In the second year of Joash son of Joahaz king of Israel Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah began to reign. He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jehoaddin of Jerusalem. He did that which was right in Yahweh’s eyes, 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 burned incense in the high places. As soon as the kingdom was established in his hand, he killed his servants who had slain the king his father, but the children of the murderers he didn’t put to death; according to that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, as Yahweh 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.”
He killed ten thousand Edomites in the Valley of Salt, and took Sela by war, and called its name Joktheel, to this day. Then Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz son of Jehu, king of Israel, saying, “Come, let’s look one another in the face.”
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 your daughter to my son as wife. Then a wild animal that was in Lebanon passed by, and trampled down the thistle. You have indeed struck Edom, and your heart has lifted you up. Enjoy the glory of it, and stay at home; for why should you meddle to your harm, that you fall, even you, and Judah with you?’ ” But Amaziah would not listen. 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. Judah was defeated by Israel; and each man fled to his tent. 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. He took all the gold and silver, and all the vessels that were found in Yahweh’s house and in the treasures of the king’s house, the hostages also, and returned to Samaria.
Now the rest of the acts of Jehoash which he did, and his might, and how he fought with Amaziah king of Judah, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? Jehoash slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel; and Jeroboam his son reigned in his place.
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, aren’t they written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? They made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem, and he fled to Lachish; but they sent after him to Lachish, and killed him there. They brought him on horses, and he was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in David’s city.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19 In the beginning of his reign he seemed to…
In the beginning of his reign he seemed to have an outward show of godliness, but afterward he became an idolater and worshipped the idols of the Idumeans.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1–20 2Ki 14:1 In the second year of Joash son…
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.
Read full note →
Reigned Amaziah.] A notorious hypocrite, and one that filled up the measure of his fathers. {Mat 23:32} Yet Salianus and some others say that he died a penitent and a reformed man.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20 In the second year of Joash, i.e. after he…
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".
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv1, 8, 15 Amaziah, the son and successor of Joash, is the…
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, Kg2 14:3. 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, Kg2 14:4. It is hard to get clear of those corruptions which, by long usage, have gained both prescription and a favourable opinion.
Read full note →
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, Kg2 14:5. 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, Kg2 14:6. 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 (Deu 24:16), 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, Kg2 14:7. Edom had revolted from under the hand of Judah in Joram's time, Kg2 8:22. 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, Ch2 25:5, etc.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1–20 In the second year of Joash son of Jehoahaz…
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, Kg2 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.
, 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.
Read full note →
2 Kings 14:2
kg2 14:2
kg2 14:2
kg2 14:2He was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem,.... Fourteen years contemporary with Joash king of Israel, who reigned sixteen years, Kg2 13:10 and fifteen after him, Kg2 14:17,
and his mother's name was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem; of whom we nowhere else read,
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 20 The good character of Amaziah, ver. 1-4. He avenges…
The good character of Amaziah, ver. 1-4. He avenges his father's death, ver. 5, 6. Overthrows the Edomites, ver. 7. Is defeated by Joash, ver. 8-14. The death and burial of Joash, ver. 15, 16. Amaziah is killed by conspirators, ver. 17-20. The beginning of Azariah's reign, ver. 21, 22. The reign and death of Jeroboam, ver. 23-29.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 19 Amaziah begins to reign well; his victory over the…
CHAPTER XIV
Amaziah begins to reign well; his victory over the Edomites,
Read full note →
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.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 19 2Ki 14:1-2. In the second year of Joash, king…
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.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20 The history of Judah is resumed 2 Kings 14:1-22,…
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.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 19 Second, from his being associated in the empire. It…
Second, from his being associated in the empire. It was the first of his reigning alone.
