish, and slew him there, and they brought him on horses, and he was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David, and all the people of Judah took Azariah, who was sixteen years old, and made him king in the room of his father Amaziah. He built Elath, and restored it to Judah, after that the king slept with his fathers (2Ki 14:19-22).
Note that in ‘a’ Amaziah began to reign, and in the parallel he came to an ignominious end. In ‘b’ we learn of his behaviour, and in the parallel we are referred to the chronicles of the kings of Judah for further detail of his behaviour. In ‘c’ he avenged his father’s murder by putting to death his father’s murderers, and in the parallel Jehoash of Israel, who had fought with him and defeated him, died. In ‘d’ he was victorious against the Edomites, and in the parallel he was himself vanquished by the Israelites. In ‘e’ he called on Jehoash to ‘look him in the face’ and in the parallel the looking in the face took place and Amaziah was humiliated. Central in ‘f’ was Jehoash’s plea that he did not make a fool of himself.
2Ki 14:1
‘In the second year of Joash son of Joahaz king of Israel began Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah to reign.’
Amaziah the son of Joash of Judah began to reign in the second year of Joash of Israel, the latter being the son of Joahaz (a shortened from of Jehoahaz). The apparent discrepancy that this raises can be removed by recognising that in Judah co-regencies took place regularly (ensuring the succession as well as blooding the ‘new king’). Dates are sometimes based on the commencement of such a co-regency, and sometimes on the basis of the sole reign.
2Ki 14:2
‘He was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem, and his mother’s name was Jehoaddin of Jerusalem.’
Amaziah was twenty five years old when he began his reign, and he reigned for twenty nine years in Jerusalem, (the city that YHWH had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel to put His Name there, simply because David had chosen it. It was a tribute to His servant David, and Amaziah inherited the blessing). Jehoaddan, the name of the new queen mother, means ‘YHWH has given pleasure’.
2Ki 14:3
‘And he did what was right in the eyes of YHWH, yet not like David his father. He did according to all that Joash his father had done.’
Like his father Joash he did what was right in the eyes of YHWH. In other words he ensured that the worship of YHWH was conducted in accordance with the Law of Moses, and that he and the people, at least outwardly, walked in obedience to the covenant. But it was not with the same zeal as his ‘father’ David, for David had stamped out worship in the syncretistic high places, and had ensured pure worship at two legal sanctuaries.
2Ki 14:4
‘However, the high places were not taken away. The people still sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places.’
Like his father Joash, and a number of kings before him, Amaziah had not stamped down on the high places where illegal syncretised YHWH worship was carried out, often at hillside sanctuaries associated with Baal and Asherah.
2Ki 14:5
‘And it came about, as soon as the kingdom was established in his hand, that he slew his servants who had slain the king his father,’
What he also did was honour his father’s name by seeking justice on his murderers, in accordance with the Law of Moses which prescribed the death penalty for murder. But it is clear that this was only possible after a period of civil war in which he was finally triumphant. The Jerusalem party, who had assassinated his father, having failed to obtain the backing which would enable them to take the throne, were probably finally ousted by the people of the land.
2Ki 14:6
‘But the children of the murderers he did not put to death, in accordance with what is written in the book of the law of Moses, as YHWH commanded, saying, “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.” ’
In carrying out the sentence he was careful to ensure that he obeyed the Law of Moses in what it said about not punishing the children for the father’s sin. This injunction was found in Deu 24:16. This demonstrated that a further good point concerning Amaziah was that he was seeking to follow the Law of Moses punctiliously. (Assyrian practise was that the family’s of assassins of kings died with them).
2Ki 14:7
‘He slew of Edom in the Valley of Salt ten thousand, and took Sela by war, and called the name of it Joktheel, to this day.’
Furthermore it was apparent that YHWH was with him because he was able to invade Edom and slaughter ten military units in the Valley of Salt (although many men would probably flee from the units and escape the slaughter), which was the marshy plain in the Arabah south of the Dead Sea. Furthermore during that war he captured Sela (which means ‘the Rock’) permanently enough for it to be renamed Joktheel ‘to this day’. Renaming a city was a comparatively rare occurrence and indicated permanent occupancy. By this means he was seeking to redress the previous failure of Jehoram (2Ki 8:20-22).
This invasion probably took place because, in view of the military problems that Judah had been having due to Hazael’s incursion, and the unrest that had led to Joash’s assassination, Edom had seen an opportunity of interfering with the trade routes, or even trying to take them over,. Important trade routes ran through the Negeb from the King’s Highway towards Egypt, and to the port of Elath on the Red Sea, which gave access to south Arabia, both of which could be affected by Edom.
It is doubtful if this Sela was the city of Petra, which was certainly also called Sela, because he does not appear to have gained control of Elath (see 2Ki 14:22). Had he been so successful that he had captured Petra, that would hardly have been so. The name means ‘the Rock’, and could apply to a number of sites. Comparison with Jdg 1:36 might indicate a site in the Arabah south of the Dead Sea, which may well have been a city overseeing the trade routes.
2Ki 14:8
‘Then Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz son of Jehu, king of Israel, saying, “Come, let us look one another in the face.” ’
Having succeeded in his invasion of Edom Amaziah was now emboldened to take on Israel. He may have known how weak it was in the days of Jehoahaz and not have recognised how Jehoash of Israel had rebuilt its strength. Possibly his hope in sending the message was that Israel would surrender and tribute. In view of 2Ki 14:11 to ‘look one another in the face’ could only signify the intention to do battle. (Chronicles explains a further reason for his animosity due to the behaviour of some Israelite mercenaries whom he had employed and then not used. But the author of Kings wants to lay full emphasis on the foolhardiness of Amaziah’s act, and the arrogance out of which it arose).
2Ki 14:9-10
‘And Jehoash the king of Israel sent to Amaziah king of Judah, saying, “The thistle which was in Lebanon sent to the cedar which was in Lebanon, saying, “Give your daughter to my son to wife,” and there passed by a wild beast which was in Lebanon, and trod down the thistle. You have indeed smitten Edom, and your heart has lifted you up. Glory in it, and remain at home, for why should you meddle to your hurt, that you should fall, even you, and Judah with you?” ’
Jehoash of Israel tried to warn him off, probably not so much out of consideration for him as in order not to have to waste his own resources in fighting against Judah when the driving out of Aram was his prime concern. His warning was in the form of a parable and followed a well known pattern (compare Jdg 9:7-15). He was stressing to Amaziah both his arrogance and his smallness. Compared with Israel Judah was like a thistle contrasted with a cedar, a thistle that could easily be trodden down. Let him therefore continue to glory in his victory over Edom and not be foolish enough to take on someone as large as Israel, something which could only result in he himself being hurt. Again the author of Kings is seeking to bring out Amaziah’s foolhardiness..
2Ki 14:11
‘But Amaziah would not hear. So Jehoash king of Israel went up, and he and Amaziah king of Judah looked one another in the face at Beth-shemesh, which belongs to Judah.’
But Amaziah was obstinate, and insisted on facing up to Israel in battle, so Jehoash went up to Beth-shemesh ‘which belongs to Judah’ (i.e. is in contrast with other cities named Beth-shemesh, for example in Naphtali) and ‘looked him in the face’. The fact that they met at Beth-shemesh in the north west of Judah may suggest that there was a border quarrel taking place between the two countries in that area which may have been part of the reason for Amaziah’s challenge. Again it could have had to do with the control of trade routes which were important means of wealth in those days.
2Ki 14:12
‘And Judah was put to the worse before Israel, and they fled every man to his tent.’
The consequence was that Judah were defeated and had to flee the battlefield. Fleeing to their tents might be literal (fleeing back to their camp) or may indicate that they disbanded and made for their homes.
2Ki 14:13
‘And Jehoash king of Israel took Amaziah king of Judah, the son of Jehoash the son of Ahaziah, at Beth-shemesh, and came to Jerusalem, and broke down the wall of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim to the corner gate, four hundred cubits.’
Having captured Amaziah, Jehoash then began to teach him a lesson. He went with him to Jerusalem and broke down part of the wall of Jerusalem from the Gate of Ephraim to the Corner Gate (four hundred cubits is around roughly two hundred metres or six hundred feet) .
2Ki 14:14
‘And he took all the gold and silver, and all the vessels which were found in the house of YHWH, and in the treasures of the king’s house, the hostages also, and returned to Samaria.’
Having done that he took all the gold, silver and valuable vessels in both the Temple and the king’s palace complex, and along with hostages for Judah’s good behaviour (who would be high level Jerusalem officials, princes and even wives), he returned to Samaria. This description of the denuding of Judah of its treasures is regularly the author’s way of expressing YHWH’s displeasure. There is in it also a warning against trusting in fleeting riches. See 2Ki 12:18; 2Ki 18:15; 1Ki 15:18 where it happened to ‘good’ kings, and 2Ki 16:8; 2Ki 24:13; 1Ki 14:6 where it happened to ‘bad kings’.
2Ki 14:15
‘Now the rest of the acts of Jehoash which he did, and his might, and how he fought with Amaziah king of Judah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?’
Further details of the campaign against Judah, and of Jehoash’s other exploits (some of which have already been described) were to be found in the official annals of the kings of Israel. This repetition of what had already been stated in 2Ki 13:12 has the purpose of firstly relating the death of Jehoash to the death of Amaziah who survived him for a further fifteen years, and secondly of pointing to where the details of the battle with Amaziah, looked at from Israel’s point of view, could be found. (Amaziah’s annals, with which the author was also familiar, probably told a slightly different story).
2Ki 14:16
‘And Jehoash slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel, and Jeroboam his son reigned instead of him.’
But judgment was to come on Jehoram in its own way, for eventually he ‘slept with his fathers’ and was buried in Samaria, leaving Amaziah to enjoy the continuation of his life for a further fifteen years. It seems clear that the author appeared to see this as YHWH’s punishment on Jehoash for his treatment of Amaziah.
2Ki 14:17
‘And Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah lived after the death of Jehoash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel fifteen years.’
This ties in with the fact that Jehoash of Israel reigned for sixteen years (2Ki 13:10), Amaziah came to the throne in his second year and survived him for fifteen years, thus reigning for twenty nine years (2Ki 14:2).
So Amaziah continued to live for a further fifteen years. This is against the idea that his assassination was directly related to this failure against Israel and the subsequent loss of the treasures of Judah. On the other hand those failures may well have sowed the beginnings of discontent, and may be a pointer to the fact of how foolishly he continued to act, with the result that certain powerful parties in Jerusalem felt that it was time that he was removed and replaced by the capable Ahaziah, who would already be reigning as co-regent.
2Ki 14:18
‘Now the rest of the acts of Amaziah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?’
The details concerning the remainder of Amaziah’s acts were to be found in the official annals of the kings of Judah. It may be significant that we are not here advised to look in them for the details of his affray with Jehoash and Israel.
2Ki 14:19
‘And they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem, and he fled to Lachish, but they sent after him to Lachish, and slew him there.’
As a result of a conspiracy at the court Amaziah had to flee to Lachish, Judah’s second city, but so powerful were his opponents that he was not even safe in Lachish, and he was assassinated there.
2Ki 14:20
‘And they brought him on horses, and he was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David.’
Nevertheless his body was treated with due honour, and was brought back in solemn procession (‘on horses’) to Jerusalem where he was buried with his fathers in the city of David. This would probably have been more due to the influence of the ‘people of the land’ than to the conspirators.
2Ki 14:21
‘And all the people of Judah took Azariah, who was sixteen years old, and made him king in the room of his father Amaziah.’
The fact that ‘all the people of Judah’ came together to make Azariah king probably indicates that they were not pleased at what had happened and came together to prevent a coup. They were determined that they would continue to be ruled over by a true son of David. The sixteen years old may refer to the age at which he had become co-regent. They had made him ‘king’ then, and they confirmed it now.
2Ki 14:22
‘He built Elath, and restored it to Judah, after that the king slept with his fathers.
Subsequently Azariah achieved what his father had failed to achieve in spite of his partial victory over Edom, and that was to capture Elath, rebuild it and fortify it, and restore it to Judah. This would enable an important extension of trade with south Arabia which would add to Judah’s wealth. The point of putting this statement here was in order to demonstrate that he had succeeded where Amaziah had failed.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Reign Of Jehoash (Joash) King Of Israel c. 2Ki 798-782/1 BC ( 2Ki 13:10 to 2Ki 14:16 ).
The reign of Jehoash, King of Israel presents us with another interesting literary phenomenon, for the author first presents us with a brief summary of Jehoash’s reign, ending in the usual closing formula (2Ki 13:10-13), and then goes on to describe his presence at Elisha’s deathbed (2Ki 13:14-21), and his successful wars with Benhadad of Aram (2Ki 13:22-25) and with Amaziah king of Judah (2Ki 14:8-14), before ending for a second time, although in slightly altered fashion, with a similar closing formula to that in 2Ki 13:12-13 (2Ki 14:15-16). In between all this he opens up the reign of Amaziah, king of Judah (2Ki 14:1 ff), something which he does not normally do until he has closed down the reign of the king of Israel during whose reign he came to the throne (thus confirming that the first closing formula in 2Ki 13:12-13 is deliberate).
It is clear from all this that the author has done all this deliberately:
Firstly because he wanted to continue following his previous pattern of closing off one reign before he opened up another (thus 2Ki 13:12-13).
Secondly because as with the taking of Elijah and the confirmatory call of Elisha in chapter 2, which was also placed outside the pattern of regnal formulae, he similarly wanted to put the record of Elisha’s death and its consequences to be outside the pattern of regnal formulae so as to highlight it and separate it off from the history of the kings. Both episodes were seen as in some way other worldly. (Both Elisha episodes include reference to the chariots and horsemen of Israel, giving them a clear heavenly connection).
Thirdly because he nevertheless recognised at the same time that all that followed did also require to be closed off with a (parallel) closing formula about Jehoash, he introduced a further closing formula in 2Ki 14:15-16, but in such a way that it was outside the regular pattern (it comes within the opening and closing formulae of Amaziah) and by making it teach a lesson about the reign of Amaziah. The whole section is actually very carefully thought out.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
2Ki 14:1-22 The Reign of Amaziah Over Judah (796-767 B.C.) 2Ki 14:1-22 records the story of the reign of Amaziah over Judah.
2Ki 14:23-29 The Reign of Jeroboam II Over Israel (783-753 B.C.) 2Ki 14:23-29 records the account of the reign of Jeroboam II over Israel.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Amaziah King in Judah
v. 1. In the second year of Joash, son of Jehoahaz, king of Israel, reigned Amaziah, the son of Joash, king of Judah, v. 2. He was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name, v. 3. And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, v. 4. Howbeit, the high places were not taken away, v. 5. And it came to pass, as soon as the kingdom was confirmed in his hand, v. 6. But the children of the murderers he slew not, v. 7. He slew of Edom, v. 8. Then Amaziah, v. 9. And Jehoash, the king of Israel, sent to Amaziah, king of Judah, saying, The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was In Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife; and there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon, and trode down the thistle. v. 10. Thou hast indeed smitten Edom, and thine heart hath lifted thee up, v. 11. But Amaziah, v. 12. And Judah was put to the worse before Israel, v. 13. And Jehoash, king of Israel, took Amaziah, king of Judah, the son of Jehoash, the son of Ahaziah, at Beth-shemesh, v. 14. And he took all the gold and silver, and all the vessels that were found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house, v. 15. Now, the rest of the acts of Jehoash which he did, and his might, v. 16. And Jehoash slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel; and Jeroboam, his son, reigned in his stead. v. 17. And Amaziah, the son of Joash, king of Judah, lived after the death of Jehoash, son of Jehoahaz, king of Israel, fifteen years, v. 18. And the rest of the acts of Amaziah, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah? v. 19. Now, they, v. 20. And they brought him on horses, v. 21. And all the people of Judah, v. 22. He built Elath,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
2Ki 14:1-29
REIGNS OF AMAZIAH, SON OF JOASH KING OF JUDAH, OVER JUDAH, AND OF JEROBOAM, SON OF JOASH KING OF ISRAEL, OVER ISRAEL.
2Ki 14:1-20
THE REIGN OF AMAZIAH OVER JUDAH. This chapter takes up the history of the kingdom of Judah from the each of 2Ki 12:1-21; with which it is closely connected. The writer, after a few such general remarks as those with which he commonly opens the history of each reign (2Ki 12:1-4), proceeds to relate
(1) the punishment by Amaziah of the murderers of his father (2Ki 12:5, 2Ki 12:6);
(2) the war of Amaziah with Edom (2Ki 12:7);
(3) the challenge which he sent to Joash King of Israel, that king’s reply, and the war which followed (2Ki 12:8-16); and
(4) the circumstances of Amaziah’s death (2Ki 12:17-20). Between 2Ki 12:14 and 2Ki 12:16 there is interposed a summary of the reign of King Joash of Judah, which is little more than a repetition of 2Ki 13:12, 2Ki 13:13, and is thought by many to be an interpolation.
2Ki 14:1
In the second year of Joash son of Jehoahaz King of Israel reigned Amaziah the son of Joash King of Judah. Again the chronology is defective. If Joash of Israel ascended the throne in the thirty-seventh year of Joash of Judah (2Ki 13:10), and the latter reigned forty years (2Ki 12:1), Amaziah cannot have become king till the fourth or fifth year of the Israelitish Joash, instead of the second. The ordinary explanation of commentators is a double accession; but this is unsatisfactory. It is best to allow that the chronology of the later half of the Israelite kingdom is in confusion.
2Ki 14:2
He was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 9.’ 9. 3) and the author of Chronicles (2Ch 25:1) confirm these numbers. And his mother’s name was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem. Josephus (l.s.c.) calls her Jodade, but the LXX. have, more correctly, Joadim.
2Ki 14:3
And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, yet not like David his father. Only one King of Judah hitherto, viz. Asa, had obtained the praise that he “did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, as did David his father“ (1Ki 15:11). All the others had fallen short more or less; and Amaziah fell short in many respects. He was wanting in “a perfect heart” (2Ch 25:2), i.e. a fixed intention to do God’s will; he was proud and boastful (2Ki 14:10); he gave way to idolatry in his later years (2Ch 25:14), and he despised the reproof of the prophet who was sent to rebuke his sin (2Ch 25:16). Though placed among the “good kings’ by the authors of both Kings and Chronicles, it is, as it were, under protest, with a distinct intimation that, although better than most of his predecessors, he did not reach a high standard. He did according to all things as Joash his father did. There is something of Oriental hyperbole in this statement, which must be understood in the spirit, not in the letter. The two kings were differently circumstanced, and history did not “repeat itself” in their reigns. The position of Joash with respect to Jehoiada finds no parallel in the circumstances of the life of Amaziah. Still, the lives are parallel to some extent. Both kings began better than they ended. Both were zealous for Jehovah at first, but turned to idolatry at last. Both opposed themselves to prophets, and treated their rebukes with scorn. Both reused conspiracy against them by their misconduct, and were murdered by the malcontents. Further, both were unsuccessful in war, had to withstand a siege of their capital, and bought off their enemy by the surrender of the greater part of its wealth, including the treasures of the temple.
2Ki 14:4
Howbeit the high places were not taken away. No king ventured to touch the “high places” until the time of Hezekiah, by whom they were put down (2Ki 18:4). Even Asa did not remove them (1Ki 15:14). They were remnants of an old ancestral worship which went back to the time of the judges, and which had been connived at by judges and kings and prophets. Local feeling was everywhere in their favor, since they provided for local needs, and enabled men to dispense with the long] and tedious journey to the distant Jerusalem. As yet the people did sacrifice and burnt incense on the high places; literally, were sacrificing and burning incense; i.e. continued the practice, which had come down to them from their ancestors. (On the morality and legality of the practice, see the comment on 1Ki 3:2.)
2Ki 14:5
And it came to pass, as soon as the kingdom was confirmed in his hand. Joash had been murdered in Jerusalem by conspirators (2Ki 12:20). A time of trouble had, no doubt, supervened. The conspirators would not wish to see Amaziah placed upon the throne, and may have opposed and delayed his appointment. But their efforts proved fruitless. After a time, the young king was confirmed (literally, “strengthened”), i.e. settled and established in his kingdom, all opposition being overcome or dying away. This seems to be what the writer means. He cannot intend a confirmation by a foreign suzerain, which the phrase used might import (2Ki 15:19), when he has given no hint of any subjection of the kingdom to any foreign power, or indeed of any serious attack on its independence. That he slew his servants. Jozachar and Jehozabad were “servants” of Joash, apparently domestic servants employed in his palace, and are therefore reckoned “servants” also of his successor. Which had slain the king his father. In the “house of Millo,’ where he lay sick. They “slew him on his bed” (see 2Ch 24:25).
2Ki 14:6
But the children of the murderers he slew not. It was the ordinary usage in the East for the sons of traitors to share the fate of their fathers. A Greek poet went so far as to say that a man was a fool who put to death the father, and allowed the son to live. The practice had a double ground. Sons, it might be assumed, would be cognizant of their father’s intention, and would so be accessories before the fact. And the law of claim, or “blood-feud,” would make it dangerous to spare them, since they would be bound to avenge their father’s death on his destroyer. That the practice prevailed among the Israelites appears from Jos 7:24, where we find the children of Achan involved in his fate, and again from 2Ki 9:26, where we are told that Naboth’s sons suffered with their father. But it was contrary to an express command of the Law, as the writer goes on to show. According unto that which is written in the book of the Law of Moses. “The book of the Law of Moses” ( ) may be either the Pentateuch regarded as one book, or Deuteronomy, the particular” book” of the Pentateuch in which the passage occurs. In either case the passage is fatal to the theory of the late’ composition of Deuteronomy, which is here found to have ruled the conduct of a Jewish king a hundred and fifty years before Manasseh, two hundred before Josiah, and two hundred and eighty before the return from the Captivitythe dates assigned to Deuteronomy by recent “advanced” critics. Wherein the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin. As usual, when one sacred writer quotes another, the quotation is not exact. “But” ( ) is inserted at the beginning of the final clause, and the form of the verb in the same clause is modified. It seems to be intended that we should be made to feel that it is the sentiment or meaning conveyed, and not the phraseology in which it is wrapped up, that is of importance.
2Ki 14:7
He slew of Edom in the valley of salt ten thousand. Edom had revolted from Judah and recovered complete independence in the reign of Jehoram, about fifty years previously (2Ki 8:20). Since that time the two countries had remained at peace. Now, however, Amaziah resolved upon a great effort to resubjugate them. According to Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 9.9. 1) and Chronicles (2Ch 25:5), he levied an army of 400,000 men300,000 Jews, and 100,000 hired Israeliteswith which he marched against the three nations of the Amalekites, the Idumaeans, and the Gabalites. Rebuked by a prophet for want of faith in calling to his aid the wicked Israelites, he consented to dismiss them, and made the invasion at the head of his own troops only. These were carefully organized (2Ch 25:5), and met with a great success. Ten thousand of his enemies fell in battle, and an equal number were made prisoners. These last were barbarously put to death by being precipitated from the top of a rock (2Ch 25:12). “The valley of salt,” the scene of the battle, is probably identified with the sunken plain, now called Es Sabkah, at the southern extremity of the Dead Sea. This is “a large flat of at least six miles by ten, occasionally flooded” (Tristram), but dry in the summer.time. It is full of salt springs, and is bounded on the west and northwest by a long ridge of pure salt, known as the Khasm Usdum, so that the name “valley of salt” would be very appropriate. And took Selah by war. Selah with the article (has-Selah) can only be the Idumaean capital, which the Greeks called Petra ( or ), and which is one of the most remarkable sites in the world. In the rocky mountains which form the eastern boundary of the Arabah or sandy slope reaching from the edge of the Sabkah to the Red Sea, amid cliffs of gorgeous colors, pink and crimson and purple, and ravines as deep and narrow as that of Proffers, partly excavated in the rook, partly emplaced upon it, stood the Edomite town, difficult to approach, still more difficult to capture, more like the home of a colony of sea-gulls than that of a number of men. Petra is graphically described by Dean Stanley, and has also received notice from Robinson, Highten, and others. And called the name of it Joktheel; i.e. “subdued by God.” The name took no permanent hold. Selah is still “Sela” in Isaiah (Isa 16:1), Obadiah (Oba 1:3), and Jeremiah (Jer 49:16). It is known only as “Petra” to the Greeks and Romans. Unto this day; i.e. to the time of the writer who composed the account of Amaziah’s reign for the ‘Book of the Kings,’ and whoso words the author of Kings transcribes here as so often elsewhere.
2Ki 14:8
Then Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz son of Jehu, King of Israel, saying. Amaziah had a cause of complaint against Jehoash, or at any rate against his subjects, which does not appear in the narrative of Kings. The author of Chronicles tells us that, when Amaziah dismissed his Israelite mercenaries, they were offended, and vented their anger by an inroad into his territories (2Ch 25:13), where they killed three thousand men and “took much spoil.” This was a clear casus belli, if Amaziah chose to consider it such. Come, let us look one another in the face. A rude message, if it was actually couched in these terms. But perhaps the writer substitutes the gist of the message for the language in which it was wrapped up. Josephus says that Amaziah wrote a letter to Joash, and required him to submit himself and people to the authority of the Jewish state, and thus restore the state of things which had existed under David and Solomon. Otherwise the sword must decide between them (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 9.9. 2). Whatever its terms, pride and self-confidence, the result of his success against Edom, were at the root of the challenge.
2Ki 14:9
And Jehoash the King of Israel sent to Amaziah King of Judah, saying. According to Josephus, the reply to the challenge was given in a formal letter, of which he presents us with a copy-
“King Joash to King Amaziah [sends greeting]:
“Once upon a time there was in Mount Lebanon a very tall cypress, and also there was a thistle. And the thistle sent to the cypress, saying,’ Contract thy daughter in marriage to my son.’ And while this was transacting, a wild beast passed by and trod down the thistle. Let this be a warning to thee not to cherish immoderate desires, and not, because thou hast had success against Amalek, to pride thyself thereupon, and so draw down dangers both upon thee and upon thy kingdom.”
