Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Kings 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.
8 16. Amaziah’s challenge to Joash king of Israel. Answer of Joash. Defeat of Amaziah. Death of Joash (2Ch 25:17-24)
8. Then Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash ] The Chronicler gives a history anterior to the challenge of Amaziah, which explains why the king who had been divinely guided before the Edomite expedition was left without the like guidance afterwards. We are told that Amaziah brought back from Edom the gods of the children of Seir and set them up to be his gods, and when a prophet was sent to rebuke him, he threatened the messenger of God with punishment. Upon this the prophet forbare, but left the king with the words, ‘I know that God hath determined to destroy thee, because thou hast done this and hast not hearkened unto my counsel’. The Chronicler also says that before his challenge ‘Amaziah king of judah took advice’, which forces one to think of the counsellors whom Rehoboam listened to at the time of his accession, and by following whom he brought about the revolt of the ten tribes. It may be that the conduct of the Israelitish soldiers whom Amaziah had sent home (see note on verse 7) incited the king of Judah to take some revenge on Israel. In 2 Chronicles (2Ki 25:13) we read that these men ‘fell upon the cities of Judah, from Samaria even unto Beth-horon, and smote three thousand of them and took much spoil’. The ‘three thousand’ of course means ‘of the inhabitants’. If this attack occurred while Amaziah was on his expedition against Edom, we can better understand his action.
Come, let us look one another in the face ] A figurative expression equivalent to ‘Let us measure swords’, let us test each other’s power. It was under all circumstances rash for the smaller power, the king of two tribes, to challenge the king of ten. Moreover if Amaziah had been victorious over Edom, Jehoash had repulsed the Syrians and recovered those portions of the land which had been lost in the time of Jehoahaz.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Amaziahs success against Edom had so elated him that he thought himself more than a match for his northern neighbor. The grounds of the quarrel between them were furnished by the conduct of the hired, but dismissed, Israelite soldiers (see the marginal reference).
Let us look one another in the face – i. e. let us meet face to face in arms, and try each others strength 2Ki 14:11-12.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
2Ki 14:8
Come, let us look one another in the face.
Looking in the face
Let us look one another in the face. Such was the message of a king to a king. The whole transaction was hypocritical, and we cannot read of it without loathing. Separate the words from the original surroundings, however, and they contain most excellent advice. We may give them a practical and seasonable turn.
I. Look God in the face. Behold Him as He is. It is, alas, so easy to get wrong conceptions of the Most High, and much enmity to Him has its beginning thus. They hated me without a cause. If men knew God better, they would dread Him less and trust Him more. Come now, let us reason together, saith the Lord. Concerning what? why, the very point of which we have been speaking: false notions of the Lord. Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. You fancy Me to be harsh and hard: get rid of that thought; I delight in mercy. To look God in the face is no difficult matter now that Christ has come. He is the image of the invisible God. See the one, and you see the other. The tenderness which said to a desolate widow in Nain, Dont cry; I will raise your son; the power which subdued the crested waves and-hushed the roaring winds by a single word; the holiness which took no taint from contact with publicans and sinners–reveal the attributes of Jehovah. Agnosticism erect again the ancient Athenian altar, and writes on it, to the Unknown God.; but Paul still cries, Whom ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you.
II. Look yourself in the face. If any be a hearer of the word, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass. by the light of Scripture we may see our own characters; and this self-scrutiny is eminently important. Socrates said: We should not live a life which is not subject to examination. for lack of this, some are astoundingly ignorant of their true condition. What they say to others might well be spoken of and by themselves, I have not the pleasure of knowing you. Nathan proved this in respect of David, and the very church which thought that it had need of nothing was pronounced by Christ poor and miserable, and blind, and naked. As it is in the literary, so it is in the moral world: authors are often bad judges of their own productions. John Foster wished that he could write like Johnson or Young, hut the fact is that he wrote better than either. Sir Walter Scott published the Waverley Novels anonymously, lest they should injure his fame as a poet; but posterity thinks more of his stories than his verses. Something like this holds good of us: we may be ludicrously mistaken regarding ourselves. To avoid such blunders, let us use the balances of the sanctuary. We should employ the scales and weights which God has provided. Paul told the Corinthians that they were not wise, because they measured themselves by themselves, and compared themselves with themselves.
