In the second year of Joash son of Jehoahaz, king of Israel, began Amaziah the son of Joash, king of Judah, to reign.
This verse dates a new reign in Judah by the years of a king in Israel, and both kings are named Joash. It reads like a simple record entry, but it opens the story of a man who began well and ended badly.
The numbers in the chapters around this verse do not line up. One writer accounts for them from the state of Joash's health at the end of his life.
Amaziah evidently reigned a year jointly with his father (compare 2 Kings 13:10; 14:1; 2 Chronicles 24:1) during his father's last sickness, when the "great diseases" were upon him.
The verse names him as the son of Joash. One writer asks which man Amaziah should have measured himself by.
Amaziah should have looked back to where the kingship began. His guide should have been the conduct of David, the king according to God's heart. No doubt David had failed badly in his life, and he had to undergo severe discipline for it. But David's heart had always been upright when it came to the Lord's service and to the throne of God among His people. Amaziah followed in the footsteps of his father Joash. Joash's life fell into two very distinct periods. One was a time of true godliness; the other was a decline, and it stood out all the more because its beginnings had been so brilliant.
Amaziah copied a father who ended badly, yet his own reign started well. One writer explains where good in a family line comes from.
When an evil-doing son succeeds a righteous father, that proves righteous example or teaching cannot make an evil nature good... But sometimes a righteous son succeeds a wicked father. When such a son does what is right in the sight of the Lord, that is proof that God has stepped in with the power of His grace. So in this case Amaziah, who did right, succeeds Joash his father, who at the last did wickedly. It was a little brightness for Judah, but only for a short time.
His name made a claim about where his strength lay.
His name means "strength of Jah"; but we read, "he strengthened himself" (2 Chronicles 25:11). So his self-sufficient character contradicted his name. That is not unusual in our own day, especially among a people called "Christians."
Amaziah's reign is one entry in a long line of kings. One writer weighs that whole line together.
In the two books we are about to look at we find kings. Some were fairly good, and others were very bad. Some made fair beginnings and foul endings. Others started badly but finished well. All, however, fell short of God's glory and of the divine ideal of what a king should be. One King fulfilled that ideal perfectly. The wise men from other nations looked for Him as the one "born King of the Jews," and to Nathanael, a Jew, He was "the King of Israel."
Amaziah is one more king who fell short. Only one King did not.
- Beginning. Amaziah takes the throne while his father lies dying. A year of shared rule explains the dating in this verse.
- Pattern. He copies his father instead of David, and repeats a life split in two: a bright start, then decline.
- Grace. The good at the start of his reign came from God stepping in, not from blood or example. One writer calls it "a little brightness for Judah," and it lasted only a short time.
- Strength. His name means "strength of Jah," yet the record says he strengthened himself. Self-sufficiency contradicted his own name.
- Standard. Every king in these books falls short of what a king should be. Only one — the one "born King of the Jews" — fulfilled the ideal perfectly.
He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem; and his mother's name was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
And he did what was right in the sight of Jehovah, yet not like David his father he did according to all that Joash his father had done.
Amaziah's reign opens with a verdict that sounds like approval but holds something back. He did right — yet not like David. He copied his own father Joash instead. So how much is "right" worth when the heart behind it is only half in it?
Joash, Amaziah's father, ended badly. So a son who did right was no small thing. One writer reads it as evidence that God stepped in:
When an evil-doing son follows a righteous father, it proves that good example or teaching does not make an evil nature good... But when a righteous son follows a wicked father, and that son does what is right in the sight of the Lord, that is proof that God has stepped in with the power of His grace. So in this case Amaziah, who did right, follows Joash his father, who at the last did wickedly. It was a little brightness for Judah, but only for a short time. The reason: "he did what was right in the sight of the Lord, but not with a perfect heart."
The account names his mother. One writer links her to the good start, and then to what God saw underneath:
His mother's name, Jehoaddan, means "Jehovah is pleased." It may have been through her influence, since her name shows godliness, that her son began his reign well. He did what was right in the sight of the LORD. But the Lord looks deeper and knows the heart of man. He knew that it was "not with a perfect heart."