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v1 B.—The Reign of Amaziah in Judah, and that of…
B.—The Reign of Amaziah in Judah, and that of Jeroboam II. in Israel
2Ki_14:1-29. (2 Chronicles 25)
Read full note →
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 mother’s 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 and—He 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 king’s 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 father’s 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 Joash’s career. (See translator’s 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 Amaziah’s 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; Rosenmüller, 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. יָקְתְאֵל 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 Amaziah’s 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 (לְהַכְבִּיד); abide now at home.” כבד, 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 תִּתְגָּרֶה בְּ, upon which one makes a rash and causeless attack, and so provokes it, brings it down upon one’s 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 enemy’s 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 ויבאו, in 2Ki_14:13, the keri offers ויבא. In 2Ch_25:23 there stands instead of either: וַיְבִיאֵהוּ, i. e., “he brought him.” The Sept. have this reading in the verse before us also (ἤγαγεν αὐτόν), 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 עַד 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, עַד always serves to define the limit up to which, and not merely the direction. Josephus’ assertion that Jehoash caused a breach (διακοπή) 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. Jehoash’s 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 הַנִּמְצְאִים 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 יוֹאָשׁ, whereas we have here twice יְהוֹאָשׁ. 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 Joash’s death,” namely, that Amaziah lived and reigned for fifteen years after Joash died. The author felt obliged to repeat the notice of Joash’s 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 Joash’s death; therefore, 14 with him. As Joash reigned 16 years, Amaziah’s succession falls in his second year, as is stated in 2Ki_14:1. [See the translator’s note on 2Ki_14:22.]—If we bear in mind that Amaziah’s war with Edom took place before that with Joash, we are led to infer that the latter took place shortly before Joash’s death. The old expositors adopted the supposition that Amaziah spent the 15 years after Joash’s 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 יִקְחוּ 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, עֲזַרְיָה; 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 עֻזִּיָּה. Against the explanation that עזריה is an error of the copyist, arising from the similarity of the ר and the י, 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: עזריה (he whose) Help (is) Jehovah; עזיה (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 latter’s 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 father’s release and death. This would account for Azariah’s 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 father’s 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). Zachariah’s accession in the 38th of Azariah would fix Azariah’s accession in the 3d or 4th of Jeroboam, if we hold fast 41 years as the duration of Jeroboam’s 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 Amaziah’s 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 father’s 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 Amaziah’s 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 Zachariah’s 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, 823–772, then still Hosea’s 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 (מא = 41 for נא = 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 Jeroboam’s calves. The ground for this lay in Jehovah’s 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 עָצוּר and עָזוּב see note on 1Ki_14:10; cf. Deu_32:36.—In 2Ki_14:28, הֵשִׁיב cannot be translated otherwise than as in 2Ki_14:25 : he brought back. Ewald desires to strike out לִיהוּדָה and then to read לִישְרָאֵל instead of בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל: “He recovered Damascus and Hamath for Israel.” These changes are as violent as they are unnecessary. לִיהוּדָה is a periphrasis for the genitive, because the proper names do not admit of any form for the stat. const. (Keil, Thenius), and בְּ before יִשְׂרָאֵל 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 Jeroboam’s 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. Amaziah’s 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 God’s 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. Amaziah’s 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 Amaziah’s 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 father’s sins, by inflicting upon children physical punishment for their fathers’ crimes. The latter alone comes into the discussion of Amaziah’s 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 Amaziah’s 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 Amaziah’s 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 God’s 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 prophecy—that 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 hard—it 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 Jeroboam’s 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) Amaziah’s 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 (Würt. 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. Israel’s deep misery (Jer_2:19), and God’s great pity (Psa_103:10; Hos_11:8).—Würt. 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 men’s 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, יָמוּת.
[3]2Ki_14:8.—[פָּנִים ,נִתְרָאֶה פָנִים is acc. of the part affected. “Let us look upon one another, as to the face” = “let us look upon one another’s 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 וַיָּבאוֹ.
[5]2Ki_14:14.—[Literally: “Sons of pledges.”