III. Look man in the face. A needless counsel, some may complain. Dont we do it? Nothing is so common as the wish to see peoples faces. We all believe in the vis-a-vis position. The pen is not enough; we want the countenance also. If you hear of a great writer or preacher, you at once want to see him. When we visit friends we call it going to see them Nevertheless there is need of the advice: see men. We are much too isolated. English folk are what Matthew Arnold calls insular. If the various classes of society had more intercourse with each other, it would be better for us all round. Were the cultured and intellectual to mingle with Philistines rather oftener, the latter would get a little of their refinement. Communion between the rich and the poor would hardly fail in producing sympathy on the part of the one and confidence on the part of the other. Christians might learn a lesson here. They keep too much apart. Only lately it was asked at a metropolitan meeting of our denomination–Where now is the continuing in the apostles doctrine and fellowship of which we read in the early Church? One other thought. How many misunderstandings in social life might be prevented or removed, if we looked each other in the face! You think that a friend is cooler in his manner than of yore, or he has done something which you interpret as hostile to you. Dont brood over it. If you do, your suspicions and imagination will blow the spark into a flame which will consume your comfort. Visit him. Be candid. Have it out, as we say, and the probability is that a few minutes plain dealing on both sides will put the whole business right. (T. R. Stevenson.)
Challenge to combat couched in terms of peace
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 whir! 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 arc 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. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 8. Come, let us look one another in the face.] This was a real declaration of war; and the ground of it is most evident from this circumstance: that the one hundred thousand men of Israel that had been dismissed, though they had the stipulated money, taking the advantage of Amaziah’s absence, fell upon the cities of Judah, from Samaria to Beth-horon, and smote three thousand men, and took much spoil, 2Ch 25:10-13. Amaziah no doubt remonstrated with Jehoash, but to no purpose; and therefore he declared war against him.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Let us fight personally, and with our armies. This challenge he sent, partly upon the late and great injuries done by the Israelites to his people, 2Ch 25:10,13, and partly from self-confidence, and a desire of advancing his glory and empire by his arms.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
8. Amaziah sent messengers toJehoash, the son of Jehoahaz, son of Jehu, king of IsraelThisbold and haughty challenge, which was most probably stimulated by adesire of satisfaction for the outrages perpetrated by the dischargedauxiliaries of Israel (2Ch 25:13)on the towns that lay in their way home, as well as by revenge forthe massacre of his ancestors by Jehu (2Ki9:1-37) sprang, there is little doubt, from pride andself-confidence, inspired by his victory over the Edomites.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz the son of Jehu king of Israel,…. The occasion of it was this, when Amaziah dismissed the hired soldiers of Israel they were displeased, and fell upon the cities of Judea from Samaria to Bethhoron, slew 3000 men, and took much spoil, 2Ch 25:13, wherefore, when Amaziah returned from the slaughter of the Edomites, being elated with his victories, he sent the following message to the king of Israel, in order to revenge the injuries his soldiers had done; and perhaps retaining an old grudge for what Jehu, the grandfather of the king of Israel, had done to his ancestors, and it may be in hope of reducing the ten tribes to obedience to the house of David:
saying, come, let us look one another in the face; that is, in battle, as the Targum adds; it was a challenge to meet him in the field of battle, and fight with him, and try each other’s courage, and see who was the best man.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
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. 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. 10 Thou hast indeed smitten Edom, and thine heart hath lifted thee up: glory of this, and tarry at home: 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 at Beth-shemesh, which belongeth to Judah. 12 And Judah was put to the worse before Israel; and they fled every man to their tents. 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 brake down the wall of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim unto the corner gate, four hundred cubits. 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, and returned to Samaria.
For several successions after the division of the kingdoms that of Judah suffered much by the enmity of Israel. After Asa’s time, for several successions, it suffered more by the friendship of Israel, and by the alliance and affinity made with them. But now we meet with hostility between them again, which had not been for some ages before.