The force of the original message is much weakened in this paraphrase. The thistle that was in Lebanon. “Thistle” is a better translation than “thorn-bush” (Keil), first, as a meaner, growth, and secondly, as more likely to be trodden down by a wild beast. The monarch intends to say that the meanest thing in the vegetable world sent to the grandest, claiming equality. Sent to the cedarcertainly “the cedar.” and not “the cypress,” as translated by Josephusthat was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife. Nube pari was a Roman maxim; and the rule was one generally established throughout the ancient world. To ask a man’s daughter in marriage for one’s self or for one’s son was to claim to be his equal. And there passed by a wild beastliterally, a beast of the fieldthat was in Lebanon (on Lebanon as the haunt of wild beasts, see Son 4:8), and trode down the thistle. So leveling with the dust the pride of the impertinent one. We must not seek an exact application of all the details either of a fable or of a parable. It is not required that metaphors should “run on all fours.”
2Ki 14:10
Thou hast indeed smitten Edom (see 2Ki 14:7, and the comment), and thine heart hath lifted thee upi.e; made thee proud, exalted thee above measureglory of this, and tarry at homei.e; rest content with the glory which thou hast gained in thy Edomite war; make thy boast thereof, but do not affront fresh dangersfor why shouldest thou meddle to thy hurtliterally, why wilt thou meddle with misfortune?that thou shouldest fall, even thou, and Judah with thee? Joash was as confident of success, if it came to war, as Amaziah. His three victories over Syria (2Ki 13:25) were, he thought, at least as good evidence of military strength as Amaziah’s one victory over Edom.
2Ki 14:11
But Amaziah would not hear. The message of Joash was not conciliatory, but provocative. On hearing it, Amaziah (as Josephus says, ‘Ant. Jud.,’ 9.9. 3) was the more spurred on to make his expedition. Therefore Jehoash King of Israel went up. “Joash,” as Bahr says, “did not wait for the attack of Amaziah, but anticipated his movements, and carried the war into the enemy’s country.” Defensive warfare often requires such an Offensive movement. And he and Amaziah King of Judah looked one another in the facee.g; came to an engagementat Beth-shemesh, which belongeth to Judah. Beth-shemesh was assigned to Judah by Joshua (Jos 19:38), and lay on its western frontier line. Its position is marked by the modern Ain-Shems, which lies nearly due west of Jerusalem, on the road from Hebron to Jaffa. Ain-Shems itself is an Arab village, but “just to the west of it are the manifest traces of an ancient site”. The position commands the approach from the Philistine plain; and we may suspect that Joash, avoiding the direct line of approach, led his troops to the attack through Philistia, as was so often done by the Syrians in their attacks on the Maccabees (see 1 Macc. 3:40; 13:12, 13; 15:40; 16:4-8, etc.).
2Ki 14:12
And Judah was put to the worse before Israel; and they fled every man to their tents; i.e. “to their homes” (see the comment on 2Ki 13:5). This was the first trial of strength between the two nations of which we have any distinct account. It resulted in the complete discomfiture of Israel. There was another great struggle in the time of Pekah and Ahaz, wherein Judah suffered even more severely (see 2Ch 28:6-8).
2Ki 14:13
And Jehoash King of Israel took Amaziah King of Judah, the son of Jehoash the son of Ahaziah at Beth-shemeshJosephus says (l.s.c.) that Amaziah was deserted by his troops, who were seized with a sudden panic and fled from the fieldand came to Jerusalem, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem. According to Josephus, Joash threatened his prisoner with death unless the gates of Jerusalem were opened to him, and his army admitted into the town; and it was upon Amaziah’s representations that the surrender was made as soon as the Israelite army appeared before the place. The breach in the wall was therefore not the result of siege operations, but the act of a conqueror, who desired to leave his enemy as defenseless as possible. From the gate of Ephraim; i.e. the main gate in the northern wall of the citythat by which travelers ordinarily proceeded into the territory of the tribe of Ephraim. In later times it seems to have been called indifferently “the gate of Ephraim” (Neh 8:16; Neh 12:39) and “the gate of Benjamin” (Jer 37:13; Zec 14:10). The great north road, which passed through it, led across the Benjamite into the Ephraim-its territory. Unto the corner gate. The, “corner gate” is generally thought to have been that at the north-western angle of the City wall, where it turned southward, but this is perhaps doubtful. The exact line of the city wall in the time of Amaziah is exceedingly uncertain. Four hundred cubits; six hundred feet, or two hundred yards. This seems to have been the entire distance between the two gates. As there were at least thirteen gates in the circuit of the walls (Neh 3:1-31; Neh 12:31-39; Zec 14:10), which were probably not mere extensive than those of the present town, the distance of two hundred yards between one gate and another would not be improbable, the average distance being about three hundred yards.
2Ki 14:14
And he took all the gold and silver, and all the vessels that were found in the house of the Lord. As Joash of Judah had, fifteen or twenty years previously, stripped the temple of its treasures to buy off the hostility of Hazael (2Ki 12:18), there could not have been at this time very much for Joash of Israel to lay his hands on. Still, whatever there was passed into the possession of the Israelite king. And in the treasures of the king’s house. Neither can this have amounted to much, unless the booty taken from Hazael after his defeats (2Ki 14:25) was very considerable. And hostages. This is a new feature in the warfare of the time; but hostages were given and taken from an early date by the Persians (Xen; ‘Cyrop.,’ 4.2. 7; Herod; 6.99), the Greeks, and the Romans.
2Ki 14:15, 2Ki 14:16
Now the rest of the acts of Jehoash which he did, and his might, and how he fought with Amaziah King of Judah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? And Jehoash slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel; and Jeroboam his son reigned in his stead. These verses are repeated with very slight alterations from 2Ki 13:11, 2Ki 13:12. Curiously, on both occasions they are out of place. It is scarcely worth while to consider how they came into the text at this point, since no explanation could be more than a conjecture. In point of fact, they are redundant.
2Ki 14:17
And Amaziah the son of Joash King of Judah lived after the death of Jehoash son of Jehoahaz King of Israel fifteen years. This note of time is based on 2Ki 14:2, which makes Amaziah begin to reign in the second year of Joash of Israel, and hold the throne for twenty-nine years. If he really began to reign in the fourth year of Joash, he would have survived him only thirteen years (see the comment on 2Ki 14:2).
2Ki 14:18
And the rest of the acts of Amaziahespecially the circumstances of his war with Edom, as related in 2Ch 25:5-13, his idolatry (2Ch 25:14), and the rebuke which he received from one of God’s prophets (2Ch 25:15, 2Ch 25:16) in consequenceare they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
2Ki 14:19
Now they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem. The author of Chronicles connects this conspiracy with the idolatry of which Amaziah was guilty (2Ch 25:27); but, though his subjects may have been offended by his religions changes, and have become alienated from him in consequence, the actual conspiracy can scarcely have been prompted by an act which was fifteen, or at any rate thirteen, years old. It is more likely to have sprung out of dissatisfaction with Amaziah’s military inaction from and after his defeat by Joash. While Jeroboam H. was carrying all before him in the north, recovering his border, pushing it as far as Hamath, and even exercising a suzerainty over Damascus (2Ki 14:25, 2Ki 14:28), Amaziah remained passive, cowed by his one defeat, and took no advantage of the state of weakness to which he had reduced Edom, but sat with folded hands, doing nothing. The conspirators who removed Amaziah, and placed his son Azariah, or Uzziah, upon the throne, may be credited with the wish and intention to bring the period of inaction to an end, and to effect in the south what Jeroboam was effecting in the north. It is true that Azariah was but sixteen years of age, but he may have given indications of his ambition and capacity. Sixteen, moreover, is the time of manhood in the East, and the conspirators had probably waited until Azariah was sixteen in order that his competency to reign should not be disputed. As soon as he was on the throne he initiated the warlike policy which they desired (see verse 22). And he fled to Lachish. Lachish, one of the south-western Judaean towns (Jos 15:39), was at all times a fortress of importance. It resisted Joshua (Jos 10:3, Jos 10:31), and was taken by storm. It was fortified by Jeroboam against the Egyptians (2Ch 11:9). It was besieged and taken by Sennacherib. The position is marked by the modern Um-Lakis, on “a low round swell or knoll,” between Gaza and Beit-Jibrin, about thirteen miles from Gaza and nearly thirty-five from Jerusalem. But they sent after him to Lackish, and slew him there. So the author of Chronicles (2Ch 25:27) and Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ Jos 9:9. 3); but details are wanting.
2Ki 14:20
And they brought him on horses; literally, on the horses, which must mean “on his horses.” Probably Amaziah had fled to Lachish in the royal chariot, and his body was now brought back in it to Jerusalem. The conspirators were evidently minded to treat the royal corpse with all respect. And he was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David; i.e. the city on the eastern hill, which David took from the Jebusites (see the comment on 1Ki 2:10).
2Ki 14:21, 2Ki 14:22
SUCCESSION OF AZARIAH AND RESUMPTION OF THE WAR WITH EDOM. Though reserving his account of the reign of Azariah to the next chapter (verses 1-7), the writer is led by the circumstances of Amaziah’s death to mention at once the fact of his son Azariah’s succession, and the first important act of his reign, the resumption of war with Edom. He then breaks off suddenly, in order to interpose an account of the reign of Jeroboam II; who was contemporary with Amaziah during fourteen years of his reign,
2Ki 14:21
And all the people of Judah took Azariah. This is a new expression, and implies a new, perhaps a tumultuary, proceeding. The people, uncertain probably of the intentions of the conspirators, and fearful that they might set up a king not of the house of David, took the initiative, went to the royal palace, and finding there a son of Amaziahwhether his eldest son or not, we cannot sayproclaimed him king and placed him upon the throne. The author of Chronicles (2Ch 16:1) agrees. Josephus is silent. Which was sixteen years old. Young certainly, considering that his father was fifty-four (see verse 2), but not necessarily “a younger son,” since Amaziah’s earlier children may have been daughters, or he may have married late in life. It is not doubted that Manasseh was Hezekiah’s eldest son, yet he was only twelve when Hezekiah died at the same age as Amaziah, viz. fifty-four. And made him king instead of his father Amaziah. There are two forms of the king’s name, Azariah and Uzziah. The difference between them is not so great in the Hebrew, where they both begin with the same letter; but still it is considerable. One name is not a mere contraction of the other. Some suppose that the king changed one name for the other upon his accession; others, that he was called indifferently by either, since they were very similar in meaning. “Azariah” is “he whose help is Jehovah;” “Uzziah,” “he whose strength is Jehovah.” “Uzziah” is the predominant form, occurring four times in 2 Kings, twelve times in 2 Chronicles, three times in Isaiah, once in Hoses, once in Amos, and once in Zechariah; while “Azariah” occurs only in 2 Kings (eight times) and in 1Ch 3:12 (once). Josephus uses the form “Ozias” (equivalent to, Uzziah), and so does St. Matthew (Mat 1:8, Mat 1:9).
2Ki 14:22
He built Elath, and restored it to Judah. On the position of Elath, or Eloth, and its importance, see the comment on 1Ki 9:26. It had been the headquarters of Solomon’s fleet (1Ki 9:26), and again of Jehoshaphat’s (1Ki 22:48; 2Ch 20:36); but had been, of course, recovered by the Edomites when they revolted (2Ki 8:22). Azariah’s re-occupation seems to imply an intention on his part of, renewing the old Red Sea trade. By “built ‘ in this passage we must understand “rebuilt” or (as in 2Ch 11:6) “fortified.” After that the king slept with his fathers. Keil is probably right in understanding this to mean “immediately after he had ascended the throne,” or “as soon as ever his father was dead” (see the comment on verse 19). His further military successes will be considered in the comment on his reign, as sketched in the next chapter.
2Ki 14:23-29
REIGN OF JEROBOAM THE SON OF JOASH OVER ISRAEL. This reign, the most important of those belonging to the kingdom of Israel since that of Ahab, is treated with great brevity by the writer, whose interest is far more in Judah than in Israel. Seven verses only are devoted to him. The result of his wars is given without any account of the wars themselves. And the great fact of his ruling over Damascus only comes in by a sort of afterthought (verse. 28). The usual formulas are followed in introducing his reign and missing it.
2Ki 14:23
In the fifteenth year of Amaziah the son of Joash King of Judahthis note of time agrees with those in 2Ki 13:10 and 2 Kings 45:1, 17, but not with that in 2Ki 15:1 (see the comment on that passage)Jeroboam the son of Joash King of Israel began to reign in Samaria, and reigned forty and one years. Josephus says “forty years; Many moderns (Thenius, Bahr, and others) extend the term to fifty-one years. Some suppose that Jeroboam was joint-king with his father in Amaziah’s third year, solo king from his fifteenth. But it is better to acknowledge the general confusion of the chronology, and to regard it as uncertain, unless where a synchronism is distinctly made out. Such assured synchronisms are the following:
(1) The synchronism of Ahab with Jehoshaphat:
(2) the synchronism of Jehoram, Ahab’s son, with the same;
(3) the synchronism of Jehu’s first year with the first year of Athaliah;
(4) the synchronism of Amaziah with Joash of Israel;
(5) the synchronism of Pekah with Ahaz;
(6) the synchronism of Hoshea’s last year with Hezekiah’s sixth;
(7) the synchronism of Amaziah’s fourteenth year with Jeroboam II.’s first, being twice asserted in two distinct forms (2Ki 15:17 and 2Ki 15:23), is, at any rate, highly probable.
Numbers which occur once only in ancient writers can seldom be implicitly trusted, since the liability of numbers to corruption is excessive.
2Ki 14:24
And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord: he departed not from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. The judgments which had fallen upon Jehu and Jehoahaz on account of these sins did not teach any lesson to Joash or Jeroboam II. The fatal taint, which was congenital with the Israelite monarchy, could never be purged out, hut clung to it to the end.
2Ki 14:25
He restored the coast of Israel from the entering in of Hamath. By “the entering in of Hamath” is to be understood the opening into the Coele-Syrian valley a little north of Baalbec, where the ground begins to slope northwards, and the streams to flow in the same direction to form the Orontes. Hamath itself was between eighty and ninety miles further to the north, on the middle Orontes, about N. lat. 35 22′. The “entering in of Hamath” was always reckoned the northern boundary of the Holy Land (see Num 34:8; Jos 13:5; Jdg 3:3; 1Ki 8:65). It corresponded with the watershed between the Orontes and the Litany. Unto the sea of the plain. The “sea of the plain” is undoubtedly the Dead Sea, the plain (ha-Arabah) being used as a sort of proper name for the lower Jordan valley, like El–Ghor at the present day (see Deu 3:17; Jos 3:16; Jos 12:3, etc.). The territory recovered no doubt included all the trans-Jordanic region as far south as the river Aruon; but the recovery of dominion over Moab, and even over Ammon, which some have seen in this passage, is scarcely con-rained in it. According to the word of the Lord God of Israel, which he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai (comp. Jon 1:1). Jonah’s date is determined by this passage. He was contemporary with Hosea and Amos, and earlier than Micah. His prophecy concerning Jeroboam is probably assigned to the early part of that king’s reign. The prophet, which was of Gath-hepher. Gath-hepher is mentioned in Joshua, under the name of Gittah-hepher, as a city of Zebulon (2Ki 19:13), not far from Mount Tabor. It is conjecturally identified with El-Meshhed north of Nazareth, where the tomb of Jonah is shown.
2Ki 14:26
For the Lord saw the affliction of Israel, that it was very bitter. The repetition is perhaps to be accounted for by the desire of the writer to explain how it came to pass that so great a deliverance was granted to Israel under a king who maintained the worship of the calves. He views it as the consequence of God’s infinite compassion, and of the extreme bitterness of Israel’s sufferings under the Syrians. For there was not any shut up, nor any left (see the comment on 1Ki 14:10), nor any helper for Israel. Apart from Jehovah, Israel had no one to come to her aid. Judah would not help her, for Judah had just suffered at her hands (2Ki 14:11-14); still less would Philistia, or Moab, or Ammon, who were her constant enemies. Her isolation rendered her all the more an object for the Divine compassion.
2Ki 14:27
And the Lord said not that he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven. God’s decision under the circumstances was not, as it well might have been, considering Israel’s ill desert, to blot out forthwith the very name of Israel from the earth. On the contrary, he gave the nation a breathing-space, a gleam of light, a second summer before the winter set ina further opportunity of repenting and turning to him with all their hearts if they would only have taken advantage of it, a chance of redeeming the past and reestablishing themselves in his favor. He might well have destroyed them at this time if he had looked only to considerations of justice, if in his wrath he had not thought upon mercy. But he saved them; i.e. he gave them the deliverance promised first by Elisha (2Ki 13:17), and then by Jonah the son of Amittai (verse 25)deliverance from Syria, recovery of their borders, and triumph over their enemies. He gave them all this by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash. Joash began the salvation, but it was reserved for Jeroboam to complete it. He was the true “savior” (2Ki 13:5), the true accomplisher of the work, for which his father only paved the way. Thus one Jeroboam founded the kingdom; another refounded it, restored its ancient glories, and gave it its old dimensions.
2Ki 14:28
Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, and all that he did, and his might, how he warred, and how he recovered Damascus and Hamath. It has been suggested that these words mean no more than that Jeroboam took territory from Damascus and Hamathfrom Damascus the trans-Jordanic territory which Hazael had conquered from Jehu (2Ki 10:33); from Hamath some small portion of the Coele-Syrian valley, about the head-streams of the Orontes and Litany (so Keil and Bahr). But there does not seem to be any sufficient reason for giving the words used this narrow signification. Damascus was conquered and annexed by David (2Sa 8:6), and held for a time even by Solomon (1Ki 11:24), of whose kingdom Hamath also seems to have formed part (1Ki 4:21-24; 2Ch 8:4; 2Ch 9:26). The word “recovered” is, therefore, a suitable one. The prophecy of Amos, no doubt, represents Damascus as independent (Amo 1:3, Amo 1:4); but this may have been written before Jeroboam conquered it. Hamath’s subjection seems to be implied in Amo 6:2, Amo 6:14. We may, therefore, well understand, with Ewald and Dr. Pusey, that Jeroboam ‘ subdued Damascus and even Hamath,” and added them to his kingdom. How long the subjection continued is a different question. Probably, in the troubles that followed the death of Zachariah (2Ki 15:10-14), the yoke was thrown off. In the Assyrian Inscriptions, Damascus appears under its own king about B.C. 786, and it was certainly independent in B.C. 743. At the latter date Hamath also appears as the capital of an independent kingdom under its own monarch. Which belonged to Judah. Keil and Bahr render,”Hamath of Judah,” regarding as a genitive. Ewald proposes to read , “Hamath of Zobah”, or else to cut out altogether. The passage is one of great difficulty. For Israel. It is questionable whether this meaning can be obtained from the present text, which is . Bahr thinks that it can; but Ewald regards the change into as one “of necessity.” Might we not avoid all these alterations by translating simply” how he recovered Damascus and Hamath to Judah through Israel“? Attaching them to Israel was a sort of recovering of them to Judah, to which (i.e. the Judah of David and Solomon) they had once belonged. Are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?
2Ki 14:29
And Jeroboam slept with his fathers, oven with the kings of Israelhis father, grandfather, and great-grandfather had been actually among the kings of Israel; but all the kings, his predecessors, were probably reckoned among his ancestorsand Zachariah his son reigned in his stead (see the comment on 2Ki 15:8). By Zachariah’s accession the promise given to Jehu (2Ki 10:30), that his “children to the fourth generation should sit on the throne of Israel,” was literally fulfilled. No other royal house occupied the Israelitish throne for more than three generations.
HOMILETICS
2Ki 14:3, 2Ki 14:4
A father’s evil example no justification for a son’s misconduct.
Amaziah “did according to all things as Joash his father did.” Like his father, he was half-hearted. In his earlier years he kept to the worship of Jehovah, and “did that which was right in the sight of the Lord,” yet not with any zeal or energy. Afterwards he fell away, introduced idolatry (2Ch 25:14), and when a prophet rebuked him for his evil courses, answered him with scoffs and threatenings (2Ch 25:15, 2Ch 25:16). His father Joash had done even worse after the death of Jehoiada. He had not only sanctioned idolatries (2Ch 24:17, 2Ch 24:18), but had had the servant of God who rebuked them put to death (2Ch 24:21). This, however, is not held by the sacred writer to be any justification or excuse for Amaziah. The reasons are manifest.
I. NO MAN IS TO BE CALLED MASTER, NOT EVEN A FATHER. God gives men in his Law and in their conscience a standard of right, which they are to follow. He nowhere bids them take any man but the “God-Man” for pattern. He warns them that men are, all of them, more or less imperfect. He requires that parents shall be “honored,” not imitated.
II. THE EVIL EXAMPLE OF A FATHER IS A WARNING TO SONS, WHICH SHOULD LEAD TO AVOIDANCE, NOT IMITATION. The sight of a drunken father should disgust sons with drunkenness. Blasphemous and violent words should so shock them as to suggest an exactly opposite behavior. Looseness of morals should breed in them a determination never to offend in a way so absolutely revolting. Given that simplicity which is natural to youth, and every fault of a father should so keenly wound and vex their souls as to bend them in the exactly contrary direction. Sin is so ugly, so offensive, so coarse, that in another it naturally disgusts us; and the more plainly it is revealed, the closer it is brought to us, the more are we naturally provoked and angered by it.
III. THE PUNISHMENT WHICH SIN DRAWS AFTER IT SHOULD COME ESPECIALLY HOME TO THOSE WHOSE HOMES ARE CURSED WITH IT, AND ACT AS A DETERRENT. Disease, decay, the loss of others’ respect, the severing of friendships, general dislike and aversion, in some cases contempt, dog the footsteps of sin, and mark it as a thing to be avoided. Sons are naturally sensitive with regard to their fathers’ honor, and keen to mark whether they are held in respect or no. There can be no natural deterrent from evil courses stronger than the perception that one with whom we are bound up is deteriorating from day to day, not merely in character, but in reputation, falling in men’s esteem, becoming a mark for their scorn. The father’s fall should thus not produce the son’s, but rather stimulate the son to rise to greater and greater heights of virtue.
2Ki 14:5, 2Ki 14:6
A father’s sins not to be visited by the civil magistrate on his children.
Human legislators have differed greatly in their judgments upon this point. In the East, and in early times, the idea was generally accepted that the guilt of the father attached to all his descendants, and was justly visited on them. “Lege cantum erat,” says Q. Curtius (‘Vit. Alex.,’ 2Ki 6:11), “ut propinqui eorum, qui regi insidiati essent, cum ipsis necarentur.’ The family was regarded as the unit of society, and the crime of one member tainted the whole of it. What the Egyptian practice was is uncertain; but we find the Israelites, shortly after the Exodus, putting to death the whole family of Achan on account of their father’s sin (Jos 7:24, Jos 7:25), and the usage seems to have continued long afterwards (2Ki 9:26). The Greeks and Romans adopted a different line of action. Recognizing the separateness of the individual, they never executed a family en masse, but only the guilty member or members of it. Yet, in secondary punishments, the contrary idea to some extent prevailed. At Athens, when the sentence on a man was degradation from his rights of citizenship (), the penalty was shared by his children. A similar disability attached to the children of those who were executed. So, even by our own law, attainder and forfeiture, which mainly affect the children, are attached to the crime of treason, and the property of felons escheats to the Crown. It is very remarkable that the Law of Moses should have anticipated the ultimate judgment of the human conscience upon the point, and have laid down so clearly and strongly the humane principle that the criminal alone should be punished for his own crime. To us at the present day the principle may appear axiomatic; but at the time when Moses enunciated it, the contrary idea was prevalent; and it is doubtful whether the broad assertion, “Every man shall be put to death for his own sins,” had ever been heard previously. Even now, though in the letter the principle is universally accepted, infractions of its spirit are common enough
I. BY NATIONS. Nations infringe it when they cashier a royal family for the fault, or even the crime, of the reigning sovereign. In a hereditary monarchy the son has a right to succeed, though his father may by unconstitutional acts have justly forfeited the crown. Still more unjust is the perpetual exile of all those whose ancestors have ever reigned over a country. Such persons are punished, not so much for the sins as for the meritsthe wisdom, prowess, high renownof their forefathers, since it is for their merits, ordinarily, that persons are first placed upon thrones. Confiscation of the property of exiled princes is still more indefensible, since it is at once unjust and mean. It may be added that forfeiture and attainder, as they exist in our own law, seem to be contrary to the spirit of the rule, which is that no one should be punished for anything but his own acts.
II. BY INDIVIDUALS. Individuals infringe this rule when they maintain a family feud, transferring to the children of those by whom they consider themselves to have been injured the animosity which they have long entertained towards their parents. Or when they treat a man with coldness or incivility because his father has done something disgraceful. Or, generally, when they attach blame or discredit to any one, not for anything that he has done, but for something that somebody connected with him has done. Strict justice requires that each man should “bear his own burden,” and stand or fall by his own acts. If we allow anything but his own acts to affect our estimate of a manstill more, if we allow it to affect our demeanor towards himwe act unjustly, we infringe the principle of the law, “Every man shall be put to death [i.e. shall suffer] for his own sin.”
2Ki 14:8-14
Pride goes before a fall.
Amaziah’s challenge and its result furnish a remarkable illustration of this maxim. The following points should be dwelt upon.
I. THE WEAK GROUND OF THE PRIDE. This was military success, which is just as often the result of good fortune, or one’s enemies’ mistakes, as of any merits of one’s own. Amaziah’s after-life showed that he did not possess any great military capacity, and so had nothing on which he ought to have prided himself. Men constantly over estimate their own merits.