[6]2Ki_14:25.—[מִלְּבוֹא 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.—[מרֶֹה from מרה. Gesen. (Thes. s. v.) understands it to mean deep-rooted, of long standing, but the latest and best expositors agree to take מרה in the sense of מרר, to be bitter.—W. G. S.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 19 as soon as the kingdom was confirmed in his…
as soon as the kingdom was confirmed in his hand--It was an act of justice no less than of filial piety to avenge the murder of his father. But it is evident that the two assassins must have possessed considerable weight and influence, as the king was obliged to retain them in his service, and durst not, for fear of their friends and supporters, institute proceedings against them until his power had been fully consolidated.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20 REIGN OF AMAZIAH, KING OF JUDAH, 2Ki_14:1-22.
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.”
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20 Ch. 2Ki_14:1-7. Reign of Amaziah, king of Judah. He…
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.
Read full note →
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’.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20 (1-17) THE REIGN OF AMAZIAH. (Comp. 2 Chronicles 25)
XIV.
THE REIGN OF AMAZIAH IN JUDAH, AND OF JEROBOAM II IN ISRAEL.
Read full note →
(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).
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 Vers. 1-29. REIGNS OF AMAZIAH, SON OF JOASH KING…
Vers. 1-29. REIGNS OF AMAZIAH, SON OF JOASH KING OF JUDAH, OVER JUDAH, AND OF JEROBOAM, SON OF JOASH KING OF ISRAEL, OVER ISRAEL.
Vers. 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., 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 (vers. 1-4), proceeds to relate
Read full note →
(1) the punishment by Amaziah of the murderers of his father (vers. 5, 6);
(2) the war of Amaziah with Edom (ver. 7);
(3) the challenge which he sent to Joash King of Israel, that king"s reply, and the war which followed (vers. 8-16); and
(4) the circumstances of Amaziah"s death (vers. 17-20). Between vers. 14 and 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.
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.
Vers. 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 heathen pagans 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 kingdom Rehoboam 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 possible to 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 being obedience 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 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 world when, 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 passion and in the long ran his sin became too strong for him. C.H.I.
HOMILIES BY D. THOMAS. Vers. 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 Judah Amaziah 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 wicked Amaziah, 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 Vers. 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 drawn between 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" sins as 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 time a 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 war the origin of which we do not precisely know he 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 them those 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.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv1, 8, 9 In the second year of Joash . . .…
2Ki_14:1-2
In the second year of Joash . . . And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord.
Read full note →
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.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On v1
AMAZIAH OF JUDAH
B.C. 796-783 (?)
Read full note →
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.
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v1 2Ki_14:1. Amaziah, king of Judah—Historian returns to the records…
AMAZIAH IN JUDAH AND JEROBOAM II. IN ISRAEL
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.—
Read full note →
2Ki_14:1. Amaziah, king of Judah—Historian returns to the records concerning Judah.
2Ki_14:3. Yet not like David, his father—Chronicles says, “Not with a perfect heart,” acting in general obedience to God’s law, yet lacking in spiritual loyalty and heartfelt piety.
2Ki_14:5. Slew his servants which had slain his father—It was a Mosaic law that a son should—as both an act of justice and filial piety—avenge his father’s 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 Jokkeel—Its former name, הַסֶּלַע, the rock; ἡ Πετρα, afterwards Arabia Petræa, situate amid steep rocks. This ancient Petra is still a scene of splendid ruins. Its new name—יָקְתְאֵל—signifies given, or conquered by God.
2Ki_14:8. Come, let us look one another in the face—An 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 Lebanon—A 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 wife—Only a superior could assume such an air of authority and make such a demand.
2Ki_14:19. They made a conspiracy against him—Mal-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—עַל הַסּוּסִים, i.e., on the royal equestrian chariot.
2Ki_14:21. All the people of Judah took Azariah—So that the popular hostility was not against Amaziah’s family, but against himself.
2Ki_14:22. He built Elath, and restored it to Judah—Elath 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 father’s 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). Amaziah’s 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 Cœur 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 not”—wherein 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 father’s 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 húmiliating 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 Idumæan 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 Amaziah’s 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).—Speaker’s 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 Amaziah’s 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.—Speaker’s 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 Amaziah’s 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 God’s judgment there might be, it is not for our presumption to inquire.—Bp. Hall.