I. Amaziah, upon no provocation, and without showing any cause of quarrel, challenged Joash into the field (v. 8): “Come, let us look one another in the face; let us try our strength in battle.” Had he challenged him to a personal duel only, the error would have remained with himself, but each must bring all their forces into the field, and thousands of lives on both sides must be sacrificed to his capricious humour. Hereby he showed himself proud, presumptuous, and prodigal of blood. Some think that he intended to avenge the injury which the dismissed disgusted Israelites had lately done to his country, in their return (2 Chron. xxv. 13), and that he had also the vanity to think of subduing the kingdom of Israel, and reuniting it to Judah. A fool’s lips thus enter into contention, and his mouth calleth for strokes. Those that challenge are chargeable with that beginning of strife, which is as the letting forth of water. He that is eager either to fight or to go to law may perhaps have enough of it quickly, and be the first that repents it.
II. Joash sent him a grave rebuke for his challenge, with advice to withdraw it, 2Ki 14:9; 2Ki 14:10. 1. He mortifies his pride, by comparing himself to a cedar, a stately tree, and Amaziah to a thistle, a sorry weed, telling him he was so far from fearing him that he despised him, and scorned as much to have any thing to do with him, or make any alliance with him, as the cedar would to match his daughter to a thistle. The ancient house of David he thinks not worthy to be named the same day with the house of Jehu, though an upstart. How may a humble man smile to hear two proud and scornful men set their wits on work to vilify and undervalue one another! 2. He foretels his fall: A wild beast trode down the thistle, and so put an end to his treaty with the cedar; so easily does Joash think his forces can crush Amaziah, and so unable does he think him to make any resistance. 3. He shows him the folly of his challenge: “Thou hast indeed smitten Edom, a weak, unarmed, undisciplined body of men, and therefore thinkest thou canst carry all before thee and subdue the regular forces of Israel with as much ease. Thy heart has lifted thee up.” See where the root of all sin lies; it is in the heart, thence it flows, and that must bear the blame. It is not Providence, the event, the occasion (whatever it is), that makes men proud, or secure, or discontented, or the like, but it is their own heart that does it. “Thou art proud of the blow thou hast given to Edom, as if that had made thee formidable to all mankind.” Those wretchedly deceive themselves that magnify their own performances, and, because they have been blessed with some little success and reputation, conclude themselves fit for any thing and no less sure of it. 4. He counsels him to be content with the honour he has won, and not to hazard that, by grasping at more that was out of his reach: Why shouldst thou meddle to thy hurt, as fools often do, that will be meddling? Prov. xx. 3. Many would have had wealth and honour enough if they had but known when they had enough. He warns him of the consequence, that it would be fatal not to himself only, but to his kingdom, which he ought to protect.
III. Amaziah persisted in his resolution, and the issue was bad; he had better have tarried at home, for Joash gave him such a look in the face as put him to confusion. Challengers commonly prove to be on the losing side. 1. His army was routed and dispersed, v. 12. Josephus says, When they were to engage they were struck with such terror that they did not strike a stroke, but every one made the best of his way. 2. He himself was taken prisoner by the king of Israel, and then had enough of looking him in the face. Amaziah’s pedigree comes in here somewhat abruptly (the son of Joash, the son of Ahaziah), because perhaps he had gloried in the dignity of his ancestors, or because he now smarted for their iniquity. 3. The conqueror entered Jerusalem, which tamely opened to him, and yet he broke down their wall (and, as Josephus says, drove his chariot in triumph through the breach), in reproach to them, and that he might, when he pleased, take possession of the royal city. 4. He plundered Jerusalem, took away all that was valuable, and returned to Samaria, laden with spoils, v. 14. It was said of Joash that he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, and of Amaziah that he did that which was right; and yet Joash triumphs thus over Amaziah, and why so? Because God would show, in Amaziah’s fate, that he resists the proud, or because, whatever they were otherwise, Joash had lately been respectful to one of God’s prophets (ch. xiii. 14), but Amaziah had been abusive to another (2 Chron. xxv. 16), and God will honour those who honour him in his prophets, but those who despise them, and him in them, shall be lightly esteemed.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Judah and Israel at War Commentary on 2Ki 14:8-16 AND 2Ch 25:17-24
Amaziah considered the spoiling of his cities by the mercenary soldiers as they returned to Samaria an act of war. Therefore he sent his declaration of war to Joash, the king of Israel, “to look one another in the face.” Joash did not desire war with Judah and answered Amaziah with an insulting parable. In the parable there were four principals; Lebanon, a thistle, a cedar, and a wild beast. In Lebanon the thistle asked a ridiculous thing, that the cedar give his daughter to marry the thistle. Before the cedar could refuse such a preposterous request a wild beast passed by and trod down the thistle.