II. THE WRONGFUL WAY IN WHICH THE PRIDE VENTED ITSELF. In quarrel, causeless quarrel with a neighbor. Amaziah had no grievance which he felt it necessary to redress, no need to quarrel with Joash. Having gained one success, he was simply greedy for more. And to gratify his self-esteem he was careless how many lives he sacrificed or what injuries he inflicted
(1) on his adversaries;
(2) on his own subjects.
He forgot that the Israelites were of kindred blood (1Ki 12:24), of the same religion, a portion of God’s people. He plunged into an unnecessary warin itself always a sinwith a nation towards which he ought to have felt friendly, without obtaining or seeking any Divine sanction, in sole reliance on himself. What wonder that God punished such combined folly and wickedness!
III. THE OBSTINACY WITH WHICH THE WRONGFUL COURSE WAS PERSISTED IN. Proud men dislike above all things admitting that they are in the wrong. Amaziah had ample time to retract his challenge and. give up his enterprise. Joash was not at all eager for the encounter; on the contrary, he was quite willing to have remained at peace if Amaziah would have let him. But to retract, still more to apologize, would have been unpleasant. The pride which had given birth to the challenge absolutely forbade its withdrawal.
IV. THE COMPLETENESS AND EXTREME IGNOMINY OF THE FALL. Amaziah had, no doubt, counted on an easy victory; he went to war “with a light heart.” He would do with Israel as he had done with Edomsmite and slay, and make prisoners, and perhaps punish his prisoners with death (2Ki 14:7). The result is, not a victory, not even a drawn battle, not a long war with alternations of success and defeat, but one crushing blow, from which there is no recovery even for an instant. His army is defeated, dispersed; he himself is a prisoner in the hands of his enemy, his capital is taken, its walls broken down, its treasures carded off. He is disgraced in the eyes of all his subjects, as well as of the neighboring nations, and thenceforth remains absolutely quiescent, attempts nothing, but, humbled and confounded, “sits in the dust.”
2Ki 14:1-4 with 7–20
Compromise and its consequences.
We read here of Amaziah that “he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, yet not like David his father: he did according to all things as Joash his father did. Howbeit the high places were not taken away; as yet the people did sacrifice and burnt incense on the high places.” And we read of him in 2 Chronicles that “he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, but not with a perfect heart.” To understand the meaning of the statement which we meet with so often, that “the high places were not taken away,” we must go back to the period before the children of Israel entered the promised land. At that time the inhabitants of Canaan were heathenpagans and idolaters. One of the peculiarities of their heathen worship was to have groves of trees, generally of oaks, planted on the summit of the hills. In these groves there was usually placed a shrine with an image of their deity, just as we see, when traveling on the continent, shrines of the blessed Virgin, or shrines with a crucifix, by the roadside and on the hill-tops. The custom of having groves of oaks for religious purposes was shared by the early inhabitants of Britain, and the Druids derived their name from this very practice. In these groves the heathen priests sacrificed and burnt incense to their gods. It was to such groves that the name of “high places” was given. When the Israelites were about to enter Canaan, God foresaw the temptation to which they would be exposed from the idolatry of the heathen inhabitants and of the neighboring nations. He therefore charged them not only to drive out the heathen nations from Canaan, but also to utterly destroy their high places, to overthrow their altars, and break their graven images, and burn their groves with fire (Deu 12:2, Deu 12:3). This command was repeated over and over again. But, notwithstanding this, the high places were never utterly abolished. Time after time during the period of the judges, the people set up a worship in the high places, which, though nominally that of Jehovah, was tinged with idolatrous practices. It was much the same under the kings. Now and then some courageous, God-fearing, whole-hearted king made a clean sweep of the high places. But the old habit was continually revived, and so in one reign after another we read the policy of compromise,” The high places were not taken away.” And whenever that was the case, we find it had evil results. It was so in the time of Solomon himself. It was so in the time of the two kings who succeeded him over the divided kingdomRehoboam and Jeroboam. It was so in the case of Amaziah now before us.
I. AMAZIAH‘S COMPROMISE PREPARED THE WAY FOR POSITIVE SIN. The high places in themselves were not necessarily places of idolatry. There is no doubt that sincere worship to the true God was often offered up in them. Thus we find Solomon sacrificing to the Lord in Gibeon, which was the great high place. But the associations of these places were entirely idolatrous. From time immemorial they had been associated with the worship of the heathen gods. It was for this reason that God forbade the use of them. It was necessary to make the wall of separation between his people and the heathen as wide as possibleto teach them that they could not serve God and Baal, that there could be no compromise between right and wrong without danger to the right. The results showed the wisdom and necessity of God’s strict command. The natural tendency of the human heart is to worship what is seen, to look at the outward symbol rather than at the thing signified. This was just what happened in Amaziah’s case. He did not see that there was any harm in preserving the high places. Might not God be worshipped there as well as in Jerusalem? And so he made the compromise: “The high places were not taken away.” But look at the result. “Now it came to pass, after that Amaziah was come from the slaughter of the Edomites, that he brought the gods of the children of Seir, and set them up to be his gods, and bowed down himself before them, and burned incense unto them” (2Ch 25:14). What a falling off was there! This is that Amaziah who began his career by doing right in the sight of the Lord, now stupidly bowing down before the lifeless idols of the heathen! He conquered the heathen in one sense, but the heathen conquered him in another and more dangerous sense. Has it not been the same in the history of the Christian Church? The early Christian Church was simple in its worship and its government; its members were simple in their habits and pure in their lives. But when it became powerful at Rome, and in a sense captured pagan Rome, its very power was its danger. There was a sense in which the paganism of Rome captured the simplicity of the gospel. As Mourant Brock has so fully shown in that interesting book of his on ‘Rome: Pagan and Papal,’ and as Gibbon and other historians have pointed out, Christianity, in Rome at least, made a compromise with paganism. And the compromise was anything but an advantage to the Christian religion. The ill effects of it remain to this day in the images and pilgrimages, and the many other superstitions which deface the Roman branch of the Christian Church. Such facts of history carry with them a memorable lesson. The Christian Church ought ever to keep in mind the spiritual objects for which it exists. It ought, therefore, to guard most scrupulously the spirituality and scripturality of its worship. “God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” It ought to guard also the spirituality and scripturality of its doctrine, and teach men to trust, not to penances or indulgences for their acceptance with God, but to the work and merits of Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and man. The countries of the Reformation are marked out among the nations of Europe for their prosperity and industry. The more thorough the work of religious reformation, the stronger has been the national character, the more vigorous the national life. And on the other hand, as we look at the general decay of the Roman Catholic nations, and the corruption that has marked their history, may we not trace the secret of their downfall in the words of the fourth verse, “The high places were not taken away?”
II. AMAZIAH‘S COMPROMISE LED TO TEMPORAL DISASTER. Amaziah had elements of strength mingled with the elements of weakness in his character. He was capable of acting upon certain occasions with decision and firmness. What a pity he had not carried that spirit of decision into the most important duty for every human beingobedience to the Law of God! Once, indeed, he had done so. And the success which followed his obedience to God’s command on that occasion should have encouraged him in a similar decision always. He was going forth to battle against the Edomites. He had raised out of his own kingdom of Judah alone an army of three hundred thousand men. In addition to these, he hired out of the kingdom of Israel a hundred thousand men for a hundred talents of silver, that is to say at a cost of about 50,000. But there came to him a man of God, saying, “O king, let not the army of Israel go with thee; for the Lord is not with Israel” (2Ch 25:7). Amaziah had not yet hardened his heart against God’s message. He was not yet blinded to the evil results of forsaking God. So he considered seriously this difficulty, and saw that it would be folly to go forth in defiance of God’s warning. But the question arose about the payment of these hired soldiers, and he said, “What shall we do for the hundred talents which I have given to the army of Israel?” And the man of God answered, “The Lord is able to give thee much more than this.” Amaziah hesitated no longer. He sent away these hired troops, though he incurred their anger and vengeance in consequence; but when he went forth against the Edomites, his army gained a most decisive and overwhelming victory. Would that Amaziah had acted in a similar spirit of decision all through his life! Would that he had showed in other matters a similar spirit of dependence on God and obedience to him! Would that he had always remembered the prophet’s words, “The Lord is able to give thee much more than this”! Oh that we would all remember this when tempted to make compromise with the worldwhen, for the sake of worldly gain, or popular applause, or the favor of men, or earthly rank, we are tempted to disregard the voice of conscience and of God! God’s commands are clear. His promises are equally clear. We never gain anything by making compromise with sin. From the moment that Amaziah forsook God, success began to forsake his banners. He and his army were defeated by the army of Israel, and eventually he himself was slain by a conspiracy of his own servants. Let us learn that we should never, for the sake of any temporal advantage, make a compromise with sin, or disobey the command of God. We may be the losers for the time, but the Lord is able to give us much more than this. In an interesting book lately published, which gives an account of the mission to the fishermen in the North Sea, we are told that some of the owners of the fishing-vessels refused to allow their vessels to be used for a prayer-meeting or other religious service; but expected the men to work on the Lord’s day as on others. There was a small fleet, all the skippers of which were anxious to have no fishing on Sunday, and accordingly sent home a “round robin” to the owners, praying for this concession. They waited anxiously for the return of the cutter with the owners’ reply, and when at length it reached them, their hopes were utterly dashed, for the employers, while saying they would not forbid the skippers to keep their fishing-gear on board, gave them clearly to understand that any skipper doing so would run the risk of losing his berth at the end of the voyage. The matter was quietly and prayerfully discussed, and eventually all but one agreed, “We ought to obey God rather than man;” and so sabbath after sabbath this solitary dissentient labored with his gear, while all the other vessels were lying-to. As each skipper’s voyage expired, he ran home for the bi-monthly refit, yet not a word was said about discharging him, and as this happened to every skipper in turn, they made up their minds that the threat was an empty one. However, at Christmas the secret came out; for the owner, according to custom, read aloud to his assembled crews the list of the different vessels’ earnings during the year. At last he stopped, and put down the paper. “Oh, but, sir,” exclaimed several skippers, “you haven’t read what So-and-so made” referring to the skipper who had fished seven days a week. “Why, what is that to you? I’ve read what you‘ve made: doesn’t that satisfy you?” “Why, no, sir, because, don’t you see, he’s fished every Sunday, while we’ve kept our trawls on board.” “Well, well,” muttered the owner, “I suppose it’s sure to come out, so I may as well tell you. He‘s at the bottom of the list.” The man who related this story added reverently, “Them that honor me I will honor, but they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.” Those men showed true faithfulness. They would have no compromise. Cost what it might, they would obey the command of God, “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.” And he who gave the command honored and rewarded them for their observance of it. He prospered their industry on the six days of the week more than the industry of the man who labored on every day of the seven. Even in temporal blessings the policy of compromise is a policy of disaster. Much more when we look at the eternal consequences, “What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” We find that Amaziah’s spirit of compromise infected his whole character. Unfaithful himself, he did not like faithfulness in others. When he began to worship the heathen idols, God sent a prophet to remonstrate with him. The prophet said to Amaziah, “Why hast thou sought after the gods of the people, which could not deliver their own people out of thine hand?” (2Ch 25:15). A very reasonable question, one would say. But the king was beyond rebuke. He commanded the prophet to cease, and threatened to punish him if he continued. It is a sign that something is wrong when men and women begin to dislike faithful preaching. Those whose own conscience is clear need feel no hurt when sin is rebuked. Beware of the policy of compromise. Let there be no compromise with the world, with godlessness, with sin; no compromise with godlessness in your family; no compromise with wrong in your business; no compromise with evil customs or companionships in your social life; no calling of evil good, and of good evil. Nail your colors to the mast. Let there be no compromise with your own besetting sins. Many a man has begun well, like Amaziah, but has ended badly, because he made a compromise with sin. He retained some old habit. He did not put away the high places of his pride, or his ambition, or his covetousness, or his passionand in the long ran his sin became too strong for him.C.H.I
2Ki 14:5, 2Ki 14:6
Personal responsibility.
Amaziah visits with just execution the servants who had conspired against his father Joash. But he did not put to death the children of the murderers. He acted on the principle laid down by God through Moses (Deu 24:16), that “the fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”
I. EVERY ONE OF US IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OWN LIFE. “For we must all appear before the judgment-scat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.”
II. EVERY ONE OF US IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RIGHT DISCHARGE OF HIS OWN DUTIES. We cannot excuse ourselves by the unfaithfulness of others. Responsibility is something which we can never transfer to any one else. Men may deny their responsibility. They may refuse to fulfill it. They may neglect it. But there it isthey cannot get rid of it. Our responsibility to God for the life and opportunities which he has given is a truth we should do well to keep constantly before us.C.H.I.
HOMILIES BY D. THOMAS
2Ki 14:1-29
Significant facts in God’s government.
“In the second year of Joash,” etc. In this chapter we have a sketch of a succession of kings both of Judah and Israel. Here are two kings of JudahAmaziah and Azariah; and Joash, Jeroboam, and his son Zachariah, kings of Israel. The whole chapter suggests certain significant facts in God’s government of mankind.
I. THE ENORMOUS FREEDOM OF ACTION WHICH HE ALLOWS WICKED MEN. Here we learn:
1. That God allows wicked men to form wrong conceptions of himself. All these kings, although descendants of Abraham, who was a monotheist, became idolaters. “The high places were not taken away: as yet the people did sacrifice and burnt incense on the high places.” Golden calves, symbols of Egyptian worship, still stood in Dan and Bethel, at the extremities of the dominions. Terribly strange it seems to us that the Almighty Author of the human mind should permit it to think of him as some material object in nature, or as some production of the human hand. What human father, had he the power, would permit his children to form not only wrong but wicked impressions of himself? For what reason this is permitted I know not, Albeit it shows God’s practical respect for that freedom of action with which he has endowed us.
2. That God allows wicked men to obtain despotic dominion over others. All these kings were wickedAmaziah, Azariah, Joash, Jeroboam, and Zachariah, and yet they enjoyed an almost autocratic dominion over the rights, possessions, and lives of millions. Here we read of Amaziah slaying ten thousand men, capturing ten thousand prisoners, and taking Selah, the capital of the Edomites, and of Joash King of Israel using harshly the rights of the conqueror. “He came to Jerusalem, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim unto the corner gate.” It is said of Jeroboam, who reigned forty-one years, that he “did evil in the sight of the Lord, and departed not from the sins of his father.” Antecedently one might have concluded that, if a wicked man was allowed to live amongst his fellows, he would be doomed to obscurity and to social and political impotence; but it is not so. Why? Who shall answer?
II. GOD PUNISHES WICKED MEN BY THEIR OWN WICKEDNESS.
1. A wicked man is punished by his own wickedness. Amaziah’s conduct is an example. Elated with his triumph over the Edomites, he sought occasion of war with the King of Israel. “He sent messengers to Joash, the son of Jehoahaz son of Jehu, King of Israel, saying, Come, let us look one another in the face,” etc. About fifteen years after his defeat he fled from Jerusalem to Laehish to escape assassination, but the assassin pursued him, and struck him dead. It is ever so. Wickedness is its own punishment. The wicked passions of a corrupt man are his tormenting devils. Sin is suicidal.
2. A wicked man is punished by the wickedness of others. The thousands whom these despotic kings reduced to anguish, destitution, and death, were idolaters and rebels against Heaven, and by the hand of wicked men they were punished. Thus it ever is. Devils are their own tormentors. Sin converts a community of men into tormenting fiends; man becomes the avenging fate of man.
CONCLUSION. Learn:
1. Humanity in this world is obviously in a morally abnormal condition. It can never be that he whose power is immeasurable, whose wisdom and goodness are infinite and radiant everywhere above us and below us, could create such a state of things as we have here. He originates the good alone, permits the evil, and will ultimately overrule it for good.
2. Faith in a future that shall rectify the evils of the present seems essential to true religion. Genuine religion is a supreme love for the Supreme Existence. But who could love a Supreme Existence, which could permit forever such a state of existence as we have here? There must come a day of rectification: “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him,” etc. (Mat 25:31-46).D.T.
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
2Ki 14:1-7
Amaziah doing right.
The murder of Joash King of Judah, and the accession of his son Amaziah, took place a little after the accession of Joash the son of Jehoahaz in Israel, therefore just before the turn of the tide in the fortunes of the latter kingdom.
I. EARLY RIGHT–DOING.
1. A promising beginning. Amaziah was not, any more than his father, a man of strong character. He proved to be vain, boastful, and foolish But he began well, giving heed to the counsels of God’s prophets (cf. 2Ch 25:7-10), and therefore it is said of him, “He did right in the sight of the Lord.” It is not, however, the beginning, but the end, which tests character (Col 1:23; Heb 3:14).
2. Significant shortcoming. To the record of his right-doing, it is added, “Yet not like David his father,” or, as elsewhere, “not with a perfect heart.” His conduct is likened to that of Joash his father, whose history very much resembled his own. Amaziah, like Joash, began well, afterwards lapsed into idolatry and cruelty, and died by conspiracy of his servants under a cloud of ignominy and contempt. Those who are like in sin need not wonder that they are like in doom.
3. The high places unremoved. This was one of the points in which Amaziah showed a want of thoroughness in right-doing. The sin was one of shortcoming rather than of positive transgression, like the keeping up of the worship of the calves in Israel It is not, therefore, reckoned so hideous as me Baal-worship; but the after-effects show that no portion of God’s Law can be neglected with impunity. The worship on high places was a temptation and snare to Judah. The neglect to remove them reacted seriously on the life of the nation.
II. JUST JUDGMENT. The treatment by Amaziah of his father’s murderers gives further evidence of his early disposition to do well. We observe:
1. The execution of justice. The murderers were put to death. This was right. The existence of even real grievances does not justify resort to crime. David’s treatment of Saul shows the right course to be pursued in such cases (1Sa 24:4-12). And a nation is only secure when real crime is punished within its borders.
2. Discrimination of innocent and guilty. It is specially noted about Amaziah that, in taking this vengeance on the men who slew his father, he did not, as was a frequent custom in those times, slay the children of the murderers. He acted, therefore, on principle in his judgment, not in blind fury. His object was to vindicate justice, not to take revenge. He drew the line where it ought to be drawnbetween the actually guilty and the innocent. There is a strong tendency, where anger is strongly kindled against a person or persons, to allow rage to overflow on those not directly implicated in their offence. The odium that attaches to them is extended also to their families, and pleasure is taken in inflicting insult and pain on their children and relatives. This ought not to be.
3. Regard for God‘s Law. The reason for Amaziah acting as he did was that it was so commanded in the Law of Moses (Deu 24:16). On the seeming contradiction between this passage and those which speak of the iniquity of the fathers being visited on the children, or which illustrate the actual punishment of children for their parents’ sinsas in the case of Achan (Jos 7:24-26)it may suffice to remark that the rule here laid down is one for human jurisprudence. There is a wider treatment of human beings, constantly finding illustration in providence, in which the principles of organic union and corporate responsibility have full play; but God does not entrust the enforcement of these to any human magistracy. What specially concerns us here is the fact that, finding such a rule laid down in the Word of God, Amaziah faithfully adhered to it. His conduct shows an advance in the moral conceptions of the timea better appreciation of the fact of individuality.
III. EARLY VICTORY. In connection with this earlier and more promising part of Amaziah’s reign, we are told of a great victory which he gained over the Edomites. The Edomites had revolted in Jehoram’s reign (2Ki 8:20); but Amaziah now felt himself strong enough to attempt their resubjugation. In setting out on this warthe origin of which we do not precisely knowhe had the countenance of God’s prophets, and acted by their directions (2Ch 25:6-10). He had, as men always have when God is with them and they are content to be guided by his will, great success. He slew of Edom ten thousand, took Selah, or Petra, and changed its name. But the flush of his victory proved also the beginning of his ruin.
1. His conquest was not unmarked by great cruelty (cf. 2Ch 25:12).
2. He fell into idolatry, actually setting up the gods of the Edomites which he had brought home, and burning incense to themthose gods which, as a prophet reminded him, could not deliver their own people out of his hand (2Ch 25:15). From this point dates his declension. He acted precisely as his father had done in forcibly silencing the prophets; and God, in return, gave him up to a reprobate mind for his destruction. Prosperity tests a man’s nature. There are few who can carry the full cup without becoming haughty and God-forgetful.J.O.
2Ki 14:8-14
The boastful challenge, and its results.
It is in the light of the facts narrated in the Book of Chronicles, but not alluded to here, that we are to read the story of Amaziah’s folly in his boastful challenge to Joash of Israel (cf. 2Ch 25:20).
I. THE BOASTFUL CHALLENGE.
1. Its motives. It is not difficult to conceive the kind of influences which led Amaziah to give this challenge to Joash.
(1) Naturally vain-glorious, he was greatly elated by his successes over Edom, and was ambitious to pose as a great military conqueror. How many wars have had their origin in no higher source! To gratify the vanity and ambition of individuals, or the lust of glory in nations, torrents of blood have been shed.
(2) Israel was at this time in a very humbled state, but showed signs of reviving. Amaziah probably thought it was a good time to bring back the revolted tribes to the scepter of Judah.
(3) The Israelites had given some provocation in attacks upon the cities of Judah (2Ch 25:13). This at least would furnish a pretext.
2. Its nature. The challenge took the form of a message to Joash, “Come, let us look one another in the face.” In giving such a challenge, Amaziah did not count the cost (cf. Luk 14:31). He was puffed up with conceit, and did not reflect on the superior military abilities of Joash, already beginning to be displayed in his wars with the Syrians, or on his larger forces. Rather, Joash’s rising reputation roused in him the ambition to measure himself against Joash. When men are left to themselves there are no limits to the extent to which their folly will lead them.
3. Its lack of sanction from God. This time God was not with Amaziah in his undertaking. No prophet’s voice commanded, sanctioned, or promised blessings on the war. Amaziah was acting on his own motion, and in reliance solely on his own strength. God had left him, as he left Saul. In such condition a man but plunges on to his ruin.
II. THE HAUGHTY REPLY. Joash perfectly took the measure of his challenger, and answered him according to his folly.
1. His insulting parable. First, he replied by a parable. He told how the briar (or thistle) of Lebanon sent to the cedar of Lebanon, demanding that the daughter of the cedar should be given in wife to his son. But a wild beast of the forest passed by, and trode down the briar. The idea of the parable is, of course, to ridicule the presumption of Amaziah in venturing to put himself on an equality with Joash. It was meant to sting and insult the Jewish king by intimating to him that in Joash’s eyes he was no more than a contemptible briar in comparison with the majestic cedars. On it we remark
(1) that Joash also cannot be acquitted of overweening arrogance. It is a scornful, haughty spirit which breathes in his parable. From the Israelitish point of view the ten tribes were the kingdom of Israel; Judah was the isolated tribe. But the state of Israel at this time, and in the recent past, did not warrant these boastful metaphors. The cedar, as well as the briar, had been pretty well trodden down by the wild beast of the forest. This arrogant spirit, moreover, is apt to lead its possessor into the error of despising things simply because they are outwardly weak. In this case the King of Israel very justly took the boastful Amaziah’s measure. But it does not always follow that the cedar has the right to lord it over the briar. It is no uncommon thing for the weak things of the world to overcome the mighty (1Co 1:27, 1Co 1:28). David was a feeble stripling in Goliath’s sight, but Goliath fell before him (1Sa 16:1-23 :43-51). The numbers may be few, but if they have a good cause, are inspired by faith, and go forward at God’s call, one will chase a thousand (Deu 32:30; Jos 23:10).
(2) Nevertheless, the parable was just in so far as Amaziah was matching himself against one who, as the event showed, was greatly his superior. Joash was by far the abler soldier, and had larger forces. Amaziah wished to show himself his equal, but lacked the Power of taking a just estimate of his own capabilities. This is one of the first conditions of a man’s strengthto know himself. “How many men may you meet in middle life whose career has been marked by bitter disappointments, and whose hearts have been soured by these! They began with vaulting hopes which have never been realized; and so they blame what they call their adverse fate. But you see the effect of one great blunder which has pursued them all their livesyou see that they have never sought to know themselves. They began in a fool’s paradise, and they have never made their escape from it. A more exact and modest estimate of Their own powers, a clear and honest apprehension of their own capacity, a readiness to do the work within their limits, the work they were meant to do, and they had been spared many bitter hours.”
2. His contemptuous advice. Following up his parable, Joash gave the King of Judah a piece of advice, scornfully and contemptuously expressed, but such advice as, on the whole, Amaziah would have done well to take.
(1) He touched truly enough the motive of his foolish challenge. “Thou hast indeed smitten Edom, and thine heart is lifted up.” A measure of success turns the heads of some people, inflates their ideas of themselves, and incapacitates them for sober calculation of the future.
(2) He bids him content himself with what he has achieved, and tarry at home. The tone is most insulting, implying the most perfect contempt for Amaziah’s threatened attack; but the advice was wise. Amaziah was a fool to pro-yoke a needless war, and run himself and his kingdom into danger from a mere motive of vain-glory.
(3) He predicts to him what will happen if he persists in his foolish course. “Why shouldest thou meddle to thy hurt, that thou shouldest fall, even thou, and Judah with thee?” It perhaps was not to be expected that Amaziah should take advice so unpalatable, so tauntingly conveyed, so wounding to his pride and royal honor. But the result showed that Joash had not overstated his case. Amaziah meddled truly to his hurt; and he fell, even he, and Judah with him. It is the fatality of a foolish mind that it is impregnable to considerations which would show it its folly.
III. THE CRUSHING DEFEAT. Amaziah, as was to be expected, would not hear. No obstinate man does. He went on his foolish, headstrong way, and brought down upon himself an avalanche of trouble.