2Ki_14:18-22. The vicissitudes of a monarch’s 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.—Speaker’s Comm.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 Reigns of Amaziah of Judah and Jeroboam of Israel
Reigns of Amaziah of Judah and Jeroboam of Israel
1. In the second year of Joash.. king of Israel] Joash of Judah reigned 40 years, and as his thirty-seventh year corresponded to the first year of Joash of Israel (2Ki_13:10) the accession of his son Amaziah could not coincide with the Israelite king's second year; so that there is some slight error of calculation.
Read full note →
3. Not like David] He was not perfectly faithful to the Lord, for late in his reign he worshipped the gods of Edom (2Ch_25:14).
6. The children.. he slew not] see Deu_24:16, and cp. Eze_18:2-4. The contrast between Amaziah's conduct and the practice recorded in 2Sa_21:6; 2Ki_9:26 shows that by this time a clearer conception had been acquired of the rights of individuals, which prevented the guilt of the parent from being held to extend to all his family.
7. Edom] see further in 2Ch_25:5-16. The valley of salt] immediately S. of the Dead Sea. Selah] the later Petra, E. of the Arabah. Joktheel] said to mean 'subdued by God.' Unto this day] i.e. unto the time of the writer whose materials are here used by the historian. The date is probably early, for the Edomites practically recovered their independence in Ahaz' reign (2Ki_16:6), and would naturally restore their capital's former name.
8. Let us.. face] i.e. meet face to face in battle. If Judah at this time was a vassal of the northern kingdom (see on 1Ki_22:2), Amaziah's motive in courting a quarrel with his neighbour was probably a desire to free Judah from this position of subservience. His recent success over Edom doubtless encouraged him; but he miscalculated the respective resources of himself and his opponent.
9. The thistle] The thistle represents Amaziah and the cedar Jehoash, whilst the lion symbolises the ruin that humbled the arrogance of the former; but the fable does not quite suit the circumstances, as Amaziah was seeking, not a friendly alliance, but a quarrel. For the use of fables cp. Jdg_9:8-15.
11. Bethshemesh] In the Lowland (Shephelah) of Judah, 15 m. W. of Jerusalem.
13. From the gate.. gate] The wall that was dismantled was on the N. side of the city, which was thus left defenceless to attacks from that direction, in case it gave further provocation.
19. Lachish] on the Philistine border, but within the territory of Judah (Jos_15:39). It is usually identified with the modern Tell el Hesy.
21. Took Azariah] called in 2Ki_15:13 (see note) and elsewhere Uzziah. The fact that though Amaziah was dethroned and put to death, his son was nevertheless made king in his room witnesses to the affection that continued to be felt for the dynasty of David.
The Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser mentions among the kings from whom he received tribute a certain Azriyahu of Jaudi, who has been thought by some scholars to represent Azariah of Judah, but the identity of the two names is now questioned.
22. Elath] see on 1Ki_9:26, and for its eventual loss see 2Ki_16:6. Its restoration to Judah implies the subjugation of Edom.
23. Jeroboam.. forty and one years] This is inconsistent with the figures given in 2Ki_14:2 and 2Ki_15:8, for Jeroboam's reign covered 15 years of Amaziah's and 37 of Azariah's, making 52 in all.
25. Restored the coast] i.e. extended the territory of Israel to its original boundaries when at the height of its prosperity: see on 2Ki_14:28. The entering of Hamath] i.e. the gorge between Lebanon and Hermon. The sea of the plain] RV 'the sea of the Arabah': i.e. the Dead Sea, the Arabah being the long depression extending from the Sea of Galilee to the Gulf of Akaba. Jeroboam's conquests probably included Moab, and to his reign the invasion of that country described in Isa_15:1 to Isa_16:12 may be most plausibly assigned. His success was facilitated by the inactivity of Assyria at the time. Jonah] The same prophet who is the subject of the book of that name.