Lebanon, of course, represented the land of Israel with its two kingdoms. Judah was represented by the thistle and Israel (Ephraim) by the cedar. The wild beast was simply a power, any power, for the thistle was so insignificant. Amaziah’s victory, Joash said, had made him proud. He had indeed smitten Edom, but he should be satisfied with that and stay at home, for to meddle with the cedar, Israel, would be to his hurt of himself and his kingdom.
But Amaziah was determined to have war with Joash, not realizing that the Lord had forsaken him because of his worship of the Edomite idols and his rejection of His message by the prophet. The two armies met in battle at Beth-shemesh, northwest of Jerusalem in the territory of Amaziah. The men of Judah and Benjamin were put to the worse and fled away to return to their homes in defeat.
Joash captured Amaziah himself, conveying him a captive back to Jerusalem. There he destroyed the city wall for a distance of six hundred feet from the gate of Ephraim, the chief gate of the northern wall, to the corner. He took a spoil of all the silver and gold of the temple and the palace, with also the precious vessels of the temple. Amaziah was left, but hostages were taken with the spoil back to Samaria to insure Judah’s continued peaceableness. The words of another prophet well illustrate the condition of Amaziah in his self-confidence (Hos 10:13).
A word of clarification needs to be made here. Verse 23 of the Chronicles account speaks of Amaziah as the son of Joash, who was the son of Jehoahaz. Amaziah was, of course, the son of Joash the king of Judah, whose father was Ahaziah. The Joash, king of Israel, against whom he was fighting was also the son of Jehoahaz, but that Jehoahaz was not Amaziah’s father. The confusion came about because the name of Amaziah’s father was stated in two different ways, both having the same meaning in the Hebrew, “held by Jehovah”. In Ahaziah the “-iah” is “jah”, Jehovah; in Jehoahaz the “Jeho-” is “Jah,” also Jehovah. Either way it is supposed to indicate that the king was held in the hand of the Lord.
This passage concludes with another account of the end of the reign of Joash of Israel. He was buried with the kings of Israel in Samaria, and his son Jeroboam became the new king.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(8) Then.After the reduction of Edom. The more extended narrative which follows is plainly taken from a different source than that of the brief extract preceding it.
Come, let us look one another in the face.A challenge to battle, the ground of which might be found in the outrages committed by the Israelite mercenaries on their homeward march. It appears likely, however, that Amaziah, intoxicated by his recent success, aimed at nothing less than the recovery of the Ten Tribes for the house of David. So Josephus (Antt. ix. 9, 2), who gives what purport to be the letters which passed between the two kings on this occasion.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
8. Let us look one another in the face An idiomatic expression used in a hostile sense. Equivalent to, Let us see each other’s face by coming into close conflict on a field of battle. The Germans have a similar idiom, To view heads, and to view the whites in the eye.
In Chronicles we learn the occasion of this war of Amaziah against the kingdom of Israel. The Israelitish soldiers whom Amaziah hired and soon after dismissed were greatly offended at such treatment, and “fell upon the cities of Judah, from Samaria even unto Beth-heron, and smote three thousand of them, and took much spoil.” This was too great an injury for the king of Judah to pass by without notice, and his elation over his Edomite victory, and the native pride of his heart, urged him on.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Ki 14:8. Come, let us look one another in the face Josephus, in his account of this transaction, tells us, that Amaziah wrote an imperious letter to the king of Israel, commanding him and his people to pay the same allegiance to him, which they formerly paid to his ancestors David and Solomon; or, in case of their refusal, to expect a decision of the matter by the sword. Others think that he intended no war by this message, but only a trial of military skill and prowess, or a civil kind of interview between his men and those of Israel; for, had he proposed to act in a hostile manner, he would have assaulted them on a sudden, and not given them this warning to stand upon their defence. The words of the message are much of the same kind with what Abner said to Joab, Let the young men now arise and play before us, 2Sa 2:14. But how polite so-ever the expressions may be, in both cases they had in them the formality of a challenge, as both the king and general, who were not unacquainted with military language, certainly understood them. So that the truth of the matter seems to be this; Amaziah, being encouraged by his late victory, determined to be revenged for the slaughter of his ancestors by Jehu, chap. 9:, and for the late spoil which the Israelites had made in his country; and thereupon, resolving to have satisfaction, he sent them this open declaration of war, only conceived in mild terms.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
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.