1. The army was defeated. He and Joash met in battle, and his army was utterly routed. It is characteristic teat the fight took place at Beth-shemesh, in the territory of Judah. This shows that Joash was the first to move when he saw that war was inevitable. While Amaziah was dallying and mustering his men, Joash was already on the march, and took the offensive. For victory of any kind, much depends on promptitude, alertness, and activity on the part of the assailant.
2. The king was taken prisoner. Joash “took Amaziah.” How long the king remained a captive is not said. He was probably delivered up after “hostages” had been given. But the humiliation was great and bitter. The people of Judah never forgot or forgave it.
3. Jerusalem was captured and plundered. The royal city shared the fate of its king. It had no alternative but to open its gates to the conqueror. Joash did not spare it. To mark the completeness of his conquest he,
(1) brake down four hundred cubits of the city wall on the side towards Ephraim;
(2) plundered the house of the Lord and the palace of the king of their treasures. The treasuries had been emptied in the preceding reign for Hazael (2Ki 12:18); now a second time their contents are taken away. Miserable people, and miserable king! No wonder burning indignation existed against Amaziah, who had led the kingdom into this trouble. We may see some parallel to it in the feelings of the French towards their emperor after the Franco-Prussian War. The lesson had been taught in the preceding reign, but Amaziah had not profited by his father’s misfortunes; and, having followed his footsteps in sin, was now reaping the consequences in even severer chastisement.J.O.
2Ki 14:15-22
Changes in two thrones.
The next events recorded are the accession of Jeroboam II; after the death of Joash, in Israel; and the conspiracy against Amaziah fifteen years later and the accession of Azariah, in Judah.
I. THE ACCESSION OF JEROBOAM. More is not told us, than we have already heard, of the “might” of Joash. Jeroboam, who succeeded him, proved the able son of an able father. But the stock of Jehu was godless as ever. The new king also, as we are to see, “did evil in the sight of the Lord,” and kept up the “sin ‘ of his namesake, Jeroboam I; in the worship of the calves. Great natural ability is often associated with godlessness of heart.
II. THE ACOESSION OF AZARIAH.
1. Azariah made king. The notice of the conspiracy against Amaziah precedes in the narrative the notice of Azariah’s accession; but there is some reason from the chronology to think that the son was made king along with his father shortly after Amazlah’s disastrous defeat.
(1) It is stated in 2Ki 15:8 that the son of Jeroboam II; Zachariah, began to reign in the thirty-eighth year of Azariah, and as there is no sign in the narrative of the interregnum of eleven years which chronologers usually introduce, it would follow that Azariah really began to reign about eleven years before his father’s death.
(2) This is in itself not unlikely when we remember the odium which must have fallen on Amaziah after his defeat and captivity, and the capture of Jerusalem. The proof he had given of incapacity for government would make it desirable, to secure the popularity of the throne, that his son should be associated with him in the kingdom.
(3) There are indications in the narrative which point in this direction, e.g. the age of Amaziah, only sixteen years; the statement that Amaziah “lived” fifteen years after the death of Joash, where we might have expected the word “reigned;” lastly, the statement that Amaziah “built Elath, and restored it to Judah, after that the king slept with his fathers.”
2. Amaziah‘s ignominious end. In any case, it seems certain that Amaziah’s popularity never revived after the unhappy encounter with Joash. Fifteen years rolled on, and at length, from causes to us unknown, a plot was formed against him in Jerusalem. He fled to Lachish, but was pursued and killed. The slain king was brought back on horses, and buried in Jerusalem in the royal sepulcher. Thus the sun of another descendant of David, who had forsaken the God of his fathers, went down in blood and shame.J.O.
2Ki 14:23-29
The reign of Jeroboam II.
After the usual statement that Jeroboam “did evil in the sight of the Lord, and departed not from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin,” we have some brief notices of his reign. Note
I. THE REVIVED FORTUNES OF ISRAEL.
1. Jeroboam‘s successes in war. This able monarch continued the work of Joash. In fulfillment of the promise that God would give Israel a savior, Jeroboam was enabled to complete the recovery of the cities and territories of Israel from the Syrians. “He restored the coast of Israel from the entering in of Hamath unto the sea of the plain,” that is, he extended the boundaries of the kingdom as widely as they had ever reached in the days of its greatest prosperity.
2. The cause of thisGod‘s pity for Israel. This remarkable turn in the fortunes of Israel was strange when it is remembered that Jeroboam was not a man who had the fear of God before him. The explanation is that already given (2Ki 13:23), the pity which God had for Israel, his desire to give it one more chance before blotting out its name, his respect for the covenant with the fathers, and, subordinately, his regard to the prayer of Jehoahaz (2Ki 13:4, 2Ki 13:5). If, as the result of this revival of the nation’s fortunes, piety did not also revive, destruction would come all the more speedily. In raising up this powerful king to save Israel, we see God’s faithfulness to his promise.
II. PROPHETIC ACTIVITY. We have allusion in the text to the prophetic activity of Jonah, the son of Amittai, the same who was sent to Nineveh, and we know that in this reign other prophets, notably Hosea and Amos, exercised their ministry. The writings of the latter prophets, show us how, amidst the sunshine of revived prosperity, the condition of the people did not improve, but grew more and more corrupt. But God’s faithfulness and care and love for his people are shown in sending such prophets to warn them (cf. 2Ki 17:13). What could exceed the tender pathos of a ministry like Hosea’s, or the fidelity and earnestness of a testimony like that of Amos, who bearded the highest in the land to bear witness against them (Amo 7:10)? Yet the people would not hear, but attributed their prosperity to their idols, and worshipped them more than ever, while immorality, violence, and the loosening of all bonds between man and man abounded more and more (Hos 4:1).
III. THE EVE OF COLLAPSE. Jeroboam died, and was succeeded by his son Zachariah. This was the fourth generation of the house of Jehu, and it will be seen that he reigned only six months. From this time Israel went rapidly to its ruin. The height of prosperity reached in the reign of Jeroboam was but the last flicker of the light before final extinction. A little over thirty years after Jeroboam’s deathforty at mostthe words of the prophets were fulfilled, and the kingdom of Israel was destroyed, and its people carried away by the Assyrian.J.O.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
B.The Reign of Amaziah in Judah, and that of Jeroboam II. in Israel
2Ki 14:1-29. (2 Chronicles 25)
1In the second year of Joash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel reigned [omit reigned] Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah [became king]. 2He was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and [he] reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. And his mothers name was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem. 3And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, yet not like David his father: he did according to [in] all things as Joash his father did [had done]. 4Howbeit the high places were not taken away: as yet [omit as yet] the people did sacrifice [were yet sacrificing1] and burnt [burning] incense on the high places.
5And it came to pass, as soon as the kingdom, was confirmed in his hand, that he slew his servants which had slain the king his father. 6But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein [which] the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers: but every man shall be put to death [die2] for his own sin. 7He slew of Edom in the valley of salt ten thousand, [:] and [omit andHe also] took Selah by war, and called the name of it Joktheel unto this day.
8Then Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz son of Jehu, king of Israel, saying, Come, let us look one another in the face.3 9And Jehoash the king of Israel sent to Amaziah king of Judah, saying, The thistle [brier] that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife: and there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon, and trode down the thistle [brier]. 10Thou hast indeed smitten Edom, and thine heart hath lifted thee up: glory of this [exult!], and tarry at home: for why shouldest [wilt] thou meddle to thy hurt [provoke a calamity], that thou shouldest fall, even thou, and Judah with thee? 11But Amaziah would not hear. Therefore Jehoash king of Israel went up; and he and Amaziah king of Judah looked one another in the face at Beth-shemesh, which belongeth [belongeth] to Judah. 12And Judah was put to the worse before Israel: and they fled every man to their [his] tents [tent]. 13And Jehoash king of Israel took Amaziah king of Judah, the son of Jehoash the son of Ahaziah, at Beth-shemesh, and came4 to Jerusalem, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim unto the corner gate, four hundred cubits. 14And he took all the gold and silver, and all the vessels that were found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the kings house, and hostages,5 and returned to Samaria.
15Now the rest of the acts of Jehoash which he did, and his might, and how he fought with Amaziah king of Judah, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel? 16And Jehoash slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel; and Jeroboam his son reigned in his stead.
17And Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah lived after the death of Jehoash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel fifteen years. 18And the rest of the acts of Amaziah, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah? 19Now they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem: and he fled to Lachish; but they sent after him to Lachish, and slew him there. 20And they brought him on horses: and he was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David.
21And all the people of Judah took Azariah, which [who] was sixteen years old, and made him king instead of his father Amaziah. 22He built Elath, and restored it to Judah, after that the king slept with his fathers.
23In the fifteenth year of Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah, Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel began to reign in Samaria, and reigned forty and one years. 24And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord: he departed not from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. 25He restored the coast of Israel from the entering of [near6] Hamath unto the sea of the plain, according to the word of the Lord God of Israel, which he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai, the prophet, which was of Gath-hepher. 26For the Lord saw the affliction of Israel, that it was very bitter:7 for there was not any shut up, nor any left [neither any of age, nor any under age], nor any helper for Israel. 27And the Lord said not that he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven: but he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash. 28Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, and all that he did, and his might, how he warred, and how he recovered Damascus, and Hamath, which belonged to Judah, for Israel, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel? 29And Jeroboam slept with his fathers, even with the kings of Israel; and Zachariah his son reigned in his stead.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
2Ki 14:1. In the second year of Joash Amaziah became king. On the chronological datum see 2Ki 13:1. 2Ki 14:3. Instead of the words: not like David, his father, the parallel account in Chronicles (2Ki 25:2) reads: Not with all his heart. The additional statement: He did in all things as Joash his father had done, shows that Amaziah, in the first part of his reign, was devoted to the worship of Jehovah as Joash was (2Ki 12:3), but that afterwards, especially after his victory over Edom, he introduced, or at least tolerated, the worship of the false gods of Edom, as his father had permitted the worship of Asherah (2Ch 24:2; 2Ch 24:18). [It is putting too great a strain on these words to make them cover any such accurate parallelism between the lives of the two kings, especially when this parallelism is constructed by borrowing from the Chronicles. It is simply meant that his general policy, and the extent to which he conformed to the demands of the Jehovah-religion, were modelled upon his fathers conduct.W. G. S.] The passage 2Ch 25:14 does not, therefore, contradict this verse, as Thenius and Bertheau assert; on the contrary, 2Ki 14:2 of the Chronicle contains the same assertion as 2Ki 14:3 here. [An attentive comparison of the records of Kings and Chronicles at this point reveals some most interesting characteristics of each, and nothing could be more mischievous than a false effort to harmonize and reconcile, which should obliterate these distinguishing characteristics. A comparison of 2Ki 12:2 with 2Ch 24:2 shows a difference of judgment as to Joashs career. (See translators note on 2Ki 12:2.) In perfect consistency, each with its own general judgment, Kings says nothing of any idolatry of Joash, while Chronicles records such an error (2Ch 24:18). Again, Kings approves in general of Amaziahs career, although it was not up to the standard of David (2Ki 14:3; cf. also 2Ki 15:3). 2Ki 14:4 tells wherein he failed according to this author. 2Ch 25:2 might be considered equivalent to this, but 2Ki 14:14 states the fault which the chronicler had to find with him, while Kings is silent in regard to any such sin. The two accounts are each consistent with itself, but they differ in regard to their general estimate of the careers of these two kings. Thenius and Bertheau think that the chronicler inferred from the misfortunes of these kings that they must have been unfaithful to Jehovah, but it is unnecessary to adopt so violent an explanation of the divergence. The chronicler either had more information, or a stricter standard.W. G. S.] On 2Ki 14:4 see note on 1Ki 3:2. On 2Ki 14:5 cf. 2Ki 12:21 sq. As it was the custom in the Orient to put to death not only conspirators themselves, but also their children (Curtius VI. 11, 20; Rosenmller, Altes und Neues Morgenland, II. s. 59), 2Ki 14:6 expressly emphasizes the fact that Amaziah, in obedience to Deu 24:16, did not do this, and thereby proved himself to be a faithful king according to the Israelitish standards. The words: As it is written, &c., are not, as Thenius asserts, an explanatory addition by the redactor; they do not merely give his opinion; they rather state the true historical reason why Amaziah acted as he did. It is Clear, therefore, from this passage, that the author of these books assumes the existence of the book of Deuteronomy at that time, and did not at all suppose that it was first composed under Manasseh, 150 years later, as modern criticism (Riehm) maintains. We do not know whether Amaziah acted according to this precept on his own motive, or not. Perhaps he was exhorted to it by a prophet or a priest.
2Ki 14:7. He slew of Edom. The Edomites revolted from Judah, according to 2Ki 8:20, during the reign of Joram. Amaziah undertook to resubjugate them, and prepared great military resources to this end, as is narrated in 2Ch 25:5 sq. The valley of salt (2Sa 8:13; 1Ch 18:12) is a plain about two miles broad, south of the Dead Sea, which does not show a sign of vegetation. It is now called El–Ghor (Robinson, Palestine, II. 488 and 450). The chronicler does not mention the capture of Sela, but states that, besides the 10,000 who fell, 10,000 others were taken prisoners and thrown from a rock. Sela lay south of the valley of salt, in a valley which was shut in by rocks, but which was well watered and fruitful; it is the well-known Petra, and it was as important in a military as in a mercantile point of view. Cf. Winer, R.-W.-B. II. s. 446 sq. The new name given to this town by the victor is significant. means a Deo subactum, in servitutem redactum (Gesenius, s. v.). We see from the phrase: unto this day, that the original document, from which our author took the history of Amaziahs reign, belonged to the time of that king, or at least to a time not long after his death. As soon as the city came into other hands again, which it did under Ahaz (2Ki 16:6), it certainly lost that humiliating name. It is possible indeed that it continued to be called by this name by the Jews, so that the argument is not conclusive, but, if we do not adopt this hypothesis, we must infer that the original document, in which stood the words unto this day, which the redactor has preserved, was written at least before the time of Ahaz. Of course this place has nothing to do with the Joktheel mentioned in Jos 15:38.
2Ki 14:8. Then Amaziah sent messengers. This took place after the brilliant victory over the Edomites. The detailed statement son of Jehoahaz, son of Jehu, &c, gives ground for the supposition that the original authority for 2Ki 14:8 sq. is different from that of 2Ki 14:1-7. [Let us look one another in the face. See Grammatical on the verse. This is a literal translation. Though the formula is variously explained, yet its significance is clear. It is a challenge to combat.W. G. S.] Josephus says that Amaziah sent a letter to king Joash, in which he demanded of him to submit himself and people, as they had once been subject to David and Solomon, adding that, if he would not do this, a pitched battle should decide between them which had the superior authority (Antiq. ix. 9, 2). It is also possible that, as the rabbis say, the acts mentioned in 2Ch 25:13 occasioned this demand.The parable in 2Ki 14:9 is not to be pressed too much in its details. The main point is the contrast of the largest, strongest, and most majestic tree, the cedar, and the contemptible, weak, and useless, although prickly, briar (not, as Thenius maintains, thistle. Cf. Pro 26:9; 1Sa 13:6; Job 31:40. [The comparison between a tree and a briar bush is more correct and appropriate than between a tree and a thistle]). These two stand side by side upon Lebanon. No wild beast can break down and crush the cedar, but it is very possible that this may occur with the briar. It is more a proverb than a parable, like the story in Jdg 9:8-15. The words: Give thy daughter to my son to wife, are not to be interpreted as implying that Amaziah had demanded a daughter of Joash as a wife for one of his sons (Dereser); neither is the explanation that the kingdom of Israel is the daughter, and the kingdom of Judah the son (Thenius), a fit interpretation of the haughty parable of the king of Israel. Only he who is equal to the father may demand of the latter his daughter as a wife for his son, not one who stands as far below the father as the briar below the cedar. If such an one as this latter does make such a proposal, he is guilty of arrogance and presumption, and he must expect to be set in his proper place.Thenius translation of 2Ki 14:10 : Show thy might at home, is not correct, as we see from 2Ch 25:19, where we read: Thine heart lifteth thee up to boast (); abide now at home. , in the hifil, means to win honor or fame (Gesen.). The Vulg. is right according to the sense: contentus esto gloria et sede tua in domo tua.Calamity is here spoken of as a hostile power, against which one fights in vain [or rather, in stricter accordance with the literal meaning of , upon which one makes a rash and causeless attack, and so provokes it, brings it down upon ones self.]
2Ki 14:11. But Amaziah would not hear. Beth-Shemesh (cf. note on 1Ki 4:9), where the two armies met, was in Judah, on the southern border of Dan, and therefore much nearer to Jerusalem than to Samaria. It follows that Joash did not wait for the attack of Amaziah, but anticipated his movements and so carried the war into the enemys country. Josephus says that Joash threatened the captive Amaziah with death, if he did not compel the inhabitants of Jerusalem to open the gates, and grant him free admission with his army into the city; and that Amaziah, in fear for his life, brought about the admission of the enemy. This statement, although it stands by itself, and has no support from any other authority, does not, at any rate, contradict the biblical text. Instead of the chetib , in 2Ki 14:13, the keri offers . In 2Ch 25:23 there stands instead of either: , i. e., he brought him. The Sept. have this reading in the verse before us also ( ), and the Vulg. follows: adduxit eum. Thenius, therefore, adopts this as the original reading, but unnecessarily, for if Joash took Amaziah prisoner and did not put him to death, it is a matter of course that he took him with him when he went farther. The chronicler simply expresses himself a little more definitely. Although Jehoash did not need to besiege Jerusalem, yet he caused a large piece of its wall of fortification to be torn down, from the gate of Ephraim to the corner gate. The former stood on the north side of the city, towards Ephraim, and was also called the gate of Benjamin, because the road to Ephraim ran through the territory of Benjamin. It is now called the gate of Damascus. The latter was to the west of this, at the point where the wall turned southward: i. e., at the northwest corner of the city. According to Thenius does not here denote the terminus ad quem, but only the direction in which, because the distance between them was more than 400 cubits, viz., 2,000 English feet. The question arises, however, whether Thenius has correctly fixed the situation of the corner-gate on his plan of the city, and whether the distance was as great as he supposes, as the city was laid out before the exile. In descriptions of localities, always serves to define the limit up to which, and not merely the direction. Josephus assertion that Jehoash caused a breach () 30 cubits wide to be made in the wall, and that he drove through this in a chariot with the captive king by his side, has no foundation in the biblical text. Jehoashs purpose in ordering the wall to be torn down was not to get a grand gateway for a triumphal entry (Thenius), but to mark the city as captured, and as lying open on the side of Ephraim.The hostages (2Ki 14:14) were demanded by Jehoash especially because he, as Josephus expressly states, gave the king his freedom, but desired still to hold him in check. They were taken, no doubt, from the most important families, but they were hardly sons of the king himself, for, if they had been, it would probably have been so stated. The treasures, which the victor carried off, were not probably very great (see 2Ki 13:18), and the word seems to hint at this.
2Ki 14:15. Now the rest of the acts, &c. The repetition of the standing formula, in regard to Jehoash, after it had once been used in 2Ki 13:12-13, has its explanation probably in this, that the author found it in the document from which he took 2Ki 14:8-17, as well as in that from which he took chap. 13. An especial reason for adopting this explanation is that the formula is not precisely the same here as in the former place. The name of the king of Israel is there written three times , whereas we have here twice . The latter form is preserved throughout the section 2Ki 14:8-17, whereas in 2Ki 14:1 the shorter form occurs. Here, the natural succession of the details is observed (death, burial, successor); there, there is a transposition (death, successor, burial) (Thenius). Nevertheless, the author may have been led to repeat the formula because 2Ki 14:17 contains an important statement which is connected with Joashs death, namely, that Amaziah lived and reigned for fifteen years after Joash died. The author felt obliged to repeat the notice of Joashs death, as an introduction to this statement (Superflua non nocent).
2Ki 14:17. And Amaziah, &c. This chronological datum stands in perfect accord with the ones before given in 2Ki 14:1-2 and in 2Ki 13:10. Amaziah reigned in all 29 years; 15 after Joashs death; therefore, 14 with him. As Joash reigned 16 years, Amaziahs succession falls in his second year, as is stated in 2Ki 14:1. [See the translators note on 2Ki 14:22.]If we bear in mind that Amaziahs war with Edom took place before that with Joash, we are led to infer that the latter took place shortly before Joashs death. The old expositors adopted the supposition that Amaziah spent the 15 years after Joashs death in retirement and contempt, as a deposed king, and that the conspiracy was a consequence of his disgraceful defeat (2Ki 14:19). There is no ground for such an hypothesis, however, for if the conspiracy had been formed after that defeat, it would not have been 15 years before it was consummated. The chronicler says (2Ki 25:27): Now, after the time that Amaziah did turn away from following the Lord (i. e., from the time when he, after the victory over the Edomites, brought their gods back to Jerusalem with him, 2Ch 25:14), they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem. This time was before the war with Joash and the great defeat; it is only intended to assert that the unfortunate end of Amaziah was a punishment for his apostasy. The conspiracy must have had some other especial cause which is not stated. According to Thenius, who explains all the people of Judah (2Ki 14:21) to mean the whole military force, it was a conspiracy of the army. It may be, however, that a general dissatisfaction arose among the people from other causes, and that this finally led to the conspiracy.Lachish was originally a royal city of the Canaanites in the lowlands of southern Palestine. Joshua conquered it, and afterwards gave it to the tribe of Judah (Jos 10:31; Jos 15:39). Rehoboam fortified it against the Philistines (2Ch 11:9). Amaziah fled to this place, probably because he could easily flee across the frontier from there if the necessity should arise. The conspirators seem to have followed upon his heels. According to 2Ki 14:20 it is probable that they brought the slain king back to Jerusalem in his own royal chariot.
2Ki 14:21. And all the people of Judah took, &c. It is remarkable that, in this case also, the conspirators did not take one of their own number and make him king, but, as in 2 Kings 12:22, they adhered to the succession of the house of David. It is doubtful whether Azariah was the oldest son of Amaziah, for it is most probable that the latter, at the age of 54, when he died, left sons older than this boy of 16 years. The expression appears to imply that they chose this boy on account of some peculiar characteristics.The new king is called here and in 2Ki 15:1; 2Ki 15:6-8; 2Ki 15:17; 2Ki 15:23; 2Ki 15:27, ; on the contrary, in 2Ki 15:13; 2Ki 15:31-32; 2Ki 15:34, as in the Chronicle (except 1Ch 3:12), [and in Isa 1:1; Isa 6:1; Hos 1:1; Amo 1:1; Zec 14:5], he is called . Against the explanation that is an error of the copyist, arising from the similarity of the and the , is the consideration that the error, if it be an error, is repeated so often. We must rather suppose that the king really had both these names, which are very closely connected (Keil). [In the ed. of 1865, he says that they are used promiscuously.] Vatablus: duo nomina habuit affinia: Fortitudo Domini, et Auxilium Domini. [The two names are at least very nearly equivalent in etymological meaning: (he whose) Help (is) Jehovah; (he whose) Strength (is) Jehovah. Bertheau calls attention to a similar case, In 1Ch 25:4, among the sons of Heman, is one who is called Uzziel. A comparison of the names in the subsequent repetition shows that he is the person called Azareel in 2Ki 14:18.W. G. S.] This is quite possible in view of the frequency with which names are changed in the Orient. The name Uzziah seems to have been generally used after his accession to the throne (see the places where it occurs in the later prophets, which are quoted above).
2Ki 14:22. On Elath, see note on 1Ki 9:26. Either Amaziah did not push forward as far as this important port of commerce, in his expedition against the Edomites, or else he was unable to retain possession of it after his defeat by Joash, at Beth Shemesh; but Edom was not a valuable possession for Judah except as it involved the possession of Elath. That the new king took this city and built it, that is, either extended it or strengthened it, was a most important event for the kingdom, and especially for his own authority. That is why it is here mentioned by anticipation at the beginning of his reign, whereas his further history is not given until later, in 2Ki 15:1-7. We cannot infer from the clause: after that the king slept with his fathers, that Azariah undertook this expedition at once (Thenius), and advanced victoriously to Elath, for he was, at the time of his accession, a boy of 16 years. However, it may well have been in the early part of his reign. [This clause is very enigmatical. No satisfactory explanation of it has ever been offered. It is said that a certain king died, another succeeded, and when the author goes on to mention the acts of the latters reign, he says that he did a certain thing after the (former) king was dead, It is either a most idle and meaningless statement, or else it has a significance which has not yet been perceived. It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that it alludes to the fact that Azariah was made king after his father was captured by Jehoash, and before he was released, and that he did this after his fathers release and death. This would account for Azariahs youth at the time he was made king. 2Ki 14:22 would then follow 2Ki 14:14 in the connection of the narrative. In view of the form and substance of the intervening verses this is not at all impossible. After 2Ki 14:14 the author goes on to tell (a) what became of Jehoash, (b) what became of Amaziah, (c) what the people of Judah did after their king was captured (2Ki 14:22). The immediate release of Amaziah by Jehoash rests only upon the authority of Josephus. In connection with this the other remarkable datum in 2Ki 14:17 may be noticed: Amaziah lived 15 years after Joash. (It is worth noticing that it does not say that he reigned.) Ewald understands this to mean that he lived as a captive, and was finally released by Jeroboam; but he does not suppose that Azariah was made king until after his fathers assassination. This would leave Judah kingless for 15 years, and force us to assume that its king was assassinated as soon as he was released. If, however, we suppose that, after Amaziah was taken away captive, his son was made king; that when Amaziah was released and returned to Judah, he was not welcome there; and that the conspiracy was formed to remove him, we have a consistent theory throughout. With regard, then, to the chronology: 2Ki 15:1 says that Azariah became king in the 27th of Jerob. II. This is inconsistent with every other chronological datum, and is universally sacrificed (see the Comm. on the verse). Zachariahs accession in the 38th of Azariah would fix Azariahs accession in the 3d or 4th of Jeroboam, if we hold fast 41 years as the duration of Jeroboams reign. If, as seems very probable, Joash died soon after he defeated and captured Amaziah, then the people of Judah waited 3 or 4 years for the release of their king, and when this did not take place, they made Azariah king. Amaziah lived 11 years longer, was released, returned, and was assassinated, and Azariah was 27 years old when he took Elath. This construction is consistent with all the texts. The 29 years in 2Ki 14:2, cover the period from Amaziahs accession to his death, and the 15 years in 2Ki 14:17 hold good. Azariah reigned for 52 years from the date of his coronation, or 41 years from the date of his fathers death. In the text his coronation is recognized as the true beginning of his reign, and the dates for the accession of Zachariah, Shallum, Menahem, Pekahiah, Pekah, and Jotham, are all consistent therewith. Against this construction is the strong consideration that the circumstances are not more distinctly narrated. We have no mention of Amaziahs release at all. There are also difficulties connected with the chronology, but these confront us in any case. They can only be removed by arbitrary changes, and these changes can only be based upon conjecture. Every time that I have re-examined the chronology of this period the suspicion has been revived in my mind that the error, which undoubtedly inheres in it at this point, is to be sought in the duration ascribed to the reign of Amaziah, although the chronologies almost all alter the data in regard to Jeroboam or Azariah. It may be that the clue to the solution of the difficulty lies in the captivity of Amaziah.W. G. S.]