Gath-hepher] in Zebulun, a little to the N. of Nazareth.
Jonah was not the only prophet who was active in Israel during this reign, for both Hosea and Amos were his contemporaries. Of these Hosea belonged by birth to the northern kingdom, but Amos was a native of Judah. From the writings of Amos it was plain that though the prosperity of the kingdom had greatly increased during the reign of Jeroboam, its moral condition was sadly in need of reform. Social oppression (Amo_2:6-8; Amo_5:11), commercial dishonesty (2Ki_8:5-6), and judicial corruption (2Ki_5:7) were rife in the land, and in consequence the prophet declared that the nation would be punished by captivity in a foreign land (2Ki_5:27; 2Ki_6:7; 2Ki_7:9, 2Ki_7:17). Amaziah the priest of Bethel denounced him to Jeroboam, and bade him flee back into Judah, counsel which the prophet requited by predicting that Amaziah would share the captivity of his countrymen and his family be destroyed by the sword.
26. Any shut up] see on 1Ki_14:10.
28. Damascus and Hamath] Both these places had been included within the possessions of Solomon (1Ki_4:21), but the former was lost to him by the success of Rezon related in 1Ki_11:23-25. The re-conquest of the places here named could not have been long maintained, for Amos speaks of Damascus, the nearer of the two, as an independent state (Amo_1:3).
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On v7 See 2Ch 25:5-16.
Edom
See 2Ch 25:5-16.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 6. Kings of Israel and Judah
6. Kings of Israel and Judah
CHAPTER 14
Read full note →
1. Amaziah’s 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. Judah’s 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 Jehoash’s army. And the King of Israel gave him a solemn warning to desist. But proud Amaziah paid no attention to Jehoash’s 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 King’s 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.)
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v1 Amaziah King in Judah
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, becoming king after the death of his father.
Read full note →
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, mentioned for the usual reason, on account of the influence of the queen-mother, was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem.
v. 3. And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, be was devoted to the true worship of Jehovah, yet not like David, his father, not with all his heart, not with all the energy of his nature; he did according to all things as Joash, his father, did, in his general policy he followed the conduct of his father.
v. 4. Howbeit, the high places were not taken away, where the people had erected altars in honor of Jehovah; as yet the people did sacrifice and burn incense on the high places.
v. 5. And it came to pass, as soon as the kingdom was confirmed in his hand, when his rule was firmly established, that he slew his servants which had slain the king, his father, 2Ki 12:20.
v. 6. But the children of the murderers he slew not, although it was the custom in the Orient to put to death also the children of conspirators; according unto that which is written in the book of the Law of Moses, 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 for his own sin. In this point, therefore, Amaziah showed himself a faithful king according to the standards of Israel.
v. 7. He slew of Edom, who had rebelled at the time of Jehoram, 2Ki 8:20-22, in the Valley of Salt, south of the Dead Sea, ten thousand, and took Selah, evidently the capital of the country, later known as Petra, by war, and called the name of It Joktheel unto this day. Cf 2Ch 25:6-16.
v. 8. Then Amaziah, during the last part of his reign, after he had shown symptoms of laxity toward idolatry, sent messengers to Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz, son of Jehu, king of Israel, saying, Come, let us look one another in the face. It was a bold challenge to war, Amaziah probably feeling justified in taking this attitude by the act of Israel’s hired army in plundering many cities of Judah, 2Ch 25:13.