Ver. 8. Then Amaziah sent. ] Being puffed up with his recent victory over the Edomites, he had a proud conceit that he should prosper in whatsoever he undertook; albeit he had now forsaken the Lord, and served the gods of those Edomites, whom he had erst subdued. By a like folly, the old Romans, after that they had subdued any nation, were wont to set up their gods to themselves, to win their favour.
Come, let us look one another in the face,
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
look one another, &c. Figure of speech Tapeinosis (App-6), meaning very much more (verses: 2Ki 14:11-12).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
am 3178, bc 826
Amaziah: 2Ch 25:17-24
Come: 2Ki 14:11, 2Sa 2:14-17, Pro 13:10, Pro 17:14, Pro 18:6, Pro 20:18, Pro 25:8
Reciprocal: Jdg 9:29 – Increase thine army Jdg 9:38 – General Jdg 11:12 – What hast 1Sa 14:12 – Come up to us 1Ki 20:18 – General 2Ki 13:9 – Joash 2Ki 13:12 – his might 2Ki 23:29 – he had seen him Pro 26:4 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2Ki 14:8. Let us look one another in the face Let us try our valour and strength in battle. Being flushed with his late great victory over the Edomites, and incensed by the injury which the dismissed, disgusted Israelites had lately done to his country in their return, (2Ch 25:13,) he sent this challenge to the king of Israel. Perhaps he had the vanity to think he could subdue his kingdom, and reunite it to Judah. Had he challenged him merely to a personal duel, the error had remained with himself: but each of them must bring all his forces into the field, and thousands of lives must be sacrificed on both sides to his capricious humour! Hereby he showed himself proud, presumptuous, and prodigal of blood. They that challenge are chargeable with that beginning of strife which is as the letting out of water. And they that are fond either of fighting or going to law, may perhaps have enough of it quickly, and will probably be the first that repent it.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
14:8 Then Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz son of Jehu, king of Israel, saying, Come, {d} let us look one another in the face.
(d) Let us fight hand to hand, and try it by battle, and not destroy one another’s cities.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
THE DYNASTY OF JEHU
Jehoahaz
814-797
{2Ki 13:1-9}
Joash
797-781
{2Ki 13:10-21; 2Ki 14:8-16}
Jeroboam II
781-740
{2Ki 14:23-29}
Zechariah
740
{2Ki 15:8-12}
“Them that honor Me I will honor, and they that despise Me shall be lightly esteemed.”
– 1Sa 2:30
ISRAEL had scarcely ever sunk to so low a nadir of degradation as she did in the reign of the son of Jehu. We have already mentioned that some assign to his reign the ghastly story which we have narrated in our sketch of the work of Elisha. It is told in the sixth chapter of the Second Book of Kings, and seems to belong to the reign of Jehoram ben-Ahab; but it may have got displaced from this epoch of yet deeper wretchedness. The accounts of Jehoahaz in 2Ki 13:1-25 are evidently fragmentary and abrupt.
Jehoahaz reigned seventeen years. Naturally, he did not disturb the calf-worship, which, like all his predecessors and successors, he regarded as a perfectly innocent symbolic adoration of Jehovah, whose name he bore and whose service he professed. Why should he do so? It had been established now for more than two centuries. His father, in spite of his passionate and ruthless zeal for Jehovah, had never attempted to disturb it. No prophet-not even Elijah nor Elisha, the practical establishers of his dynasty-had said one word to condemn it. It in no way rested on his conscience as an offence; and the formal condemnation of it by the historian only reflects the more enlightened judgment of the Southern Kingdom and of a later age. But according to the parenthesis which breaks the thread of this kings story, {2Ki 13:5-6} he was guilty of a far more culpable defection from orthodox worship; for in his reign, the Asherah-the tree or pillar of the Tyrian nature-goddess-still remained in Samaria, and therefore must have had its worshippers. How it came there we cannot tell. Jezebel had set it up, {1Ki 16:33} with the connivance of Ahab. Jehu apparently had “put it away” with the great stele of Baal, {2Ki 3:2} but, for some reason or other, he had not destroyed it. It now apparently occupied some public place, a symbol of decadence, and provocative of the wrath of Heaven.