2Ki 14:23. In the fifteenth year of Amaziah, &c. This statement agrees with that in 2Ki 14:1 and in ver 17. Amaziah ruled 29 years; 14 with Joash of Israel, and 15 with his son Jeroboam II. The further statement, however, that Jeroboam reigned for 41 years, is contradicted by 2Ki 15:8, which says that the son and successor of Jeroboam, Zachariah, came to the throne in the 38th year of Azariah (Uzziah). Now if Jeroboam reigned with Amaziah for 15 years, and then 38 years more with Azariah, his entire reign was not 41 but 53 years, or if, as is probable, the 15 years and the 38 years were not all complete (see Pt. II., p. 86), then 51 years. As all the chronologers agree that Zachariahs accession cannot be placed earlier than the 38th of Azariah, it is generally assumed, in order to account for the difference between 41 and 51 years, that an interregnum or anarchy of 10 years took place after the death of Jeroboam (Keil and others). But, according to 2Ki 14:29, Zachariah followed his father Jeroboam, not after an interval of 10 or 11 years, but immediately after his death. Moreover there is not the slightest sign, in the history, of any period of anarchy, though such a period must certainly have been marked by some important incidents, and we may not make history in order to account for a single inconsistent chronological statement. According to Hos 1:1, that prophet labored under Jeroboam II., and also under Hezekiah, who did not come to the throne until 727 b. c. Now, if Jeroboam only reigned 41 years, from 823 to 782, Hosea must have labored as a prophet publicly before 782 and after 727, that is, for over 60 years; but this hardly seems possible. But if Jeroboam reigned 51 years, 823772, then still Hoseas public work covers the great but not impossible time of 50 years. For all these reasons we are compelled to conclude, with Thenius, that there is an error here in copying the letters which designate the numbers ( = 41 for = 51), and that the latter would be the correct number. Wolff (see Pt. II., p. 89), with whose other combinations we do not agree, considers the number 41 incorrect, and reckons the years of the reign of Jeroboam II. at 52. [See bracketed note on 2Ki 14:22.]
2Ki 14:25. He restored the coast of Israel, &c. As in 1Ki 8:65; Amo 6:2; Amo 6:14, Hamath, by which we must understand not a city merely, but also a district of Syria (2Ki 23:33; 2Ki 25:21), is here used to designate the northern boundary of Palestine. The sea of the plain is the Dead Sea (Deu 3:17; Jos 3:16), the ordinary designation of the southern boundary of Palestine, east of the Jordan, which is more definitely marked on the frontier of Moab by the brook Arnon which flows into the Dead Sea (Isa 16:2). [cf. also Amo 6:14.] Jonah is the well-known prophet (Jon 1:1) from the city of Gath-Hepher, which lay in the territory of Zebulon (Jos 19:13). This oracle does not lose any of its historical value from the fact that it is not to be found in the Book of Jonah which we possess. It is incomprehensible how Menzel could suppose that the book of Jonah contains this prophecy in a metaphorical form, although not directly. Others, as Hitzig and Knobel, think that Isaiah 15, 16 contains the oracle of Jonah here referred to, an hypothesis which rests upon a very weak basis.In 2Ki 14:26-27 it is explained how it came about that the frontiers were restored by a king who still maintained the worship of Jeroboams calves. The ground for this lay in Jehovahs pity for His chosen people. He had not yet declared that He would blot it out for its apostasy. He helped it out of the deep distress into which it had been brought by the Syrians (2Ki 13:3; 2Ki 13:7), and prospered it to an extent which was no longer to be expected or hoped for; for, though Jehoash had recovered all the lost cities on this side of the Jordan, yet all the territory beyond the river was still in the hands of the Syrians. Jeroboam was the one who recovered it. On and see note on 1Ki 14:10; cf. Deu 32:36.In 2Ki 14:28, cannot be translated otherwise than as in 2Ki 14:25 : he brought back. Ewald desires to strike out and then to read instead of : He recovered Damascus and Hamath for Israel. These changes are as violent as they are unnecessary. is a periphrasis for the genitive, because the proper names do not admit of any form for the stat. const. (Keil, Thenius), and before means to or for. As, however, neither the cities nor the districts of Hamath and Damascus ever belonged to Judah or Israel, it is impossible to say, in the strict sense of the words, that he brought them back. David had, indeed, once conquered a part of Syria (Damascus, 2Sa 8:5-6), and Solomon had conquered a part of Hamath (2Ch 8:3-4). It was these districts, which had long before made themselves independent of any authority of Israel, which Jeroboam recovered. The sense is then: Jeroboam re-established the frontiers of the kingdom as they had once been under David and Solomon, i. e., at the most flourishing period of the kingdom.
HISTORICAL AND ETHICAL
1. The reign of Amaziah had, in general, the same course as that of his father Joash (chap. 12). We see the same good beginning, the same bad progress, and the same sad and terrible ending in the case of Amaziah as in that of Joash (Schlier). The text itself affirms this by the words: He did in all things like as Joash his father had done (2Ki 14:3). The reasons why he clung, at the commencement of his reign, to the lawful worship of. Jehovah, were rather external and traditional than the result of an internal conviction. He may have seen that this was necessary for the maintenance of his authority, just as the kings of Israel considered it necessary for political reasons to maintain the worship of Jeroboams calf-images. It certainly was not an affair of the heart with him (2Ch 25:2). He was a soldier with all his heart, and he was nothing more (Calw. Bibel). He wanted military glory, and therefore, immediately after his accession to the throne, he collected a large army, and also hired mercenaries from Israel (2Ch 25:5-6). The Edomites had not provoked in any way the attack upon themselves; it was purely an expedition for conquest. The brilliant victory which he won made him arrogant, and intensified his thirst for war, so that he, in haughty self-confidence and without external occasion, challenged Israel to war, and insisted even when the latter put aside the challenge and warned him to give up his plan. His arrogance was severely punished; he was subjected to a humiliation such as no king of Judah had experienced, not even his father Joash. The Chronicler represents this as a divine judgment upon him because he introduced the worship of the gods of Edom into Judah upon his return from the expedition, and repelled haughtily the warning of a prophet against this course (2Ch 25:14-16). There is no occasion at all to doubt this story, as Thenius does, because it is intended to put in pragmatic form the theocratic explanation of the unfortunate result of the war with Israel. Neither is it contradictory to 2Ki 14:3. The idea that divine judgments follow upon idolatry and the worship of false gods is one which runs through the entire Old Testament economy; it is not peculiar to the Chronicler, but was held also by the author of the Books of Kings, and, indeed, by all the Old Testament writers. Amaziahs unfortunate and shameful end showed that it was not enough for a king of Judah to observe the law for mere external and political reasons, but that he fulfilled his calling only when he, like David, clung to Jehovah with all his heart.
2. It has been regarded as a proof of extraordinary humanity on the part of Amaziah that, although he put to death, upon his accession, the murderers of his father, nevertheless he spared their sons and relatives, contrary to the course which was commonly pursued in such cases (Curtius 6, 2 Kings 11 : Lege cautum erat, ut propinqui eorum, qui regi insidiati cum ipsis necarentur. Cf. Cic. ad Brut. 15). We see, says Eisenlohr (Das Volk Israel, II. s. 203), that there was a remarkable development and growth of moral feeling in the nation, and that a humane and generous culture gradually supplanted the former harshness. We are forced to recognize this movement in spite of exceptional instances to the contrary, and we see that it went hand in hand with the decay of the more rigid and formal conception of moral relations, and with the growth of a more expanded moral vision. But there are no signs of any progress in humanity at this period. On the contrary, we are rather forced to infer from the oracles of the prophets Amos and Hosea, that it was a time of rudeness and violence. As for Amaziah, it is impossible to speak of any humane disposition in a man who, after killing 10,000 Edomites in battle, proceeded to throw from a rock 10,000 more who had been captured alive (2Ch 25:11-12). The author only means to say that Amaziah, in the beginning of his reign, was guided by the precepts of the Law, and that he obeyed them also in regard to the punishment of those concerned in the murder of his father, and their children. This law came from Moses, and was not the product of a later and (as is asserted) more humane time. This is not disproved by the fact that the precept in question is contained in the Book of Deuteronomy, for that book did not repeal or abolish former statutes, it only renewed and extended them. Hitzig is decidedly in error when he says, on Jer 31:29 (cf. Eze 18:2 sq.); The punishment of the sins of the fathers upon the children, a legal institution of the old covenant, is, according to 2Ki 14:29, repealed. This repeal is accomplished (2 Kings 14:31) by abolishing the entire former covenant. In the places cited, the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel are attacking the popular error that God had left the guilty parents unpunished, and was now punishing the children for their sins (cf. Havernick on Ezekiel 18). The author of this passage in Kings is not speaking of Gods punishment of men, but of the punishment of the sons of the murderers by the king, i. e., by the civil power. The civil punishment of the sons of wrong-doers for the crimes of their fathers was abolished, not in the time of Ezekiel or Jeremiah, but by the law of Moses. Amaziahs conduct was not dictated by thirst for vengeance against the fathers, nor by humane pity for the sons. It was rather a simple act of justice, in which he behaved, both towards the fathers (Exo 21:12; Lev 24:17), and towards the sons (Deu 24:16), according to the Law.
[The question of the degree of humanity to be ascribed to Amaziah is of little importance. It is certain that his conduct was very different from that which was observed on all the changes of dynasties in Israel, and by Athaliah in Judah. These events were marked by the wholesale bloodshed which was common in similar cases elsewhere in the Orient. The author of the book of Kings ascribes this action of the king to his loyalty to the law of Moses, i. e., Deuteronomy. The bearing of the text on the question of the time of composition of the book of Deuteronomy is plain. If the author is correct in his explanation of Amaziahs conduct, then the Book of Deuteronomy was in existence at this time. This is not the place to discuss the general evidence for the time of composition of that book, but the evidence of this verse can only be avoided by supposing that the author carried back to Amaziah the ideas of a book which was written 150 years after his death, but before the time when the Book of Kings was written, or else that this verse was put in by the compiler. Those who maintain the late origin of Deuteronomy are divided between these explanations.The idea that God punishes the sins of the fathers upon the children is certainly found in the Mosaic Law (Exo 20:5; Deu 5:9), and it is a simple fact of observation and experience, both in history and in private life. This is at once a proof and a consequence of the solidarity of the human race. No man can commit an action which will not have greater or less effect upon his contemporaries and upon succeeding generations. Those on whom the punishment falls complain of injustice in this order of things, as the Jews did who had to bear the captivity, while their fathers, who had incurred the penalty, had lived in luxury and sin and died in peace, at home. Against them the prophets maintained the justice of God in his dealings with individuals, and the responsibility of each for his own sins only. This was, undeniably, a modification or explanation of Deu 5:9. Jeremiah (Jer 31:29 sq.) represents it as a new covenant which is to take the place of the old. Deu 24:16 is entirely different. It forbids, plainly and most justly, that men shall imitate the course of nature, which entails upon the children the consequences of the fathers sins, by inflicting upon children physical punishment for their fathers crimes. The latter alone comes into the discussion of Amaziahs conduct.W. G. S.]
3. The representation of king Joash which is here given us supplements essentially the portrait of him which we had in the last chapter. The manner in which he here repels Amaziahs challenge is not by any means a well-meant warning; it is rather calculated to exasperate him, and to stimulate his thirst for war still further. It bears witness, not to faith and trust in God, but to great self-confidence and arrogance. The old spirit of Ephraim appears here again, and, pluming itself upon superior numbers, and external greatness and power, looks down contemptuously upon Judah. The parable of the cedar of Lebanon and the briar-bush at its feet is a piece of genuine oriental bombast, for which Joash had the less ground inasmuch as all that part of Israel beyond Jordan was still in the hands of the Syrians, and Israel was altogether in a distressed condition from which Jeroboam II. was the first to relieve it (2Ki 14:26). Moreover, Joash did not bear in mind that fire can go forth, even out of a briar, and consume the cedars of Lebanon (Jdg 9:15). For the rest, Joash sustained himself here as a valiant soldier; he did not wait for Amaziah to attack him, but took the initiative himself, pushed on to the neighborhood of Amaziahs capital, inflicted upon him a signal defeat, and took him captive. We are not told why he did not put him to death, and, after taking Jerusalem, put an end to the kingdom of Judah, as Nebuchadnezzer afterwards did (chap. 25). It can hardly have been from magnanimity that he took the captive king with him to Jerusalem, left him upon the throne, and contented himself with hostages. It is more natural to suppose that he did this from arrogance. The cedar treated the briar with contempt, and let him go as beneath fear. Nevertheless he took hostages as security. We have to recognize here a dispensation of Him who meant indeed to humble Amaziah (2Ch 25:20), but who would not permit that Israel should become master of Judah.
4. Jeroboam II. reigned, oven if we take the number 41 to be correct, longer than any other king of Israel. The history of his reign is given here very concisely, and, with the exception of the incidental mention, Amo 7:10, we have no further information. Besides the fact that he, like all his predecessors, maintained the worship of the calf-images, we are only told in regard to him that God, according to the prophecy of Jonah, through him rescued Israel from its bitter distress, and that he restored the frontiers of the country as they had existed under David and Solomon. The complete defeat of the Syrians, and the expulsion of these arch-enemies, who had brought the kingdom to the verge of ruin, had the most important consequences. These events took place early in the reign of Jeroboam, and they show us Jeroboam as the most able and energetic of the kings of Israel. The latter part of his reign seems to have passed away without any decisive events. It was a time of peace and quiet, in which, as 2Ki 13:5 says, The children of Israel dwelt in their tents as before, and the people enjoyed the fruit of the victory over the Syrians. It follows that Jeroboam was not only a valiant soldier, but also a prudent ruler, who understood how to use the time of peace so as to raise the material condition of his people. From the prophecies of the contemporary prophets Amos and Hosea, it is evident that the kingdom had then attained a state of prosperity such as it had never before enjoyed (cf. Amo 6:4-6; Amo 3:15; Hos 12:8). The deep depravity of the people, however, appeared just at this time, for, instead of being led, by Gods bountiful goodness, to repentance, they were stimulated to pride, so-that Hosea said: According to their pasture, so were they filled, &c. (Hos 13:6). Not only did the worship of the calf-images continue, but also the worship of false gods increased (Hos 4:12; Hos 4:17; Hos 8:4; Hos 11:2; Hos 13:2). A shocking corruption of morals found entrance at the same time: luxury, debauchery, shameless licentiousness, injustice, violence, falsehood, and deceit of all kinds (Amo 2:6 sq.; 2Ki 3:9; 2Ki 5:12; 2Ki 6:4-7; Hos 4:1-2; Hos 4:18), so that the kingdom went on from the height of its prosperity, only the more surely, towards its final downfall. (See the next chapter.) In so far, the time of Jeroboam was a turning point in the history of Israel. It gave the proof that this nation could better endure misfortune and oppression of every kind than earthly glory and prosperity; therefore the Lord allowed it, for its own salvation, to fall from its position as an independent nation (2Ki 17:6 sq.).
5. The prophet Jonah, who foretold the victory of Jeroboam over the Syrians, and the restoration of the ancient boundaries by him, must have appeared in the early part of his reign. He is the first of the line of prophets who not only spoke (preached), but also wrote down their prophecies. A new phase of prophecy begins with him, so that in this respect also the reign of Jeroboam was most important for the history of redemption. Up to this point the activity of the class of prophets of whom Elijah and Elisha were the chief, was especially [and almost exclusively] directed to the present, and aimed to bring about a return from the worship of the calves, and from idolatry, to the fundamental law of Israel. They seized upon events and circumstances, not so much by their teaching and preaching, as by their acts, and their acts were signs, that is, they were acts which transmitted a divine revelation. Since now, as Hasse (Geschichte des Alten Bundes, s. 110 sq.) remarks, the house of Jehu, which owed everything to the prophets, also failed to return to the original purity of the Israelitish constitution, and since it persevered in its idolatry even under Jeroboam II., who no longer had any foreign enemy to fear, every hope of a reformation in the northern kingdom had to be given up, and the prophets could no longer hope to accomplish anything there by actual interference [i. e., by such acts as the deposing of one dynasty and the institution of another. Even that extreme measure had failed in the case of the house of Jehu]; they could only allow the evil to go on to its consummation. They, therefore, gradually withdrew from the direction of affairs, and regarded it as their only remaining task to make known to this stubborn and hard-hearted generation the judgment which it was bringing down upon itself. Just at the time, therefore, when the northern kingdom was at the very height of its glory, Amos and Hosea proclaimed to it its approaching ruin, and, because Judah had also been tainted by the contagion of apostasy, Joel also appeared there at the same time, as herald of the coming judgment. This judgment could not, of course, arrest the higher destiny of Israel. Therefore the prophets saw beyond it a new and purified Israel arise, and form a united kingdom under a sceptre of the house of David, which should embrace the heathen also. The Messianic kingdom, therefore, rose up more and more distinctly as the end and aim of the entire development, as the true kingdom of God, and promises of this kingdom were joined with threats of judgment. Now for the first time did prophecy become truly prophecythat is, a vision of coming salvation which stretched forward into and anticipated the future; and where the prophets had hitherto made use of word of mouth only, in order to influence the present, and their immediate surroundings, they now made use of writing, because coming generations also were to learn what they had received into their souls. Instead of recognizing a turning-point in the history of the prophetic institution at the time of Jeroboam, Ewald asserts (Gesch. iii. s. 565 sq. 3d ed. 607 sq.) that there was a complete dissolution of the ancient prophetic institution at that time. The entire school (of Elijah and Elisha) degenerated, and moved, not forwards, but backwards. The cause of this was that the violent and imperious character which clung to all the old kind of prophecy, but especially to its developments in the northern kingdom, could no longer be maintained over against the crown. The bow was stretched too hardit had to break. A new form of the prophetical institution now arose. This did not aim to be an independent power in the kingdom, to exercise a control which admitted of no contradiction, to set up and to depose kings, &c., &c. This theory rests upon the erroneous premise mentioned above (Hist., 7, on Chap. 9), that the ancient prophetical institution stood opposed to the crown as one independent power to another, and that they strove for the mastery, whereas the former was only a divinely appointed corrective for the latter. If we were to charge any of the prophets with violent and imperious behavior, this charge would fall first of all upon the new order of them, Hosea and Amos for instance, in comparison with whose words those of Elijah and Elisha sound mild and gentle. Jeremiah, who came still later, was called to the prophetic office with the words: See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out and to pull down, &c. (Jer 1:10; cf. Jer 18:7). The development of the prophetical institution stands in exact relation to the history of Israel, and is conditioned upon it. It does not break off with Elisha, who died under Jeroboams predecessor. The word-prophets stand upon the shoulders of the deed-prophets, and carry on the work which they had founded and begun.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
2Ki 14:1-20. The Reign of Amaziah. (a) The good beginning, 2Ki 14:1-7; (b) the deterioration as it advanced, 2Ki 14:8-14; (c) the sad ending, 2Ki 14:17-20.
2Ki 14:3. In cases like that of Amaziah, where faith is not completely and sincerely an affair of the heart (2Ch 25:2), it has no firm foundation and is quickly overwhelmed, either by unbelief or by superstition. A half-and-half disposition in what is good is a bridge which leads to what is evil.In sacred and spiritual affairs we have not to ask, how did our fathers do? but, how would God have us do? Because Amaziah only did as his father had done, he finally fared as his father had fared.
2Ki 14:5-6. The civil authority does not carry the sword in vain, but it is an avenger to inflict punishment upon him who does wickedly (Rom 13:4). It is as much a sin to leave the guilty unpunished as to punish the innocent. Right and justice are distorted by both courses. Where regicides are allowed to go unpunished, out of pity or weakness, there all justice ceases. The throne [and the civil authority] are not established by weak concessions, but by righteousness (Pro 16:12).Although the faults of the fathers are not nowadays visited upon the children, yet it is not rare that the son suffers from enmity which his father incurred.
2Ki 14:7-14. Pride goes before a Fall. (a) Amaziahs arrogance; (b) his fall.
2Ki 14:7. Victory cometh from the Lord (Pro 21:31). If Amaziah had seen and believed this, he would have given to God the honor, and would have humbled himself; but he ascribed the victory to himself and to his own power, and so became haughty and arrogant (Jer 17:5; Jer 17:7).Extraordinary success in our undertakings is a great temptation to arrogance (Wrt. Summ.: Those must be strong legs which can support great good fortune and prosperity). God blesses our undertakings in order that we may become, not haughty, but humble (Gen 32:10-11). Every undue self-exaltation robs us of the blessing again. Paul labored with greater success than any other of the apostles, but he was so far from proudly exalting his heart on this account that he called himself the least of the apostles, and said: By the grace of God I am what I am (1Co 15:9-10).
2Ki 14:8. To commence a war from mere lust for war and victory is an abomination in the sight of God. Quarrelsomeness among common people is the same as love of war among kings. The word of God says: Follow peace with all men (Heb 12:14), and: If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men (Rom 12:18).
2Ki 14:9-10. As you shout, so will the echo be. He who over-estimates his own strength, and pushes himself forward into the charge of things which he is not capable of managing, must not be surprised if he is contemptuously corrected. The warning to Enjoy your victory (which you have already won) and stay at home! belongs justly to vanity and self-exaltation.He who desires to correct another for his arrogance must take good care not to fall into the same fault himself. Blame and complaint for the pride and arrogance of others often come from hearts which exalt themselves too much.Do not parade your wisdom and strength, if you really possess them. The Lord breaks down even the cedars of Lebanon (Psa 29:5; cf. Isa 2:12-13). Little David, when he comes in the might of the Lord, is a match for the giant Goliath.
2Ki 14:11. When the humiliating truth is spoken out with scorn and derision, although it is in itself beneficial, yet it only exasperates and embitters, instead of leading to self-knowledge. As a bee sucks honey even out of a poisonous flower, so also a sincere and truth-loving soul will win even from the scorn and mockery of its enemies something good and beneficial for itself.Arrogance and love of honor make men deaf to every warning and incapable of considering what is really best for them. But he who will not hear must feel.
2Ki 14:11-14. The defeat and fall of Amaziah proclaim loudly: (a) Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall (Pro 16:18). The stone falls back upon the head of him who casts it into the air (Sir 27:28). (b) He who desires too much, loses even that which he already has; therefore, Godliness with contentment is great gain (1Ti 6:6).
2Ki 14:13-16. What is a man profited, &c. (Mat 16:26). Joash won a great battle, took the king prisoner, conquered Jerusalem, and came back to Samaria crowned with glory and laden with gold and silver; but the best thing, the God who was yet worshipped and honored in Judah, he did not bring. He remained in the sins of Jeroboam until his end.
2Ki 14:17-20. It is the great grace of God when a long time is given to a man who has sinned grievously in order that he may make good again the harm which his sins have done, but then the responsibility is all the heavier when the limited time expires. There stands written on the tombstone of Amaziah by the finger of God this great and eternal truth: God will resist the proud!
2Ki 14:23-29. See Histor. And Eth.
2Ki 14:25-27. Israels deep misery (Jer 2:19), and Gods great pity (Psa 103:10; Hos 11:8).Wrt. Summ.: Our faithful God helps us out of trouble according to His great compassion, even when we have not deserved it of Him, but often not until our distress has reached the highest pitch and no help is to be expected from any other quarter.When God not only helps us out of trouble which we have not deserved, but also gives us besides what we never could have hoped for or expected, He thereby says to us: I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, &c. (Eze 33:11; Rom 2:4).
2Ki 14:25. In times of need and calamity God provides faithful servants who bear witness to his pity and call mens attention to the one thing needful. Well is it for those who listen to these voices and do not harden their hearts.
2Ki 14:28-29. Jeroboam had striven for the external prosperity of his people, and, when he died, he left the kingdom in a more flourishing condition than any previous king of Israel. For its spiritual welfare, however, he had done nothing. Calf-worship and the service of false gods had continued, and a moral rottenness had found entrance, which brought the kingdom near to ruin. So has many a one, at his death, left to his children treasures which he had won by long labor and care, but those children have not been bred in the fear and love of God, and have not been taught that The world passeth away and the lust thereof; but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever (1Jn 2:17; 1Pe 1:24 sq.).
Footnotes:
[1]2Ki 14:4.[The participle here marks an event which was going on at the same time with another. Examples of this are numerous. Cf. 1Ki 1:5; 1Ki 3:26; 1Ki 4:24; 2Ki 8:5.