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. The meaning of the parable is clear. Just as far as the briar is below the cedar in excellence, so Joash considered Amaziah to be beneath him in every respect. No wild beast can break down and crush the cedar, but this may very easily happen to the briar. In the same way, calamity was apt to strike the arrogant king of Judah, who trusted in his powerful army and sent challenges where he had no business to do so.
v. 10. Thou hast indeed smitten Edom, and thine heart hath lifted thee up, he was filled with proud arrogance. Glory of this, he should be content with the glory which had come to him on account of his overthrow of the Edomites, and tarry at home: for why shouldest thou meddle to thy hurt, why risk misfortune by a rash and causeless attack, that thou shouldest fall, even thou, and Judah with thee?
v. 11. But Amaziah, still puffed up in his own mind, would not hear, he paid no attention to the warning. Therefore Jehoash, king of Israel, went up, carrying the campaign into the enemy’s country; and he and Amaziah, king of Judah, looked one another in the face, met in battle, at Beth-shemesh, which belongeth to Judah, on the southern border of the territory of Dan.
v. 12. And Judah was put to the worse before Israel, suffering a decisive defeat; and they fled every man to their tents.
v. 13. And Jehoash, king of Israel, took Amaziah, king of Judah, the son of Jehoash, the son of Ahaziah, at Beth-shemesh, a captive of war, and came to Jerusalem, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim, on the north side, unto the corner gate, toward the northwest, four hundred cubits (about 700 feet). This act marked the city as captured, and as lying open on the side of Israel, whose army might march in at any time:
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, all of which had been added to during the reign of Joash, then sent as tribute to Hazael, 2Ki 12:18, but now probably again filled up in consequence of the victory over Edom, and hostages, from the most important families, the intention being to hold Amaziah in check, and returned to Samaria.
v. 15. Now, the rest of the acts of Jehoash which he did, and his might, his political and military deeds, and how he fought with Amaziah, king of Judah, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel?
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. The repetition of this statement from 2Ki 13:13 serves to introduce the remark concerning Amaziah in the next verses.
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, never regaining, however, his former prestige.
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, chiefly the military party in Judah, made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem; and he fled to Lachish, a city in the lowlands of Judah, near the border of the Philistines; but they sent after him to Lachish, and slew him there.
v. 20. And they brought him on horses, on the royal chariot; and he was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David.
v. 21. And all the people of Judah, adhering to the succession of the house of David, took Azariah, which was sixteen years old, and made him king instead of his father Amaziah. Azariah also bore the name Uzziah, Isa 1:1.
v. 22. He built Elath, the harbor at the head of the Elanitic Gulf, belonging to the territory of Edom, and restored it to Judah after that the king slept with his fathers. It seems that he was co-regent with his father for eleven years, reigning fifty-two years after his coronation, or forty-one years after his father’s death. The story of Amaziah shows that it is courting misfortune to begin a war without real reason. In spiritual matters the same thing holds true. He who would meet the enemies of the Church trusting in his own powers will probably find himself conquered and in disgrace.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17, 20 In the second year of Jehoash son of Jehoahaz,…
In the second year of Jehoash son of Jehoahaz, king of Israel
"When Jehoash son of Jehoahaz had been king of Israel for almost two years"
Read full note →
Amaziah son of Joash, king of Judah, began to reign
"Amaziah son of Joash, became the king of Judah"
He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign
"He was 25 years old when he became king" (See: Numbers)
he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem
"he was the king in Jerusalem for 29 years" (See: Numbers)
Jehoaddan
(See: How to Translate Names)
He did what was right in the eyes of Yahweh, yet not like David his father
Here "the eyes of Yahweh" refers to his sight, and his sight refers to his judgment. AT: "Amaziah did many things that pleased Yahweh, but he did not do as many things that pleased Yahweh as King David had done" (See: Metaphor)
He did everything that Joash, his father, had done
Joash obeyed Yahweh and did good things. This can be made explicit. AT: "He did the same good things that his father Joash had done" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
translationWords
king
kingdom of Israel
Amaziah
Joash
kingdom of Judah
reign
Jerusalem
Yahweh
David
ancestor
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 17, 19 14:1-2 The twenty-nine years of Amaziah’s reign (796–767 BC)…
14:1-2 The twenty-nine years of Amaziah’s reign (796–767 BC) included a long co-regency with his son Uzziah (from 792 BC).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.