Jehoahaz sank very low. Hazaels savage sword, not content with the devastation of Bashan and Gilead, wasted the west of Israel also in all its borders. The king became a mere vassal of his brutal neighbor at Damascus. So little of the barest semblance of power was left him, that whereas, in the reign of David, Israel could muster an army of eight hundred thousand, and in the reign of Joash, the son and successor of Jehoahaz, Amaziah could hire from Israel one hundred thousand mighty men of valor as mercenaries, Jehoahaz was only allowed to maintain an army of ten chariots, fifty horsemen, and ten thousand infantry! In the picturesque phrase of the historian, “the King of Syria had threshed down Israel to the dust,” in spite of all that Jehoahaz did, or tried to do, and “all his might.” How completely helpless the Israelites were is shown by the fact that their armies could offer no opposition to the free passage of the Syrian troops through their land. Hazael did not regard them as threatening his rear; for, in the reign of Jehoahaz, he marched southwards, took the Philistine city of Gath, and threatened Jerusalem. Joash of Judah could only buy them off with the bribe of all his treasures, and according to the Chronicler they “destroyed all the princes of the people,” and took great spoil to Damascus. {2Ch 24:23}
Where was Elisha? After the anointing of Jehu he vanishes from the scene. Unless the narrative of the siege of Samaria has been displaced, we do not so much as once hear of him for nearly half a century.
The fearful depth of humiliation to which the king was reduced drove him to repentance. Wearied to death of the Syrian oppression of which he was the daily witness, and of the utter misery caused by prowling bands of Ammonites and Moabites-jackals who waited on the Syrian lion-Jehoahaz “besought the Lord, and the Lord hearkened unto him, and gave Israel a savior, so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime.” If this indeed refers to events which come out of place in the memoirs of Elisha; and if Jehoahaz ben-Jehu, not Jehoram ben-Ahab, was the king in whose reign the siege of Samaria was so marvellously raised, then Elisha may possibly be the temporary deliverer who is here alluded to. On this supposition we may see a sign of the repentance of Jehoahaz in the shirt of sackcloth which he wore under his robes, as it became visible to his starving people when he rent his clothes on hearing the cannibal instincts which had driven mothers to devour their own children. But the respite must have been brief, since Hazael (2Ki 13:22) oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz. If this rearrangement of events be untenable, we must suppose that the repentance of Jehoahaz was only so far accepted, and his prayer so far heard, that the deliverance, which did not come in his own days, came in those of his son and of his grandson.
Of him and of his wretched reign we hear no more; but a very different epoch dawned with the accession of his son Joash, named after the contemporary King of Judah, Joash ben-Ahaziah.
In the Books of Kings and Chronicles Joash of Israel is condemned with the usual refrains about the sins of Jeroboam. No other sin is laid to his charge; and breaking the monotony of reprobation which tells us of every king of Israel without exception that “he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord,” Josephus boldly ventures to call him “a good man; and the antithesis to his father.”
He reigned sixteen years. At the beginning of his reign he found his country the despised prey, not only of Syria, but of the paltry neighboring bandit-sheykhs who infested the east of the Jordan; he left it comparatively strong, prosperous, and independent.
In his reign we hear again of Elisha, now a very old man of past eighty years. Nearly half a century had elapsed since the grandfather of Joash had destroyed the house of Ahab at the prophets command. News came to the king that Elisha was sick of a mortal sickness, and he naturally went to visit the death-bed of one who had called his dynasty to the throne, and had in earlier years played so memorable a part in the history of his country. He found the old man dying, and he wept over him, crying, “My father; my father! the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof.” {Comp. 2Ki 2:12} The address strikes us with some surprise. Elisha had indeed delivered Samaria more than once when the city had been reduced to direst extremity; but in spite of his prayers and of his presence, the sins of Israel and her kings had rendered this chariot of Israel of very small avail. The names of Ahab, Jehu, Jehoahaz, call up memories of a series of miseries and humiliations which had reduced Israel to the very verge of extinction. For sixty-three years Elisha had been the prophet of Israel; and though his public interpositions had been signal on several occasions, they had not been availing to prevent Ahab from becoming the vassal of Assyria, nor Israel from becoming the appendage of the dominion of that Hazael whom Elisha himself had anointed King of Syria, and who had become of all the enemies of his country the most persistent and the most implacable.