[2]2Ki 14:6.The keri is the result of a desire to reproduce literally the text of Deuteronomy, but it is unnecessary. Read the chetib, .
[3]2Ki 14:8.[ , is acc. of the part affected. Let us look upon one another, as to the face = let us look upon one anothers face, i.e., let us measure strength with one another. Ewald (Lehrbuch, 281, c) explains it: Let us look upon one another as to the person, i.e., in person.
[4]2Ki 14:13.[The keri is unnecessary. Punctuate the chetib .
[5]2Ki 14:14.[Literally: Sons of pledges.
[6]2Ki 14:25.[ would be literally from as far as; i. e., it expresses that he penetrated up as far as Hamath, came near to that place, and then made it a point of departure on the north, from which he extended his conquests southward to the Dead Sea.
[7]2Ki 14:26.[ from . Gesen. (Thes. s. v.) understands it to mean deep-rooted, of long standing, but the latest and best expositors agree to take in the sense of , to be bitter.W. G. S.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
This chapter brings some consolation, to the mind in the history of the kings of Israel and Judah, in relating to us the good reign of Amaziah. He is slain, however, by a conspiracy; and is succeeded in the kingdom by Azariah. Here is an account also of the reign of Jeroboam king of Israel.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
The twenty five years of Amaziah’s reign may be brought into a narrow compass. His history, as is here related, consisted chiefly in restoring order in the temple service, by which it is said he did right in the sight of the Lord, though not like David. The other parts are much like that of others in extending his authority, and in a wish to extend his conquests, in which, however, he was worsted. The parable of the thistle and cedar, which Jehoash made use of to correct Amaziah’s folly, was well chosen. And the event corresponded to its figure. But what I would chiefly desire the Reader to remark while passing through these chapters, of war, and desolation, and the sword, is to view in them the sad consequences of a fallen state. Even in the history of Israel, the nation whom God chose for himself from all the earth, we see the same sad ruin by reason of sin. No man hath ever contemplated to the full, the dreadful situation to which our nature has been reduced by the fall. And never will it be fully ascertained in this life. And hence no one, not even the redeemed who feel the precious effects of regeneration, can ever while they remain in a body of sin and death calculate the glorious consequences of redemption by Jesus. Oh! thou blessed, gracious, dearest Lord Jesus! when shall I know to the full thy loveliness, and the immense mercies thou hast accomplished for thy people to the praise of thy Father’s grace, and the purchase of thy blood?,
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
The Thistle and the Cedar
2Ki 14:9
There are two striking fables in the Old Testament: that of Jotham, and this of Jehoash the King of Israel.
I. The Fable Illustrates the Variety of Humanity. ‘The thistle that was in Lebanon:’ the word may mean a thorn or a brier; whichever it be it represents what is mean, contemptible, low, troublesome. And quite near it uprose ‘the cedar that was in Lebanon’ grand, majestic, sublime. Thistles and cedars are alike part of the economy of God. Which are we in spiritual character? No man need be a moral thistle. Every man may be ‘a cedar Christian’. By grace each of us may be a righteous soul, and ‘the righteous shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon’.
II. What Inadequate Self-knowledge is here Displayed? A thistle on Lebanon abides a thistle withal. The thistle of the fable forgot this, and it desired to treat with a cedar on quite equal terms. It is ever the small and mean and worthless that lack self-knowledge most conspicuously.
III. Empty and Ambitious Pride is here Rebuked. ‘Give thy daughter to my son to wife,’ cried the pompous little thistle. Well does Dean Farrar characterize it as ‘ludicrous presumption’. Surely there is no room for pride in any man.
How shall we be enabled to think nothing of ourselves? The great evangelical hymnist gives us the sacred clue:
When I survey the wondrous Cross,
On which the Prince of Glory died
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.
IV. In this Fable we see a Want of Appreciation of Nobleness. Many a cedar has been unrecognized by the thistle community amid which it has dwelt. It is possible to live with nobleness and never perceive it. This is one of the tragedies of human history. Supremely was it exemplified when the Son of God was Incarnate here.
V. Here Incongruous Aspirations are Represented. The vanity which expresses itself in ‘vaulting ambition which overleaps itself was never better delineated than in this old-world fable. Said the thistle to the cedar, ‘Give thy daughter to my son to wife’. For ourselves and those we love we do well to dread unwise and unholy ambitions. All ambition is dangerous, much ambition is ruinous. ‘I was afraid of ambition,’ said the great and good Dean Vaughan when asked why he had refused a bishopric.
VI. See in this Old Fable the Retributive Ruin of a Life. How did the comedy end? In a tragedy as so many of the comedies of life end. ‘And there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon and trode down the thistle.’ There was no need for the cedar to send a reply to the self-deceived thistle. Retribution came, and came soon.
Quite casual the retribution seemed: the wild beast ‘passed by’. But it was not so casual as it seemed. Law lies behind all things and that law essentially moral. What appears a fateful accident may be a Divine retribution. The wild beasts of the forest belong unto God. And He sends them forth on His errands. When a wrongdoer least expects such a visitation the wild beast passes by on its destructive mission.
Dinsdale T. Young, The Travels of the Heart, p. 85.
References. XV. 13-18. W. Hay M. H. Aitken, The Highway of Holiness, p. 63. XVI. 15. C. Brown, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lxii. 1902, p. 398.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
2Ki 14
1. In the second year of Joash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel reigned Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah.
2. He was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem.
3. And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, yet not like David his father [yet not with a perfect heart]: he did according to all things as Joash his father did.
4. Howbeit the high places were not taken away: as yet the people did sacrifice and burnt incense on the high places.
5. And it came to pass, as soon as the kingdom was confirmed [firmly established] in his hand, that he slew his servants which had slain the king his father.
6. But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses [a quotation from Deu 24:16 ], wherein the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death [shall die] for his own sin.
7. He slew [He it was that smote] of Edom in the valley of salt [comp. 2Sa 8:13 ], ten thousand [the number slain in one conflict], and took Selah by war [or in the battle], and called the name of it Joktheel [a town of Judah bore this name ( Jos 15:38 ). The name probably means “God’s ward”], unto this day.
8. Then [after the reduction of Edom] Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz son of Jehu, king of Israel, saying, Come, let us look one another in the face [a challenge to battle].
9. And Jehoash the king of Israel sent to Amaziah king of Judah, saying, The thistle [or bramble or briar. (Comp. Job 31:40 ; Son 2:2 )] that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife: and there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon, and trode down the thistle.
10. Thou hast indeed smitten [thoroughly worsted] Edom, and thine heart hath lifted [lifteth] thee up: glory of this, and tarry at home [rest on thy laurels, and do not risk them by further enterprises which might not turn out so favourably]: for why shouldest thou meddle to thy hurt, that thou shouldest fall, even thou, and Judah with thee?
11. But Amaziah would not hear. Therefore Jehoash king of Israel went up; and he and Amaziah king of Judah looked one another in the face [encountered one another; joined battle] at Bethshemesh, which belongeth to Judah.
12. And Judah was put to the worse before Israel; and they fled every man to their [his] tents [the enemy disbanded, as usual after a great defeat (comp. chap. 2Ki 8:21 )].
13. And Jehoash king of Israel took Amaziah king of Judah, the son of Jehoash the son of Ahaziah [comp. 2Ki 14:8 ], at Bethshemesh, and came to Jerusalem, and brake down [made a breach in] the wall of Jerusalem from the gate Ephraim unto the corner gate, four hundred cubits [about 222 yards].
14. And he took all the gold and silver, and all the vessels that were found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house, and hostages [having humbled the pride of Amaziah, Jehoash left him in possession of his throne, taking hostages for his future good behaviour], and returned to Samaria.
15. Now the rest [comp. chap. 2Ki 13:12-13 ], of the acts of Jehoash which he did, and his might, and how he fought with Amaziah king of Judah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?
16. And Jehoash slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel; and Jeroboam his son reigned in his stead.
17. And Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah lived after the death of Jehoash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel fifteen years.
18. And the rest of the acts of Amaziah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
19. Now [And] they made a conspiracy [the death of Amaziah would seem to be the result of general disaffection: no individual conspirators being mentioned] against him in Jerusalem: and he fled to Lachish; but. [and] they sent after him to Lachish, and slew him there.
20. And they brought him on horses: and he was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David.
21. And all the people of Judah took Azariah [he is called Uzziah in 2Ch 26:1 ], which was sixteen years old, and made him king instead of his father Amaziah.
22. He built Elath, and restored it to Judah, after that the king slept with his fathers.
23. In the fifteenth year of Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel began to reign in Samaria, and reigned forty and one years.
24. And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord: he departed not from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.
25. He restored the coast of Israel from the entering of Hamath unto the sea of the plain [the Dead Sea (Num 3:17 , Num 4:49 ; Jos 3:16 ], according to the word of the Lord God of Israel, which he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai [comp. Jon 1:1 ], the prophet, which was of Gath-hepher [ Jos 19:13 ].
26. For the Lord saw the affliction [oppression] of Israel, that it was very bitter [stubborn, inveterate, unyielding (comp. Deu 21:18-20 )]: for there was not any shut up, nor any left, nor any helper for Israel.
27. And the Lord said not that he would blot out the name [the figure is taken from blotting out writing (comp. Num 5:23 )] of Israel from under heaven: but he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash.
28. Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, and all that he did, and his might, how he warred, and how he recovered [restored] Damascus, and Hamath, which belonged to Judah, for [in] Israel, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?
29. And Jeroboam slept with his fathers, even with the kings of Israel [the original was probably, “and was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel” (comp. 2Ki 14:16 )]; and Zachariah his son reigned in his stead.
Incidental Points
In this chapter there is little, so far as the historical sequence is concerned, which can be turned to spiritual profit; yet here and there are lines which are very striking, and well worthy of being brought into clear view.
“And it came to pass, as soon as the kingdom was confirmed in his hand, that he slew his servants which had slain the king his father” ( 2Ki 14:5 ).
There was a recall of an ancient law, not forgotten, but a law which had perhaps fallen in some degree into desuetude. Let us remember that it was written in the Book of Deuteronomy: “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin” ( Deu 24:16 ). That is a key which opens many a mystery. Does the Lord trifle with law? Does he vary the law according to the days of the week as they come and go? or do his judgments stand in constancy? If so, what a light is thrown upon some problems whose mystery has darkened many a thought. The law of the Lord is this: “Every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” Give that doctrine the widest possible application. No man is slain because Adam sinned. Sin is a personal matter. The transgression of the law is done by the individual. Sin is not a generic term only; it is specific and individual; and this law commends itself instantly not only to the reason but to the conscience, for reason varies, reason goes to school, reason learns larger lessons; but the conscience begins with, continues with, ends with Right. God never troubles the conscience of the world. He dazzles its imagination, he humbles its reason; but it has always been his purpose to show the world that he is right, just, and that every judgment is based upon law and argument. What can we say to this declaration, “Every man shall be put to death for his own sin”? Varying the terms without altering their central purport: Every man puts himself to death by his own sin. “The wages of sin is death” not only in the sense of pointing to an external judgment, an external executioner, but in the sense of an internal self-conviction, in the sense of the soul acknowledging that sin brings with it death. “The soul that sinneth, it shall die;” it would die by external judgment, but the profounder thought is that sin drives the soul to suicide. “Turn ye, turn ye, why will ye die?” “He that sinneth against God wrongeth his own soul,” that is to say, impoverishes his highest nature; takes away the right use of his finest faculties; hangs himself in the sight of the universe; destroys his soul. This law was recalled, and let it be said to the credit of the king that he kept within the limits of the law: “The children of the murderers he slew not;” he slew but the men themselves who had done the deed.
Now the king proceeds to a wider field. He goes to Edom, and in the valley of salt he slays ten thousand men; there he “took Selah by war, and called the name of it Joktheel unto this day” ( 2Ki 14:7 ). This we are always doing; that is to say, we sanctify human successes by divine names; we baptise our iniquity, and give it a place in the sanctuary; we pay in response to the clamour of conscience, and having laid down the gold we forget the wrong and the shame, covering up our old selves with some religious office or appellation. The place was called Selah, meaning nothing in particular, simply “the rock” a city of stone, a Gibraltar. The name signified nothing of a religious nature. The king took a great rock by war, and having taken it he called it “Joktheel,” meaning “subdued by God.” There is a fine hypocrisy in many an appellation. We should be careful how we name our own deeds by divine terms and characteristics. Let us be true true outside, true inside, all true. Then how many fine names we shall obliterate! In many instances the church will be but a painted market-place. We go to it that we may think over our business the more calmly and collectedly; we say that at church we can turn all these commercial matters over in our minds; and having prostituted and profaned the altar by such base uses, we think we have kept the law of the Lord by not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together. We say that on the Sabbath day we will collect our wits; go through the documents carefully; set them out in order, and will devote the whole day to the consideration of the perplexing case; and because we have been indoors and quiet, and have indeed withdrawn into solitude, even within the four walls of our own house, we leave others to suppose that we have kept the Sabbath. Why this false labelling of things? Why this iniquitous profanation of terms which ought only to have one use, and that the very highest to which they can apply? Why call him “reverend” whose prayers are the children of his tongue, and whose appeals come not with the blood and energy and sacrifice of the heart? Why call him “Christian” who makes his Christian profession an element of respectability a password by which he obtains entrance into circles from which, if he were known, he would be expelled with a sense of offence, indignation, and horror? Names ought to be realities; appellations ought to stand with moral significance, so that men might not be misled by them. What should be done to the guidepost that is painted with the wrong name? It should be torn down. What should be said of the man who, being labelled “Christian,” would not be tolerated even by a Jew, and would be but a surprise to an honest Pagan?
Still pursuing our gleaning way through the field of this chapter, we come to these words, uttered by the messengers of Amaziah in the king’s name: “Come, let us look one another in the face” ( 2Ki 14:8 ). These are sweet words. What can they mean? Surely but one thing only. Giving them transliteration and broadest meaning, they will sound thus: We have been a long time estranged; let us burn down the barriers of separation: we have hidden ourselves from one another when we ought to have stood face to face, each beaming with complacency upon the other; come, let us make an end of this alienation, and fraternally and trustfully look one another in the face. Was that the real meaning of the message? Not a whit! These beautiful words were the velvet which hid the sword. These terms of supposed approach and trustfulness are really a challenge. The right reading would be: “Come, let us fight; let us see which is the stronger man.” Here again we keep upon the same line as in the former instance the line which points to the right use of language. There is a morality of words. Men are not at liberty to put words into any shape they please; they must consider whether in putting words together they are building a pillar, plumbed by the Eternal Righteousness, and going, so far as they do go, straight up to heaven. But if this were the rule, society would be dissolved. Who can speak truth with his neighbour except in some broad and general sense? Who can let his Yea be yea, and his Nay, nay? When the Saviour delivered that injunction we thought it was elementary; in reality it is ultimate; there is nothing beyond it. When Yea means yea, and Nay nay, the millennium has come: men will not tell lies, nor will they act them; they will not allow wrong impressions to be made upon the mind; there will be no grammatical torture, no mental reservation, no putting out of words in the sense of putting out a “feeler:” every heart transparent, every motive pure and generous, human speech a human religion, and the human religion sanctified and cleansed by the blood of Christ. But we live in lies; we tell them, we act them, we look them, we suggest them. When David is reported in English to say, “All men are liars,” he is misreported; the right reading is, “All men are a lie,” a grander speech; not a stone thrown at individuals, but an impeachment made upon human nature. These are terrible words; but until we have been terrible we cannot be gentle. Judgment first, then the gospel; the ripping plough, then the seed of heaven thrown into the opened furrows. Blessed are they who cry out for judgment that they may hear word of the Lord in its terrible-ness; for by so much they will become prepared to hear how gentle is God, and how true it is that his mercy endureth for ever, and how supreme, sublime, immeasurable is his redeeming love.
Still advancing, we come to see how sacrilege is the natural and easy sequence of violence.
“And he took all the gold and silver, and all the vessels that were found in the house of the Lord, and in the treasures of the king’s house, and hostages, and returned to Samaria” ( 2Ki 14:14 ).
Once let men get loose in their views of human life, and it becomes an easy thing for them to despoil the sanctuary. Sometimes the process begins at the other end; then we may put it thus: Once let a man fall in the matter of reverence in relation to God, and all social claims and businesses, and all personal rights, will be trampled under foot. What a base use was made of the temple stores in the old times! “Then Hazael king of Syria went up, and fought against Gath, and took it: and Hazael set his face to go up to Jerusalem.” And he was bought off. How was Hazael bought off? “And Jehoash king of Judah took all the hallowed things that Jehoshaphat, and Jehoram, and Ahaziah, his fathers, kings of Judah, had dedicated, and his own hallowed things, and all the gold that was found in the treasuries of the house of the Lord, and in the king’s house, and sent it to Hazael king of Syria.” And Hazael accepted the bribe, and went back from Jerusalem. Is there no lesson in all this surrender? When Hazael the heretic comes to the church-door, what do we do under the painful circumstances? When Modern Thought glares in at the window, how are we moved in relation to the unexpected and affrighting apparition? Then is there no Jehoash who says, Give him all the gold, all the treasures, all the vessels; bribe him; send him away? Are there not those who say in reply to the Hazael of Science and Progress, Throw to him all your old interpretations, perhaps they will soothe and satisfy him; tell him you were mistaken when you thought there was a supernatural element in the Scriptures; say that without committing yourselves you surely were in some degree mistaken; throw that out to him, and perhaps the dog will be satisfied with the mouthful, and betake himself away, and leave you to sing a hymn that can never find its way to heaven. Perhaps you will throw out to Hazael the miracles not altogether, but certain interpretations of them: you will call them “phenomena.” That will be a happy way of getting rid of them! Say to Hazael, when he thunders on the church-door, We only meant phenomena; and perhaps having come in anger he will retire in folly, and think we have changed our ground. When the enemy comes and attacks us upon our faith, we may throw out to him the doctrine of what is called a Personal Providence; we may say In reality we did not mean what you seem to think we intended; we do not suppose that God numbers the hairs of our head: we look upon the universe as a gigantic machine, an infinite organisation, very complex, intricate, subtle, marvellous altogether: that is really all we meant. Has not Hazael emptied the Lord’s table of much gold and silver, and many a significant and symbolic vessel? Has he not depleted the altar? There is another way of putting this. We may say, No; all we have given to Hazael is of our own contrivance; we have made mistakes in the interpretation of history, in the grammatical and theological construction of the Scriptures; we have not given away the Bible to Hazael, we have given him our interpretation; the Bible itself still remains; we have not given up the doctrine that the Bible is the word of God! we have only thrown to Hazael some theories of inspiration: inspiration itself remains an abiding and all-sufficing quantity. There may be reason in that reply. It is not to be dismissed flippantly at all events. But let us take care lest, in giving away things that do not belong to us with a liberal hand, we go too far; and above all let us beware that we do not in the hurry of the moment give away something that we have no right to give. The enemy may be bought off too dearly.
We read in the nineteenth verse that the king “fled to Lachish.” There we seem to come to a kind of home. Lachish has a history. It resisted Joshua for two days when the neighbouring cities fell in one. “The Lord delivered Lachish into the hand of Joshua, who took it on the second day.” Sometimes God would seem to take two days to a miracle: sometimes he lingers over it, and watches us all the time. Lachish was among the strongholds fortified by Rehoboam. Lachish was known to be one of the strongest places available by the king; so “he fled to Lachish.” It is so that Christians may well act in all their great spiritual battles. Let us return to first principles. Let us get back to eternal truths. The assaults made upon the Church, the altar, the Christian faith, the Christian cross itself, will do good, if they be so utilised as to enable us to throw away much that is false, fictitious, merely decorative, and drive us to realities, elementary principles, eternal truths. So when you are hunted through the Bible by the enemies of revelation; when you are challenged with its supposed discrepancies, its literal contradictions, its clerical errors, its perplexing numbers and figures, flee to the Lachish “God is love.” You will find hospitality there, and security, home, angels, sweet fellowship; and then you will have time to recover your strength, and consider again the exact position which you occupy in relation to assaulted fortresses. In all criticism remember the Lachish which we may thus translate God is right: righteousness is at the heart of things: all events are moving, with some slowness, indeed, but with infinite certainty, towards final justice, right, truth. We cannot all fight controversial battles; we must refer many of our assailants to books which have been written by master-hands, saying, In the pages of such and such a volume you will find definite answers to the questions you are now putting. But little children can understand this “God is love;” and yet no angel can exhaust its meaning. God is love, but what is “love”? “Love” is as mysterious a term as “God” invisible, spiritual, subtle, intricate, yet vivid in manifestation, unmistakable in its revealed forms, not to be confounded with any other voice in its tender music, its whisper of healing. Many of us were not intended to be controversialists, soldiers, fighters in the open field; we are not all called upon to vindicate everything that is literal in the Scriptures, but we are all called upon to love God, fear God, come to Jesus Christ, behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world. Nor are we to be driven back by the men who say, Explain these things. We cannot explain everything. We cannot explain “love;” we can talk about it, give hints of it, give representations of it, point to it in various passing forms and features, but explain it we never can: but we can feel it. Explanation may be the trick of a grammarian. But love is the joy of a soul lost in wonder and in praise. Fear not because you cannot explain everything. Blessed be God, Lachish stands there. Outside is written upon it, “God is right;” inside, “God is love;” on it there stands a banner, unfurl it, and read in letters of gold, “The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.” There are hard battles we cannot fight, but there are sacred refuges which are always open to us.
Prayer
All thy works praise thee, O God, in all parts of thy dominion: then shall we be silent shall man be dumb? Whatever thou hast done for the great creation thou hast outdone in redeeming man not with corruptible things, as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Jesus Christ thy Son. Man’s song shall be loudest in the universe: Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, unto him be glory and dominion, now and for ever. We will praise thee for thy wondrous kindness, saying with one voice, Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift. We are lost in wonder, love, and praise, as we stand before the cross, and behold the Saviour of mankind, bowing his head in weakness, and pain, and death. He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; himself bore our sins and carried our iniquities. We lay our hand upon him. Standing at his cross, we make confession of sin. We are broken-hearted because of our sin: God be merciful unto us sinners. Pity us in thy lovingkindness. We cannot account for it, but the sin is in us, and it comes out in many a deadly deed: and that is not the worst; it abides within us, inventing new forms of blasphemy, suggesting new methods of gratification, and contriving, plotting, scheming always against the sovereignty of holiness. We must be born again. Holy Spirit come to us; brood over us; work in us all the good pleasure of the divine will; perfect us in our love for holiness, and then train us gradually to its complete fulfilment. Thy care is wonderful. If it be numbered, it is without number as to its daily details of mercy and pity, love and tears; if it be measured, it has no height known to man; as for its depth, no language can represent it; behold, what manner of love hath the Father bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God! Thou art very gentle, patient, father-like, mother-like, always hoping for the best, always waiting for the best. We have heard of the patience of the husbandman and of the patience of Job, but what shall we say concerning the patience of God, whose mercy endureth for ever? To thy mercy we flee. We have no hope in justice or righteousness, for it can only be to us an avenging sword, a burning fire; but to thy cross we come, O Son of man, O Son of God; and there no broken-hearted sinner ever died. Amen.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
XIV
THE REIGNS OF JEHOASH AND JEROBOAM (OF ISRAEL) AND OF AMAZIAH AND UZZIAH (OF JUDAH)
2Ki 13:10-14:29
Jehoahaz was followed by Jehoash his son who was a better man and an abler man and more successful. He had great encouragement from Elisha to fight with Syria and to redeem his kingdom from the iron grasp of Benhadad. Jehoash was encouraged at the outset. Elisha told him to shoot his arrows against Syria, and three times he smote upon the ground. The prophecy came true. Three times Jehoash smote the Syrian army and recovered the cities taken from his father by Benhadad. In the meanwhile Syria and Damascus had been assaulted by Assyria and were brought almost to the verge of extinction. Assyrian annals tell how the king of Assyria took Damascus and almost destroyed it, and it was largely because Syria was thus weakened by Assyria that Jehoash was able to recover and relieve Israel from its oppression.
Amaziah succeeded Joash on the throne of Judah. His character is described as one who was wicked and lazy, though he was better than the general run of the northern kings. His policy was to destroy the servants who killed his father, but he spared their children in accordance with the positive prohibition found in Deu 24:16 . Here arises a question of the morality of the killing of Achan’s sons, Naboth’s sons and Ahab’s sons. Two causes operated in favor of the exception to this prohibition: (1) the sons were apt to be accessories to the crimes of their fathers and thus incriminate themselves; and (2) the “blood feud” that was to follow. Then we should consider these cases either under the direct command of God or in the hands of Oriental monarchs.
In 2Ki 13:20-21 , we have recorded the last miracle of Elisha, viz: that in his tomb. This occurred, perhaps, to give special light to the heathen, a testimony to the power of the God of Israel, and to encourage the king and the people with respect to Elisha’s unfulfilled prophecies. Close upon this follows the account of the fulfilment of Elisha’s dying prophecy and Joash’s success over Benhadad (2Ki 13:23-25 ). In this we note that, notwithstanding the sins of Israel, God gave them victory over Syria for the sake of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; that the “as yet” shows his mercy still extended to Israel; that Hazael, king of Syria) died, and that Benhadad III, his son, reigned in his stead.