The narrative which follows is very singular. We must give it-as it occurs, with but little apprehension of its exact significance.
Elisha, though Joash “did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord,” seems to have regarded him with affection. He bade the youth take his bow, and laid his feeble, trembling hands on the strong hands of the king.
Then he ordered an attendant to fling open the lattice, and told the king to shoot eastward towards Gilead, the region whence the bands of Syria made their way over the Jordan. The king shot, and the fire came back into the old prophets eye as he heard the arrow whistle eastward. He cried, “The arrow of Jehovahs deliverance, even the arrow of victory over Syria: for thou shalt smite the Syrians in Aphek, till thou have consumed them.” Then he bade the young king to take the sheaf of arrows, and smite towards the ground, as if he was striking down an enemy. Not understanding the significance of the act, the king made the sign of thrice striking the arrows downwards, and then naturally stopped. But Elisha was angry-or at any rate grieved. “You should have smitten five or six times,” he said, “and then you would have smitten Syria to destruction. Now you shall only smite Syria thrice.” The kings fault seems to have been lack of energy and faith.
There are in this story some peculiar elements which it is impossible to explain, but it has one beautiful and striking feature. It tells us of the death – bed of a prophet. Most of Gods greatest prophets have perished amid the hatred of priests and worldlings. The progress of the truth they taught has been “from scaffold to scaffold, and from stake to stake.”
“Careless seems the Great Avenger. Historys pages but record
One death-grapple in the darkness twixt old systems and the Word-
Truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne;
Yet that scaffold sways the Future, and behind the dim unknown
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above His own!”
Now and then, however, as an exception, a great prophetic teacher or reformer escapes the hatred of the priests and of the world, and dies in peace. Savonarola is burnt, Huss is burnt, but Wicliff dies in his bed at Lutterworth, and Luther died in peace at Eisleben. Elijah passed away in storm, and was seen no more. A king comes to weep by the death-bed of the aged Elisha. “For us,” it has been said, “the scene at his bedside contains a lesson of comfort and even encouragement. Let us try to realize it. A man with no material power is dying in the capital of Israel. He is not rich: he holds no office which gives him any immediate control over the actions of men; he has but one weapon-the power of his word. Yet Israels king stands weeping at his bedside-weeping because this inspired messenger of Jehovah is to be taken from him. In him both king and people will lose a mighty support, for this man is a greater strength to Israel than chariots and horsemen are. Joash does well to mourn for him, for he has had courage to wake the nations conscience; the might of his personality has sufficed to turn them in the true direction, and rouse their moral and religious life. Such men as Elisha everywhere and always give a strength to their people above the strength of armies, for the true blessings of a nation are reared on the foundations of its moral force.”
The annals are here interrupted to introduce a posthumous miracle-unlike any other in the whole Bible-wrought by the bones of Elisha. He died, and they buried him, “giving him,” as Josephus says, “a magnificent burial.” As usual, the spring brought with it the marauding bands of Moabites. Some Israelites who were burying a man caught sight of them, and, anxious to escape, thrust the man into the sepulcher of Elisha, which happened to be nearest at hand. But when he was placed in the rocky tomb, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet. Doubtless the story rests on some real circumstance. There is, however, something singular in the turn of the original, which says (literally) that the man went and touched the bones of Elisha; and there is proof that the story was told in varying forms, for Josephus says that it was the Moabite plunderers who had killed the man, and that he was thrown by them into Elishas tomb. It is easy to invent moral and spiritual lessons out of this incident, but not so easy to see what lesson is intended by it. Certainly there is not throughout Scripture any other passage which even seems to sanction any suspicions of magic potency in the relics of the dead.
But Elishas symbolic prophecy of deliverance from Syria was amply fulfilled. About this time Hazael had died, and had left his power in the feebler hands of his son Benhadad III. Jehoahaz had not been able to make any way against him, {2Ki 13:3} but Joash his son thrice met and thrice defeated him at Aphek. As a consequence of these victories, he won back all the cities which Hazael had taken from his father on the west of Jordan. The east of Jordan was never recovered. It fell under the shadow of Assyria, and was practically lost forever to the tribes of Israel.