We will find that Amaziah in the latter part of his reign committed a very grievous and particular sin that brought a host of evil consequences. The sin committed by him was that, when he proposed to wage war against Edom lying south of his territory, he hired a hundred thousand mercenary soldiers of the Northern Kingdom to aid him in the war, and when an unnamed prophet of God comes and rebukes him, he says, “If I don’t take these men now that I have paid for them, I will lose my hundred talents of money.” The prophet replied, “The Lord can give you more than that.” So he yielded to the protest of the prophet and rejected the services of the men a hundred thousand whom he had already paid for. That of course made the mercenaries very mad. They were not only buoyed up with the hope of their pay but the hope of capturing a great deal of booty in the war, and when they were not permitted to go to the war, on their return home they swept all that part of Judah that lay between them and their own land as dry as if a fire had passed over it. Now Amaziah having committed the sin, first, of relying upon the mercenaries instead of relying upon Jehovah, committed a second sin by importing the gods of Edom for which a prophet rebuked him, and he made him forbear. Stirred up in his mind by these degradations that had been committed upon his people by the hundred thousand mercenaries on their way home and the prophet’s rebuke, without consulting God or any prophet he sends a braggadocio challenge to the king of Israel, and says, “Come, set your face up before mine,” and the king of Israel replied, “Why should you make this challenge? It will likely prove to be very disastrous to you.” Well, Amaziah shook his fist at him and told him to come on and set his face up, and he did come and set his face up, and he wiped the army of Amaziah off the face of the earth in the great battle that followed, and Judah was sorely straightened by that defeat; even Jerusalem was captured, her walls broken down, and all her vast treasures plundered and carried away. All this indicates that Jehoash was one of the most fortunate, most successful, most able, and most kind and benevolent rulers northern Israel ever had, but at the same time southern Israel had a foolish king.
Jehoash was succeeded by Jeroboam II, Jehoash had saved his country from the terrible oppression of Syria, had conquered Judah, had obtained enormous spoils which almost set the kingdom again upon its feet) and ushered in a period of prosperity. He was followed by his grandson Jeroboam il, the greatest of all the monarchs of northern Israel. Jeroboam II was the most successful of all, for in his day nearly all of northern Israel that had previously belonged to Solomon’s kingdom was recovered and he reigned to the north as far as Hamath and to the south all the land of the Jordan and reconquered the land on the east side of the Jordan. The kingdom was at the height of its prosperity under Jeroboam II.
There have been four kings of the dynasty of Jehu, and only in the latter part of the reign of the third king, Jehoash, has Israel in any way succeeded in loosing herself from the bonds of oppression at the hand of Syria. The record says, “The Lord gave Israel a saviour, so that they went out from under the hands of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents as before time.” Who was that saviour? Some think probably it was Jehoash, the preceding king and father of Jeroboam II, who was the means of a threefold defeat of the Syrian army. But it may be interpreted as referring to Jeroboam II, the greatest of all the northern kings, who freed his country entirely from the dominion of Syria. Price in The Monuments and the Old Testament , thinks it refers to an Assyrian king, Adad Nirari, who at about this time made an onslaught on the kingdom of Syria and especially the city of Damascus and almost totally destroyed it. In that case he was indeed saviour, in that he destroyed the country that was oppressing Israel. The dynasty of Jehu lasted altogether about 102 years and in that time there were five kings. Jeroboam II is the fourth and greatest of all. He reigned forty-one years, the longest reign in the history of the Northern Kingdom.
In 2Ki 14:25 reference is made to Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet which was of Gathhepher. This is the time in which Jonah the prophet lived. About this time he made his strange expedition to Nineveh the capital of Assyria, and preached there. He had doubtless preached in northern Israel also. At this time arises also a greater prophet, Amos, and in the pictures which Amos gives we have a vivid and lurid representation of the sins of northern Israel. So the reign of Jeroboam II, though the most glorious in the history of northern Israel, was attended by these two great prophets who pronounced the inevitable and irretrievable doom of the nation. Just as this time occurred the death of Amaziah at the hand of his conspirators and Uzziah his son succeeded him. But according to some authorities there was an interregnum between Uzziah and Amaziah. This conclusion is based upon the following facts as given in the record: First, it says that Amaziah died and that he had reigned fifteen years before Jeroboam II, king of Israel. Kings and Chronicles both say that he reigned twenty-nine years in all and that the last fifteen years of the twenty-nine was contemporaneous with the reign of Jeroboam II. In other words, he died in the fifteenth year of Jeroboam, but 2Ki 15:1 says that Uzziah his successor did not begin to reign until the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam, so if both statements be correct then Judah had no king from the fifteenth year of Jeroboam to the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam, a period of at least eleven years and possibly twelve. The whole question turns on the accuracy of the text in 2Ki 15:1 where it says that Uzziah began to reign in the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam. Now, if we accept that text as accurate, then there was an interregnum of eleven years. Josephus does not accept it. He says the number is wrong; that it ought to be in the fourteenth year instead of the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam. But it is quite easy to accept this text, not question it at all, and then we account for that interregnum of eleven years by the extreme youth of Uzziah when Amaziah died. He was only five years old when Amaziah died. They seem to have deferred making him king until he was sixteen. In other words, there was a regency for that period of eleven years. Now, that is the only chronological difficulty in the whole period and it is not a very serious one.
Amaziah’s son, Uzziah, at a very tender age became king and he reigned fifty-two years. That is a long period, over half a century. The record about it is very fine on a number of points. While he did not destroy the high places, he did walk in the ways of David so far as relates to the worship of Jehovah in the appointed place in the Temple. He was a great builder of fortifications and towns and cities. One thing said about him constitutes a fine text: He loved husbandry. In his wars he had conquered a fine section of country, very fruitful, all the Philistine country clear on to the entrance of Egypt and that Negeb, or south country, from the days of Isaac was remarkable for the yield of its crops. It is said of Isaac that he reaped a hundredfold, i.e., if he sowed one bushel of wheat, he would reap a hundred bushels from that one. Uzziah devoted a great deal of attention to matters of that kind. He was very successful in his wars, not only against Philistia but against the Arabians and against the Ammonites. He became exalted in his power.
In 2Ki 14:28-29 we have a summary of the reign of Jeroboam and an account of his death. The condition of Syria during the reign of Jeroboam II was one of weakness and consequent inactivity. The great kings had come and gone, and some weak monarchs sat on the throne which had been almost crushed by Assyria, and was in no position to oppress Israel. This gave Jeroboam II his opportunity. Being a great man, an able general and administrator he carried the boundaries of northern Israel almost as far north as David and Solomon had done, capturing all the northern part that had been taken by Syria. He retook all eastern Palestine as far as the land of Moab, and likewise he recaptured the land of Moab that had revolted and freed itself from the dynasty of Omri. The extent of his kingdom was almost as great as that of David’s with the exception, of course) of southern Israel, and with this great extension of his kingdom there was a great influx of wealth and prosperity. The depression of the three reigns preceding was followed by an abundance of prosperity and the result was a corresponding excess of luxury and sin. Their prosperity produced all the evils of civilization, and they went to excess with it. Jeroboam died and after an interregnum of twenty-two years, was succeeded by his son Zechariah. This interregnum is determined by comparing 2Ki 14:23 and 2Ki 15:1-2 ; 2Ki 15:8 .
QUESTIONS
1. What was the character of Jehoash?
2. What was Elisha’s encouraging prophecy on his deathbed, and what incidents of its delivery?
3. Who succeeded Joash and what was his character?
4. What was his policy, and where in the book of Moses is found the statement which occurs in 2Ki 14:6 and 2Ch 25:4 , and how do you harmonize this passage in Deuteronomy with the killing of Achan’s sons, Naboth’s sons, and Ahab’s sons?
5. What was the last miracle of Elisha and why this miracle?
6. Notwithstanding the sins of Israel what the Lord’s dealings with them and why, what change occurred just at this time in Syria, and what prophecy of Elisha was here fulfilled?
7. What were Amaziah’s plans against Edom, what was the result of each step taken and what can you say of the cruelty of Judah?
8. How did the Israelitish mercenaries deport themselves when sent back?
9. What was Amaziah’s further wickedness, what was his warning and how did he receive it?
10. Recite the account of the war between Amaziah and Jehoash, and what was the parable of Jehoash and its application, what was the result and what is the modern name of stealing?
11. Who succeeded Jehoash and what was his character?
12. What were the possibilities of Jeroboam II, and what did he accomplish for Israel?
13. What prophet comes in here, what was his commission and how did he receive and discharge it?
14. Give an account of the death of Amaziah.
15. What of the interregnum in Judah here and how does the author determine it?
16. Uzziah what was his other name, how was he made king, how long his reign, and how does it compare with the reigns of others?
17. What of his character and prosperity and wherein did he fail?
18. During his prosperous years what (1) of his building of Eloth, (2) of his success of war, (3) of his building and husbandry, (4) of his army, (5) of his fame?
19. Give an account of the death of Jeroboam II.
20. What of the interregnum here in Israel and how determined by the author?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
2Ki 14:1 In the second year of Joash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel reigned Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah.
Ver. 1. In the second year, &c., ] viz., When he reigned alone, after his father’s death.
Reigned Amaziah.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
second year of Joash. According to 2Ki 13:10, Joash (king of Israel) began to reign in the thirty-seventh year of Joash (king of Judah). If Arnaziah began in the second year of Joash (king of Israel), he would have reigned only thirty-nine years. But he reigned forty (2Ki 12:1). All depends on mode of reckoning from Nisan, and counting parts of years for complete years. This would at once explain the difference. See App-50. Our difficulty, as usual, arises from our ignorance.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 14
Now we’re coming again to Amaziah who became the king in Israel at the death of his father, who was assassinated at the end of chapter twelve.
Now in the second year that Joash the son of Jehoahaz was the king of Israel Amaziah whose father’s name was also Joash the king of Judah began to reign. He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign, he reigned for twenty-nine years. And his mother’s name was Jehoaddan. And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, yet not as much as David his father: he did according to all of the things as Joash his father did ( 2Ki 14:1-3 ).
Now notice “not as much as David his father.” David wasn’t his father directly but was a great great great great great great great great grandfather. But in the Bible they don’t always signify the great great great greats. I only point this out here because there are certain people who fancy that the Bible has errors in it. And when you get to the book of Daniel, a book that the critics especially like to attack because it’s such a totally damaging book for those that don’t believe that God was able to speak to men, for the prophecies of Daniel are so accurate and so intricate that the only way the Bible critics could do anything to destroy Daniel was to say that Daniel didn’t write it. It was written by some fellow some three hundred, two hundred, three hundred years later, who put Daniel’s name to it. A very devout young man who wrote this fanciful story after the history happened, and he was really just recording history, but then he put Daniel’s name on it to look like Daniel have written it. But it was actually, they say, written after the fact.
Well, the fellow was very clever, because he deceived Jesus in the thing. Because Jesus refers to the prophecy of Daniel. “And when you see the desolation, the abomination of desolation that was spoken by Daniel the prophet” ( Mat 24:15 ). So these Bible critics are actually putting themselves up as smarter than Jesus. But I’m not surprised. That’s why I have said I have very little respect for these supposed theological seminaries and brilliant men who have done their best to take away from the work of God in the Scriptures.
But in one of the things that they find fault with in Daniel is that it talks about Belshazzar, the son of Nebuchadnezzar. When in reality Belshazzar was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. And so the Bible critics say, “You see, it calls Belshazzar the son of Nebuchadnezzar and he wasn’t really.” Nabopolassar was the son, and of course, now he was the grandson. And so the fact it refers to him as the son of Nebuchadnezzar, they try to use that.
But here the Bible refers to him as the son of David. And because it, the Bible doesn’t have the term, the Hebrew didn’t have the term grandson or great grandson, it was just the son and as far as my descendants go down the line, they refer back to me as the father. So the Bible is true and these brilliant men are liars.
The Bible says, “Let God be true, and every man a liar” ( Rom 3:4 ). So I’m only quoting the scripture. Worldly wisdom is so worthless when it comes to the Word of God. I would rather listen to a Spirit-filled man who didn’t know Greek from hen scratches expound the truth of God’s Word than I would some Ph.D. who knew all the original languages, but wasn’t born again. For I would learn much more true spiritual truth from the uneducated man than I would the professor. “For the natural mind cannot understand the things of the Spirit; neither can it know them, for they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual understands all things, though he is not understood” ( 1Co 2:14 , 1Co 2:15 ). So I care not for the doctorates of man. Honored or earned, they mean nothing to me. I care for the work of the Spirit and the understanding of the Spirit in opening up the Scriptures to our hearts and to our minds.
So in the second year of Joash son of Jehoahaz, Amaziah son of Joash king of Judah began to reign. He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign. But he did not come up to the spiritual, though he did good, not as good as his father David.
However he still did not remove the high places of worship: and the people still sacrificed and burned incense on those high places. Now it came to pass, as soon as he had confirmed the kingdom ( 2Ki 14:4-5 ),
His father, you remember, was assassinated by his servants. He then, in turn, executed the servants who had assassinated his father. And then he went down against the Edomites, and there by the Dead Sea in the valley of salt, he killed ten thousand of the Edomites and he took the rock city of Petra. Now he is feeling pretty strong, pretty powerful.
So Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz who was the son of Jehu, who was the king over Israel, and he said, Come, let’s face off with each other. And Jehoash the king of Israel sent to Amaziah and he said, [Look,] the thistle that was in Lebanon said to the cedar, Give to me your daughter for my son as his wife: and there passed by a wild beast and trampled down the thistle. Now you have indeed smitten the Edomites, why don’t you just sit at home and be happy and glory in the victory you have, for why should you meddle to your own hurt? However, Amaziah would not hear of it. Therefore Jehoash the king of Israel came against him, they met in battle at Bethshemesh, which belongs to Judah ( 2Ki 14:8-11 ).
So this is not the Bethshemesh up near mount Gilboa.
And Judah was put to the worse before Israel; and they fled every man to their tents. And Jehoash the king of Israel took Amaziah the king of Judah, at Bethshemesh, and they came to Jerusalem, and he broke down the wall of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim to the corner gate, four hundred cubits ( 2Ki 14:12-13 ).
Or about six hundred feet of the wall.
He took all of the gold and the silver, and all of the vessels that were found in the house of the LORD, and in the treasures of the king’s house, and the hostages, and he returned to Samaria. Now the rest of the acts of Jehoash which he did, [again we are told they are written in the chronicles of the kings of Israel] ( 2Ki 14:14-15 ).
This meddling to your own hurt, it’s something that people quite often do. There are things that you have no business meddling with. You can only get hurt if you do. There are places that as a Christian you have no business meddling around. And if you do, you’re only going to get hurt. It is a very reasonable question, “Why should you meddle to your own hurt?” Don’t meddle around with anything that can bring you into a snare, into a trap.
I wrote a paper in a philosophy class one time on the Christian ethic for our philosophy teacher. We were studying Orange Coast College in a philosophy class, and they wanted us to do a paper on the ethics. And so, I chose to do one on Christian ethics. And I took the same as of Paul the apostle in Corinthians, seeking to show that the Christian ethic is the broadest ethic of any philosophy. Broader than any philosophical ethic. For Paul in his Corinthian epistle said, “All things are lawful for me.” Now you can’t get a broader ethic than that. I can do anything. And I pointed out how that so many people look to Christianity as a very binding, restricting kind of a thing, but in reality, the true Christian ethic is so broad. “All things are lawful for me but,” Paul said, “all things are not expedient” ( 1Co 6:12 ). Now the idea of expediency, you see, as a Christian “I’m pressing towards the mark for the prize of the high calling of God” ( Php 3:14 ). I’m in a race. I’m in a race to win. I’m pressing towards my goal. Now there are things that can impede my progress towards my goal. But I’m so interested in achieving my goal; I’m not going to get involved with things that could impede my progress. So it may be lawful for me. It wouldn’t send me to hell. It wouldn’t destroy me for doing it, but it would hinder me in my progress towards my goal. So though I could do it, I don’t do it, because I don’t want to be impeded in my pressing towards the mark. He repeated, “All things are lawful for me, but not everything builds up” ( 1Co 10:23 ). Now as a child of God, I want actually to have Christ built up in me. And there are things that tear down the image of Christ. Now though they are lawful, though I could lawfully do it, they wouldn’t send me to hell; yet they would take me away from Him. It would be tearing down. And thus, I don’t do them because I don’t want anything to tear me down. I’m only desiring to be built up in Christ Jesus.
And then he finally concludes, “All things are lawful for me,” same broad Christian ethic, but he said, “I will not be brought under the power of any” ( 1Co 6:12 ). Now you see, as a Christian I know what real freedom is. Very few people really know true freedom. But as a Christian I know true freedom. Those in the world, they talk about free love and free so on and so forth, they don’t really know what freedom is. They are so bound by their own lusts and all and by the things that they’re in. They are so bound they don’t know what freedom is. They’ve been brought under the power of the things they’re doing. Having really tasted of freedom, knowing what freedom is, I love freedom so much that I’m not going to sacrifice freedom by meddling around with something that could bring me under its power.
So if by doing it I could be brought under its influence, I could be brought under its power, I’m not going to do it because I love my freedom too much. If I were brought under its power, then I don’t have this glorious free ethic that says, “All things are lawful for me.” You know, it is really a blessing to see things and say, “Well, I could be doing that. I don’t want to. Or I don’t need to. I don’t have to have that. I don’t have to do that.” Sure I could do it, but I don’t have to. I don’t need to. I’m very complete and satisfied and happy with my present relationship with Jesus Christ, and I’m not reaching out and grabbing for higher standards or higher things. Just very content in Christ Jesus. And it’s neat to have that kind of freedom to have the capacity, but not be pushed by some ambition or desire or, you know, drive within, I’ve-got-to-have-it kind of a thing.
Oh, what freedom that is. Waffling, sure. Send me to hell, no. But it might impede my progress towards heaven. I don’t want that. It might bring me under its power; I don’t want that. I’m too free and I love my freedom. Incidentally, I got an A on the paper. Blew the teacher’s mind. She didn’t even know anything about Christian philosophy at all and just absolutely blew her mind. She made notations all over that paper. She was really surprised and awed by it. In fact, she, I had quite a talk with her.
Meddling to your own hurt. Now the result of the meddling, the king came and tore down the wall, the defenses were destroyed.
The result of our meddling, of course, is once you do it, your defenses are destroyed. It’s so much easier to do it the second time. And even easier the third, and the fourth, the fifth, until it’s just a course and a manner of life. First time it was so hard. You resist it a lot, but you meddle, you got burned. Not only that, the treasures were taken away. And you lose something valuable whenever you meddle to your own hurt. Even as the treasures of purity, innocence, health, clear mind are so often lost because people have meddled to their own hurt.
The death of Amaziah’s recorded in verse seventeen. We’ll read about him again when we get to the Chronicles of the kings of Israel. And Azariah became the king in his place. He was only sixteen years old when he took over from his father. Actually Amaziah was assassinated even as was his own father. And his son, sixteen years old, became king, and he didn’t do much but build Elath and he died.
Now in the fifteenth year of Amaziah ( 2Ki 14:23 )
So we’ve already had his son succeed him, but now we go back and pick up one more part of the story.
Jeroboam the son of Joash began to reign in Samaria ( 2Ki 14:23 ),
Now this is the time when Amos and Hosea were both prophesying, so you should, as you develop in your biblical studies, you should start to fit the prophet back into here now, because you’ll understand their prophecy so much better when you realize the period of history. This is now getting to the end of the northern kingdom of Israel. We’re coming down into the last century for that kingdom in the spiritual decline, and God is now beginning to raise up more prophets. And if you’ll read the prophecies of Amos and Hosea, you’ll understand them much better when you can in your mind fit them into this period of spiritual declension in the northern kingdom of Israel. And also mention of Jonah, the prophet here in verse twenty-five. So these three men were sent of God to the northern kingdom at this particular time to prophesy unto them.
Now this Jeroboam is Jeroboam the second, Jeroboam was the very first king over Israel, and now another king named after him.
and he reigned for forty-one years. But he did evil in the sight of the LORD. And the LORD saw the afflictions of Israel, it was very bitter: no one to help them ( 2Ki 14:23-26 ).
They were isolated.
And the LORD said that he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven: but he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash. The rest of the acts of Jeroboam are in the book of chronicles of the kings of Israel ( 2Ki 14:27-28 ).
Which we do not have.
Now the reign of Azariah, who is also known as Uzziah. Now when you think of Uzziah, and we’re back now Azariah was the son of Amaziah and he didn’t do much. But his son Azariah began to reign. The other name was Uzziah, and we think now of the prophet Isaiah. And so the prophecies of Isaiah. Isaiah was the prophet who actually began his real career and the prophecies at the death of Uzziah. Uzziah reigned for fifty-two years, and you remember there in the sixth chapter of Isaiah, “In the year the king Uzziah died I saw the Lord, high and lifted up, sitting upon the throne, his train filled the temple” ( Isa 6:1 ). So we’re beginning, when we get to Uzziah, we’ll come in to the time at the end of Uzziah’s career, we’re coming into the time of Isaiah. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
2Ki 14:1
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Turning back to Judah, we find Amaziah on the throne. “He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, yet. . . .” The constantly repeated story of limitation in loyalty is told again. Success attended his arms, but issued in the lifting up of his own heart, and his foolish challenge to Jehoash the king of Israel, whose answer was characterized by contempt for Amaziah and yet evidenced a desire for peace. To this the king of Judah would not yield, with the result that he was defeated, and seems to have been kept a prisoner until the death of Jehoash. He was succeeded by his son Azariah.
In Israel, Jeroboam II occupied the throne. In his life, he also was evil before God. A man of war, he brought about the restoration of some lost territory, restoring the boundary line. This was accomplished under the influence of Jonah, the son of Amittai, who, without doubt, was the one sent to Ninevah. In the Book which bears his name we have only the account of that mission. It is evident, however, that he also exercised a ministry among his own people.
Jeroboam’s victories were directly due to God’s vision of the diction of His people. His final doom was not yet pronounced, and in all likeliliood Jeroboam was the saviour promised to Jehoahaz, who, for a while, restored a measure of liberty to the nation.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
the Penalty of Pride
2Ki 14:1-14
There were good traits in Amaziahs character, such as humanity to the children of his fathers murderers, and his willingness to forfeit the aid of the army of Israel, because of the prophets remonstrance. See 2Ch 25:1-28. But he fell a victim to Edoms idols, though he conquered Edom that worshiped them; and from that moment Gods Spirit and guidance seemed to desert him. He was puffed up with pride and vainglory, challenged the king of Israel to battle, and brought disaster on his people and himself.
But what a profound lesson is presented by his life! Do we never become elated with success, so that our heart is lifted up? Do we not fling ourselves in an hour of self-confidence from the Temple terrace, and find that no hand of might and love is stretched out to intercept our fall and make us alight uninjured on the ground? Let those who are successful and prosperous remember the Giver of every good and perfect gift and walk humbly with God. When we are evidently summoned to a supreme conflict with our foes, no weapon formed against us prospers: but if we are foolhardy, we are left to the results of our folly.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Amaziah
(Strength of Jah)
(2 Kings 14:l-20; 2 Chron. 25)
Contemporary Prophets: Several unnamed (two in 2 Chron. 25).
A king ready to the battle.-Job 15:24
Amaziah was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. And his mothers name was Jehoaddan ( Jehovah-pleased) of Jerusalem. He evidently reigned a year jointly with his father (comp. 2Ki 13:10; 14:1; 2Ch 24:1) during the latters last sickness, when the great diseases were upon him.
And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, but not with a perfect heart. Yet not like David his father, it is said; he did according to all things as Joash his father did. Just like this is the lack of heart-devotedness in the children of God. He allowed the high places to remain, and the people sacrificed and burned incense upon them.
Now it came to pass, when the kingdom was established to him, that he slew his servants that had killed the king his father. But he slew not their chil- dren, but did as it is written in the law, in the book of Moses, where the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin. (See Deu 24:16.) He made a good beginning in thus adhering closely to the law. Happy would it have been for him and for his kingdom had he continued as he began. As soon as the kingdom was confirmed in his hand appears to imply that the state affairs were somewhat unsettled at his fathers death. What follows confirms this thought. Moreover Amaziah gathered Judah together, and made them captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, according to the houses of their fathers, throughout all Judah and Benjamin. He began to reorganize the scattered army. And he numbered them from twenty years old and above, and found them three hundred thousand choice men, able to go forth to war, that could handle spear and shield.
An expedition against Edom was probably in his mind in this organization of his forces. And trusting more to the multitude of a host than to the Lord, he hired also a hundred thousand mighty men of valor out of Israel for a hundred talents of silver. But God does not want mercenaries in His battles-neither then, nor now. So there came a man of God to him, saying, O king, let not the army of Israel go with thee; for the Lord is not with Israel, to wit, with all the children of Ephraim. But if thou wilt go (i.e., with them), do it, be strong for the battle: God shall make thee fall before the enemy: for, he adds, God hath power to help, and to cast down. He may retain them if he wishes, but he has the consequences set before him. God knew the corrupting influence this body of Ephraimites would have upon the army of Judah. Shouldest thou help the ungodly? the prophet Jehu asked Jehoshaphat. Here Amaziah reverses the order, and would have the ungodly help him. And, besides, the children of Ephraim were not particularly famous for their courage. The children of Ephraim, being armed, and carrying bows, turned back in the day of battle, was the inglorious record back of them (Psa 78:9). But Amaziah thinks of the advance wages already paid to these hireling warriors: But what shall we do for the hundred talents which I have given to the army (lit, troop, or band,) of Israel? And the man of God answered, The Lord is able to give thee much more than this. It is a fine word for any child of God who may find himself in a position compromising the truth, and who cannot see his way out without serious pecuniary loss. The Lord is able to give thee much more than this; and if He does not more than make it up in temporal things, He will repay it in what is infinitely better-in those spiritual things, which are eternal. And to obey is better than sacrifice, anyway and always.
Amaziah profited by the word, and separated the mercenaries, and sent them home again. Wherefore their anger was greatly kindled against Judah, and they returned home in great (lit., fierce) anger. This refusal of their assistance only makes manifest their real character. They had long ago turned away from Jehovah; what did they care now for His honor or the good of Judah? So they avenge their supposed insult by falling upon defenceless cities on Judahs northern frontier; they plunder them, and slay mercilessly three thousand of their own flesh and blood! Such could not help in Gods army then; neither can men with selfish motives be helps in Christs cause now.