Whether Assyria lent her help to Joash under certain conditions we do not know. Certain it is that from this time the terror of Syria vanishes. The Assyrian king Rammanirari III about this time subjugated all Syria and its king, whom the tablets call Mari, perhaps the same as Benhadad III. In the next reign Damascus itself fell into the power of Jeroboam II, the son of Joash.
One more event, to which we have already alluded, is narrated in the reign of this prosperous and valiant king.
Amity had reigned for a century between Judah and Israel, the result of the politic-impolitic alliance which Jehoshaphat had sanctioned between his son Jehoram and the daughter of Jezebel. It was obviously most desirable that the two small kingdoms should be united as closely as possible by an offensive and defensive alliance. But the bond between them was broken by the overweening vanity of Amaziah ben-Joash of Judah. His victory over the Edomites, and his conquest of Petra, had puffed him up with the mistaken notion that he was a very great man and an invincible warrior. He had the wicked infatuation to kindle an unprovoked war against the Northern Tribes. It was the most wanton of the many instances in which, if Ephraim did not envy Judah, at least Judah vexed Ephraim. Amaziah challenged Joash to come out to battle, that they might look one another in the face. He had not recognized the difference between fighting with and without the sanction of the God of battles.
Joash had on his hands enough of necessary and internecine war to make him more than indifferent to that bloody game. Moreover, as the superior of Amaziah in every way, he saw through his inflated emptiness. He knew that it was the worst possible policy for Judah and Israel to weaken each other in fratricidal war, while Syria threatened their northern and. eastern frontiers, and while the tread of the mighty march of Assyria was echoing ominously in the ears of the nations from afar. Better and kinder feelings may have mingled with these wise convictions. He had no wish to destroy the poor fool who so vaingloriously provoked his superior might. His answer was one of the most crushingly contemptuous pieces of irony which history records, and yet it was eminently kindly and good-humoured: It was meant to save the King of Judah from advancing any further on the path of certain ruin.
“The thistle that was in Lebanon” (such was the apologue which he addressed to his would-be rival) “sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying: Give thy daughter to my son to wife. The cedar took no sort of notice of the thistles ludicrous presumption, but a wild beast that was in Lebanon passed by, and trod down the thistle.”
It was the answer of a giant to a dwarf; and to make it quite clear to the humblest comprehension, Joash good-naturedly added:
“You are puffed up with your victory over Edom: glory in this, and stay at home. Why by your vain meddling should you ruin yourself and Judah with you? Keep quiet: I have something else to do than to attend to you.”
Happy had it been for Amaziah if he had taken warning! But vanity is a bad counselor, and folly and self-deception-ill-matched pair-were whirling him to his doom. Seeing that he was bent on his own perdition, Joash took the initiative and marched to Beth-Shemesh, in the territory of Judah. There the kings met, and there Amaziah was hopelessly defeated. His troops fled to their scattered homes, and he fell into the hands of his conqueror. Joash did not care to take any sanguinary revenge; but much as he despised his enemy, he thought it necessary to teach him and Judah the permanent lesson of not again meddling to their own hurt.
He took the captive king with him to Jerusalem, which opened its gates without a blow. We do not know whether, like a Roman conqueror, he entered it through the breach of four hundred cubits which he ordered them to make in the walls, but otherwise he contented himself with spoil which would swell his treasure, and amply compensate for the expenses of the expedition which had been forced upon him. He ransacked Jerusalem for silver and gold; he made Obed-Edom, the treasurer, give up to him all the sacred vessels of the Temple, and all that was worth taking from the palace. He also took hostages-probably from among the number of the kings sons-to secure immunity from further intrusions. It is the first time in Scripture that hostages are mentioned. It is to his credit that he shed no blood, and was even content to leave his defeated challenger with the disgraced phantom of his kingly power, till, fifteen years later, he followed his father to the grave through the red path of murder at the hand of his own subjects.
After this we hear no further records of this vigorous and able king, in whom the characteristics of his grandfather Jehu are reflected in softer outline. He left his son Jeroboam II to continue his career of prosperity, and to advance Israel to a pitch of greatness which she had never yet attained, in which she rivaled the grandeur of the united kingdom in the earlier days of Solomons dominion.