And Amaziah strengthened himself, and led forth his people, and went to the valley of salt (south of the Dead Sea), and smote of the children of Seir ten thousand. And other ten thousand left alive did the children of Judah carry away captive, and brought them unto the top of the rock, and cast them down from the top of the rock, that they all were broken in pieces.
This seemingly cruel treatment of conquered enemies is related without comment. We know nothing of the attendant circumstances, nor the cause of Judahs invasion. They lived in the cold, hard age of law (eye for eye, tooth for tooth, nail for nail), and we must not measure their conduct by the standard we have received from Him who came not to destroy mens lives, but to save them. A hundred years ago men were hung in enlightened Christian England for stealing sheep. Voltaire seems never to have condemned the English for it. Yet what government, for a like offence, would take a human life to-day? Amaziahs army may have believed themselves justified in meting out such horrible punishment to the Edomites. But we neither judge nor excuse them for their terrible act. God has left it without comment. It was not Gods act, but Amaziahs. He took Selah (Petra, the rock, Edoms capital) by war. (It lay in a hollow, enclosed amidst cliffs, and accessible only by a ravine through which the river winds across its site.- Fausset) , and called the name of it Joktheel ( the reward of God) unto this day. He seems to have looked upon this captured city as Gods repayment for the one hundred silver talents lost upon the worthless Ephraim-ites. And does not God ever repay His obedient people with abundant increase?
But success with Amaziah (as with most of us) puffs him up. Inflated with his subjugation of the Edomites, he impudently challenged the king of Israel to meet him in combat, saying, Come, let us look one another in the face. The offended Ephraimites had indeed wantonly wronged some of his subjects; yet for this the king of Israel was less responsible than Amaziah himself, who had hired them to enter his army. He took advice, we read, in doing this. Like his father Joash, he was led into disaster by the counsel of the ungodly. But it was of God, for the punishment of his idolatry. For, before this, when Amaziah was come from the slaughter of the Edomites, we read that he brought the gods of the children of Seir, and set them up to be his gods, and bowed down himself before them, and burned incense unto them. Wherefore the anger of the Lord was kindled against Amaziah, and he sent unto him a prophet, which said unto him, Why hast thou sought after the gods of the people, which could not deliver their own people out of thy hand? A child might understand such reasoning. And it came to pass, as he talked with him, that the king said unto him, Art thou made of the kings counsel? forbear; why shouldest thou be smitten? Then the prophet forbare, and said, I know that God hath determined to destroy thee, because thou hast done this, and hast not harkened unto my counsel. So God let him take other counsel (since he refused His own), that led to his ruin.
To Amaziahs rash challenge the king of Israel makes a scornful reply by the language of a parable. He says: The thistle that was in Lebanon (Amaziah) sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon (himself, Joash), saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife: and there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon (Jo-ashs army), and trode down the thistle. And he adds, Thou sayest [to thyself], Lo, thou hast smitten the Edomites-and thy heart lifteth thee up to boast. Abide now at home; why shouldest thou meddle to thy hurt, that thou shouldest fall, even thou, and Judah with thee? Good, sound advice, this. But Amaziah would not hear; for it came of God, that He might deliver them into the hand of their enemies, because they sought after the gods of Edom. So Joash the king of Israel went up; and they saw one another in the face, both he and Amaziah king of Judah, at Beth-shemesh, which belongeth to Judah. And Judah was put to the worse before Israel, and they fled every man to his tent. And Joash the king of Israel took Amaziah king of Judah, the son of Joash, the son of Jehoahaz, at Beth-shemesh, and brought him to Jerusalem, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim to the corner gate, four hundred cubits. This is the first time the walls of Jerusalem had ever been injured. It was on the north-the only side from which the city is easily accessible. Josephus (IX, 9, 9) states that Joash gained entrance into the city by threatening to kill their captive king if the inhabitants refused to open the gates. The victorious Joash now took all the gold and silver, and the holy vessels, and all the treasures that were found in the temple and the kings house; he took hostages also, and returned to Samaria.
Amaziah lived more than fifteen years after his humiliating defeat and capture by the king of Israel. He died by violence, like his father and grandfather before him. Now after the time that Amaziah did turn away from following the Lord they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem; and he fled to Lachish: but they sent to Lachish after him, and slew him there. And they brought him upon horses, and buried him with his fathers in the city of Judah, or of David. His turning away from following the Lord was probably his final and complete apostasy from Jehovah God of Israel; not when he first bowed down to the gods of Seir, which was the beginning of his downward course. Lachish was the first of the cities of Judah to adopt the idolatries of the kingdom of Israel (the beginning of the sin to the daughter of Zion: for the transgressions of Israel were found in thee, Mic 1:13), and it was natural for the idolatrous Amaziah to seek an asylum there. They brought his body back to Jerusalem on horses, as they would a beast. (Contrast Act 7:16.) His name means strength of Jah; but we read, he strengthened himself (2Ch 25:11); his character of self-sufficiency thus belying his name-a thing not uncommon in our day, especially among a people called Christians.
He was assassinated at the age of fifty-four. His mothers name, Jehovah-pleased, would indicate that she was a woman of piety; and it may be that it was due to her influence that he acted righteously during the earlier portion of his reign. The record of his reign has the same sad monotony of so many of the kings of Judah at this period-his acts first and last-the first, full of promise; and the last, declension, or apostasy. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
6. Kings of Israel and Judah
CHAPTER 14
1. Amaziahs reign over Judah (2Ki 14:1-7; 2 Chron. 25)
2. The conflict between Israel and Judah (2Ki 14:8-11; 2Ch 25:17-24)
3. Judahs defeat and Jerusalem taken (2Ki 14:12-14)
4. Jehoash and his successor (2Ki 14:15-16)
5. Death of Amaziah (2Ki 14:17-20; 2Ch 25:26-28)
6. Azariah, King of Judah (2Ki 14:21-22)
7. Jeroboam II (2Ki 14:23-29)
Amaziah, a son of Joash, began his reign over Judah. His mother was Jehoaddan (LORD is pleased) of Jerusalem. He did right in the sight of the LORD and yet he followed the errors of his father. His first deed was to deal in judgment with the two servants who had murdered his father in Millo, both of whom were sons of Gentile women (2Ki 12:19-21; 2Ch 24:26). He feared, however, the Word of God. The additional record which is found in Chronicles we shall not follow here, but do so in the annotations of that book. He raised a large army and hired besides 100,000 Israelitish mercenaries at a tremendous cost. He gained a victory over Edom. All the cruelties practised then we shall find recorded in Chronicles. He became lifted up by his victories and then challenged Jehoash, the King of Israel. That King answered by a parable. The thistle in Lebanon is Amaziah; the cedar is Jehoash, King of Israel. The wild beast that was in Lebanon overcoming the thistle (Amaziah) is Jehoashs army. And the King of Israel gave him a solemn warning to desist. But proud Amaziah paid no attention to Jehoashs words. God was behind it all. It came of God, that He might deliver them into the hand of their enemies, because they sought after the gods of Edom (2Ch 25:20). A complete defeat of Amaziah followed and Jerusalem was taken. And Jehoash took all the gold and silver, and all the vessels that were found in the house of God with Obed-Edom, and the treasures of the Kings house, the hostages also and returned unto Samaria. After this humiliating defeat there followed a revolution in Jerusalem and the unhappy King fled to Lachish, where he was slain. His body was brought back to Jerusalem for burial.
The brief record of the reign of Jeroboam II concludes this chapter. The Prophet Jonah, the son of Amittai is here mentioned. This same Jonah made later the experience which the book of Jonah relates and to which our Lord refers as a historic fact. Hosea and Amos also prophesied at that time in Israel.
(The books of Hosea and Amos, especially the latter, shed much light upon the history of the Kingdom of Israel under Jeroboam and his son. This will be pointed out in annotations of both books.)
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
am 3165, bc 839
Joash: 2Ki 14:15, 2Ki 13:10
reigned Amaziah: 1Ch 3:12, 2Ch 25:1-4
Reciprocal: 2Ki 14:17 – Amaziah
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2Ki 14:1-2. In the second year of Joash, king of Israel After he began to reign alone: for he reigned two or three years with his father, of which see the note on 2Ki 13:10. This, as Dr. Lightfoot observes, was the thirty-eighth year of his father Joash, king of Judah, three years before his death. For Joash had thrown himself into such a miserable condition by his apostacy, and the murder of Zechariah, (2Ki 12:17; 2Ch 24:25,) that he was become unfit to govern the kingdom. He reigned twenty and nine years Fourteen of which he was contemporary with Joash, king of Israel, and fifteen with Jeroboam, the son of Joash, 2Ki 14:17.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Ki 14:2. His mothers name was Jehoaddan. The mothers of the kings of Judah are mostly mentioned by name, but those of the kings of Israel are seldom named so expressly; for the kings of Israel were not regarded as equal in honour to the kings of Judah.
2Ki 14:6. The children of the regicides he slew not. This is mentioned as a virtue in his character, for in that age, and even in the old Spanish histories, vengeance was often extended to the children. The history of these events being more copiously related in 2 Chronicles 26. 27. 28., the reader is referred to those records.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Ki 14:1-22. The Reign of Amaziah, son of Joash, King of Judah.Amaziah was a virtuous king like his father Joash, but not according to the standard of David. This is the judgment of the Deuteronomist, who refers to the law-book of his age, approving the kings forbearance in not punishing the sons of his fathers murderers (Deu 21:1-9*, Deu 24:16). Amaziah was successful in his wars with Edom, whose territory was peculiarly important to Judah as giving access to the Red Sea. The Edomites were defeated in the Valley of Salt as in Davids time (2Sa 8:13, LXX). There is a place of the same name near Beersheba, but the topography here seems to require it to be in the southern Arabah, S. of the Dead Sea, especially as the result of the campaign was the recovery and rebuilding of Elath (2Ki 14:22). The Rock (Sela) was captured, and its name changed to Joktheel (2Ki 14:7). Whether the famous rock city Petra is meant is doubtful. Petra lies in the extreme S. of the Edomite Arabah, between the Dead and Red Seas, and is approached by a wady on the eastern side (see Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, pp. 91ff.). It is possibly mentioned in Jdg 1:36.* Stanley identified Sela, the cliff, with Kadesh Barnea, and this is the name of the rock which Moses smote there (Num 20:8 ff.); but Kadesh would lie outside the sphere of operations if the king of Judah was trying to get to the port of Elath. Amaziah, elated by his conquest of Edom, challenged Jehoash, king of Israel, to look him in the face. Whether this means in battle or to regard him no longer as a vassal is uncertain. The king of Israel replied in a parable comparing the king of Judah to a thistle, and himself to a cedar of Lebanon. After ignominiously defeating Amaziah, Joash demolished the northern wall of Jerusalem. Amaziah, like his father, was killed in a conspiracy, and was succeeded by his son Azariah.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
AMAZIAH RULING IN JUDAH
(vv.1-20)
Joash had only reigned briefly in Israel before Amaziah the son of the other Joash (or Jehoash) became king in Judah. He was 25 when crowned king and reigned 29 years. His mother’s name was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem. She must have been a commendable character, for her son was comparatively obedient to the Lord, though not as faithful as David had been (v.2). He was much like his father, Jehoash, with many things to his credit, though the high places of worship were still maintained during his reign, where the people sacrificed and burned incense (v.3).
When he was established in his kingdom Amaziah rightly executed the two men who had murdered his father (ch.12:21). Yet Amaziah was not vindictive, for he respected God’s word in Deu 24:16, “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers, a person shall be put to death for his own sin.” Therefore the children of the two men were not put to death (v.6).
Amaziah did good work in judging Edom, killing 10,000 Edomites in the Valley of Salt. Edom pictures the flesh, so that spiritually this victory was over the flesh. May we also judge the flesh unsparingly (v.7). He also took Sela by war, changing its name to Joktheel. These names seem not too certain as regards a spiritual interpretation, but Amaziah was rightly defeating the enemy and putting him in subjection.
However, Amaziah’s success in defeating the enemies of the Lord seems to have awakened the pride in him of thinking he could subdue the ten tribes of Israel also. When Rehoboam gathered a great army with the same object in view, God sent word to him, “You shall not go up nor fight against your brethren the children of Israel (1Ki 12:24). Separations between brethren are not going to be healed in this way. But Amaziah sent messengers to Joash, king of Israel, wanting to battle with Israel (v.8). If Israel attacked, the case would be much different, but Amaziah ought to have known better than to initiate a conflict with his brethren the children of Israel.
When Amaziah foolishly determined to attack his brethren, the ten tribes of Israel, Joash sent him a crushing reply, using a parable that belittled Amaziah by calling him a “thistle” challenging a cedar tree, with the result that a wild beast trampled the thistle (v.9). Thus the unbeliever reproved the believer, for Joash discerned that because Amaziah had defeated Edom he was flushed by the pride that thought he could defeat Israel also. He advised Amaziah to stay at home, for in meddling with trouble he would fall, and Judah with him (v.10).
But Amaziah stubbornly refused to listen, and took his army to fight Israel. Amaziah’s pride at the time was such that he felt no need of consulting the Lord. Can we wonder that the Lord therefore allowed Judah to be badly defeated by Israel and to flee for their lives?
Amaziah himself was captured, and the king of Israel came to Jerusalem, breaking down the wall from the gate of Ephraim to the corner gate, a length of 400 cubits (about 600 feet), and took all the articles of gold and silver that were in the house of the Lord (vv.13-14). What a lesson is this for us! By meddling where we have no right we shall find the wall of our separation from the world broken down, and more seriously still, the precious things belonging to the Lord which we hold in trust. will be stolen from us! Let us pay close attention to the words Paul wrote to Timothy, “O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust” (1Ti 6:20).
Thus Amaziah and all Judah were humiliated before the idol-worshipping Israelites, though Amaziah’s life was spared. But 2Ch 25:14 shows us the reason that God allowed the shameful defeat of Amaziah by Israel. When Amaziah had defeated the Edomites, he brought Edom’s idols back to his own house and bowed down to them and offered incense to them. God sent a prophet to reprove him for this, but Amaziah insolently refused his message. Thus Amaziah had slipped badly from his first actions of obedience to the Lord.
Joash of Israel died fifteen years before Amaziah did (vv.16-17), but there is no indication of Amaziah’s recovery from idol worship. He was no example of godliness to his subjects. and his own people conspired against him in Jerusalem. He fled for his life to Lachish, but was followed there and killed. How sad an end to a reign that had begun well!
The body of Amaziah was brought back again to Jerusalem for burial (v.20), and the people appointed his son Azariah to reign in his stead. Azariah (called Uzziah in 2Ch 25:1) was only sixteen years old in beginning his reign. Here it is only mentioned of him that he built Elath and restored it to Judah after the death of his father (v.21).
A SECOND JEREBOAM REIGNS IN ISRAEL
(vv.23-29)
This Jereboam was the son of Joash king of Israel, and reigned in Samaria for 41 years, but as did all the kings of Israel, he followed the ways of the first Jereboam in disobedience to the Lord (v.24). He did, however, benefit Israel by restoring land that belonged to them. “For the Lord saw that the affliction of Israel was very bitter; and whether bond or free, there was no helper for Israel” (v.26). How good that the Lord gives some measure of gracious encouragement to His people, though they are in a pathetic state. Thus He saved them from enemies by the hand of Jereboam, who did some good things in spite of his general condition of disobedience to God. This included his recapturing land that had belonged to Judah (v.28), for Judah in her weakness had suffered such loss. At the death of Jereboam, his son Zechariah took the throne.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
6. Amaziah’s good reign in Judah 14:1-22
Amaziah of Judah reigned over Judah for 29 years (796-767 B.C.). He began reigning when Jehoash was king over Israel and died during the reign of Jehoash’s son and successor Jeroboam II. The prophet Joel may have ministered in Judah during his reign. [Note: Proponents of this view include Freeman, p. 148; and Gleason A. Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, p. 305.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Amaziah’s policies 14:1-6
Amaziah’s only act of goodness that the writer of Kings included was his obedience to the Mosaic Law in the matter of not executing children for their fathers’ crimes (Deu 24:16). Kings of other ancient Near Eastern countries commonly practiced such executions. Amaziah instead trusted God to control the potential rebels.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
AMAZIAH OF JUDAH
B.C. 796-783 (?)
2Ki 14:1-22
“All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
Mat 26:52
THE fate of Amaziah (“Jehovah is strong”), son of Joash of Judah, resembles in some respects that of his father. Both began to reign prosperously: the happiness of both ended in disaster. Amaziah at his accession was twenty-five years old. He was the son of a lady of Jerusalem named Jehoaddin. He reigned twenty-nine years, of which the later ones were passed in misery, peril, and degradation, and, like the unhappy Joash, and at about the same age, he fell the victim of domestic conspiracy.
The hereditary principle was too strongly established to enable the murderers of Joash to set it aside, but Amaziah was not at first strong enough to make any head against them. In time he became established in his kingdom, and then his earliest act was to bring the head conspirators, Jozacar and Jehozabad, to justice. It was noted as a most remarkable circumstance that he did not put to death their children, and extirpate their houses. In acting thus, if he were influenced by a spirit of mercy, he showed himself before his time; but such mercy was completely contrary to the universal custom, and was also regarded as most impolitic. Even the comparatively merciful Greeks had the proverb, “Fool, who has murdered the sire, and left his sons to avenge him!”
In epochs of the wild justice of revenge, when blood-feuds are an established and approved institution, the policy of letting vengeance only fall on the actual offender was regarded as fatal. Perhaps Amaziah felt it beyond his power to do more than bring the actual murderers to justice, and it is possible that their children may have been among the conspirators who, in his hour of shame, ultimately destroyed him.
The historian, it is true, attributes his conduct to magnanimity, or rather to his obedience to the law, “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children for the fathers; but every man shall die for his own sin.” This is a reference to Deu 24:16, and is probably the independent comment of the writer who recorded the event two centuries later. In the gradual growth of a milder civilization, and the more common dominance of legal justice, such a law may have come into force, as expressive of that voice of conscience which is to sincere nations the voice of God. That the Book of Deuteronomy, as a book, was not in existence in its present form till four reigns later we shall hereafter see strong reasons to believe. But even if any part of that book was in existence, it is not easy to understand how Amaziah would have been able to decide that the law which forbade the punishment of the children with the offending parents was the law which he was bound to follow, when Moses and Joshua and other heroes of his race had acted on the olden principle. The innocent families of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram were represented as having been swallowed up with the ambitious heads of their houses. Joshua and all Israel had not only stoned Achan, but with him all his unoffending house. What, too, was the meaning of the law which established the five Cities of Refuge as the best way to protect the accidental homicide from the recognized and unrebuked actions of the God- the avenger of blood? The vengeance of a Goel was regarded, as it is in the East and South to this day, not as an implacable fierceness, but as a sacred duty, the neglect of which would cover him with infamy. Judging of our documents by the impartial light of honest criticism, it seems impossible to deny that the law of Deuteronomy was the law of an advancing civilization, which became more mild as justice became firmer and more available. If Deuteronomy represents the legislation of Moses, we can only say that in this respect Amaziah was the first person who paid the slightest attention to it. Such exceptional obedience may well excite the notice of the historian, in whose pages we see that prophets like Ahijah, Elijah, and Elisha had, again and again, in accordance with the spirit of their times, contemplated the total excision, not only of erring kings, but even of their little children and their most distant kinsfolk.
Further:-We are told that Amaziah “did that which was right in the sight of Jehovah: he did according to all things as Joash his father did.” The Chronicler also bestows his eulogy on Amaziah; but having told such dark stories of the apostasy of Joash to Asherah-worship and his murder of the prophets, he could hardly add “as Joash his father did”; so he omits those words. The reservation that Amaziah did right, “yet not like David his father,” {2Ki 14:3} “but not with a perfect heart,” {2Ch 25:2} is followed by the stock abatement about the bamoth, and the sacrifices and incense burnt in them. This was a crime in the eyes of writers in B.C. 540, but certainly not in the eyes of any king before the discovery of the “Book of the Law” in the reign of Josiah, B.C. 621. We are compelled, therefore, by simple truth, to ask, How came it that Amaziah should be so scrupulous as to observe the Deuteronomic law by not slaying the sons of his fathers murderers, while he does not seem to be aware, any more than the best of his predecessors, that while he obeyed one precept he was violating the essence and spirit of the entire code in which the precept occurs? The one main object, the constantly repeated law of, Deuteronomy, is the centralization of all worship, and the rigid prohibition of every local place of sacrifice. Strange that Amaziah should have selected for attention a single precept, while he is profoundly unconscious of, or indifferent to, the fact that he is setting aside the regulation with which the law, as Deuteronomy represents it, begins and ends, and on which it incessantly insists!
Joash had been something of a weakling, as though the gloom of his early concealment in the Temple and the shadow of priestly dominance had paralyzed his independence. Amaziah, on the other hand, born in the purple, was vigorous and restless. When he was secure upon the throne, and had done his duty to his fathers memory, he bent his efforts to recover Edom. The Edomites had revolted in the days of his great-grandfather Jehoram, {2Ki 8:20-22} and since then “did tear perpetually,” {Amo 1:11} harassing with incessant raids the miserable fellahin of Southern Judah. They reaped the crops of the settled inhabitants, cut down their fruit-trees, burnt their farmsteads, and carried their children into cruel and hopeless slavery. One verse tells us all that the historian knew, or cared to relate, of Amaziahs campaign. He only says that it was eminently successful: Amaziah confronted the Edomites in the Valley of Salt, on the border of Edom, to the south of the Dead Sea, and inflicted upon them a signal defeat. He not only slaughtered ten thousand of them, but, advancing southwards, he stormed and captured Selah or Petra, their rocky capital, two days journey north of Ezion-Geber, on the gulf of Akabah. Considering the natural strength of Petra, amid its mountain-fastnesses, this was a victory of which he might well be proud, and be marked his prowess by changing the name of the city to Joktheel, “subdued by God.” The historian, copying the ancient record before him, says that Selah continued to be so-called “to this day.” This is a curious instance of close transcription, for it is certain that Selah can only have retained the name of Joktheel for a very short period, and had lost it long before the days of the Exile. Even in the reign of Ahaz (B.C. 735-715) the Edomites had so completely recovered lost ground that they were able to make predatory excursions into Judah, and to threaten Hebron, which would have been obviciously impossible if they were not masters of their own chief capital. The district which Amaziah seems to have conquered was mainly west of the Arabah. He wished to restore Elath, and perhaps to carry out the old commerce with the Red Sea which Solomon began, and which had fired the ambition of Jehoshaphat. The conquest of Selah secured the road for his commercial caravans.
So far the older and better authorities. The Chronicler expands the story in his usual fashion, in which historical and critical verity is so often compelled, if not to suspect the disease of exaggeration and the bias of Levitism, at least to feel uncertainty as to the details. He says that Amaziah collected an army of three hundred thousand men of Judah, trained them to a high state of discipline, and armed them with spear and shield. He hired in addition one hundred thousand Israelitish mercenaries, mighty men of valor, at the heavy cost of one hundred talents of silver. He was rebuked by a prophet for employing Israelites, “because the Lord was not with them,” so that if he used their aid he would certainly be defeated. Amaziah asked what he was to do for the hundred talents, and the prophet told him that Jehovah could give him much more than this. {2Ch 25:5-10; 2Ch 25:13} So he dismissed his Ephraimites, who, returning home in great fury, “fell upon the cities of Judah,” from Samaria even unto Beth-horon, killed three thousand of their inhabitants, and took much spoil. Amaziah, however, defeated the Edomites without their aid, and not only slew ten thousand, but took captive ten thousand more, all of whom he dashed to pieces by hurling them from the top of the rock of Petra.
Then, by an apostasy much more astounding than even that of his father Joash, he took home with him the idols of Mount Seir, worshipped them, and burnt incense before them. Jehovah sends a prophet to rebuke him for his senseless infatuation in worshipping the gods of the Edomites whom he had just so utterly defeated; but Amaziah returns him the insolent answer, “Who made thee of the kings council? Be silent, or I will put thee to death.” The prophet met his ironical sneer with words of deeper meaning: “If I am not on your council, I am on Gods. Because thou hast not hearkened to my counsel, I know that God has counseled to destroy thee.”
The later writer thus accounts for the folly and overthrow of this valorous and hitherto eminently pious king. Certain it is, as we shall narrate in the next chapter, that, in spite of warning, he had the temerity to challenge to battle the warlike Joash ben-Jehoahaz of Israel, grandson of Jehu. The kings met at Beth-Shemesh, and Amaziah was utterly routed, with consequences so shameful to himself and to Jerusalem that he was never able to hold up his head again. He could but eat away his own heart in despair, a ruined man. After this he “lived” rather than reigned fifteen years longer. The wall of Jerusalem, broken down near the Damascus Gate, on the side towards Israel, for a space of four hundred cubits, was a standing witness of the kings infatuated folly. His people were ashamed of him, and weary of him; and at last, seeing that nothing more could be expected of one whose spirit had evidently been broken from impetuosity into abjectness, they formed a conspiracy against him. To save his life he fled to the strong fort of Lachish, a royal Canaanite city, in the hills to the southwest of Judah. {Jos 10:6; Jos 10:31; Jos 15:39 2Ki 18:17 2Ch 11:9} But they pursued him thither, and even Lachish would not protect him; He was murdered. They threw the corpse upon a chariot, conveyed it to Jerusalem, and buried it in the sepulchers of his fathers. The people quietly elevated to the throne his son Azariah, then sixteen years old, who had been born the year before his fathers crowning disgrace. What became of the conspirators we do not know. They were probably too strong to be brought to justice, and we are not told that Azariah even attempted to visit their crime upon their heads.