The verse names two models and says which one Amaziah copied. He reached back one generation, when he should have reached back to the beginning:
To govern his conduct, Amaziah should have gone back to the origin of the kingship and to the conduct of David, king according to God's heart. No doubt David had failed in serious ways, and he had to undergo severe discipline for it. But David's heart had always been upright in the Lord's service and about the throne of God among His people.
Why is David the standard? Another writer points to how completely God had hold of his heart:
This great thing is said of David, that he followed Jehovah with all his heart. There was power in Jehovah to engage His people's hearts completely. This became the standard for later unfaithful kings: "his heart was not perfect with Jehovah his God, as was the heart of David his father." Jehovah had the whole heart of David, and the immediate result was worship.
A good start is not the same as a whole heart. Rossier names the one thing Amaziah let stand:
Still, this beginning by itself does not show a heart fully given to the service of the Lord. A straw inside a piece of cast iron is enough to make it break when the right moment comes. This straw was the keeping of the high places.
Another writer draws the line straight to believers today:
"And he did what was right in the sight of the Lord, but not with a perfect heart." Just like this is the lack of heart-devotedness in the children of God.
His obedience was real as far as it went. What came next shows where it stopped:
So Amaziah shows a measure of righteousness. But in the end his heart is lifted up within him, and he challenges the king of Israel. Then this solemn fact appears: God will never approve the presumption of a righteous man. God will take the part of the bad man who is challenged out of presumption rather than the part of the righteous man who challenges him out of presumption.
- Grace starts it. A son doing right after a father who ended badly is not inherited character. It is God stepping in. Good example alone does not make a bad nature good.
- The heart qualifies it. The record says "right." God adds "not with a perfect heart." He reads deeper than the public account.
- The model decides it. Amaziah copied Joash, one generation back. The standard was David, whose heart God held completely.
- A small thing undoes it. Like a straw hidden in cast iron, one compromise left standing breaks the whole thing under pressure.
- Presumption ends it. Real but partial righteousness ended in a lifted-up heart. God will not back presumption, even in a man who was doing right.
Only, the high places were not removed the people still sacrificed and burned incense on the high places.
Amaziah did what was right, yet he left the hilltop shrines standing. That one word "but" separates doing right from being wholly devoted. Why would God keep recording a practice that was not, on its face, idol worship?
These hilltop sites did not begin as idol worship.
The high place was, we might say, a kind of necessity brought in by the failure and disordered state of the people at large... They were not, in themselves, connected with idolatry. At the beginning they were devoted to the true worship of God. To some extent they were even places where He Himself in grace recognised the need and met with His people. But it was not in the order He Himself had provided. Later on, however, He established His centre, placed His name at Jerusalem, and the temple of His glory was there. From then on, worship at the high places was direct disobedience to His will. So it was bound to become more and more tied to the idolatry to which the people were always prone.
Not every high place held an idol. The problem was who chose the place.
The Word must alone govern them in all matters relating to divine worship, as indeed in everything else. God would choose His own centre, and there His people must come with their burnt offerings and sacrifices... The time soon came, sadly, when Israel chose high places for themselves. Some of these were for idolatrous worship, and some for the worship of God. But all the high places were offensive in His sight, whatever the motives of those who set them up. They were the expression of self-will, of hearts not subject to His commandments.
Amaziah did not invent this failure. He took over a pattern that earlier kings had set. The older translation quoted below opens this verse with "Only" instead of "But".
This beginning by itself does not show a heart given without reserve to the service of the Lord. A single flaw in a piece of cast iron is enough to make it break when the right occasion comes. That flaw was the keeping of the high places... this word "Only, the high places were not removed" is like a refrain running through the history of the faithful kings of Judah... The kings of Judah did not take David their father as their rule. They were generally content to start from the reign of Solomon, who had not abolished the high places. A system may boast of great age. But it is always very dangerous to settle into one that does not look to the mind of God as its source.
God blessed men who kept the high places. Did that mean He approved?
Bear in mind, it is not idol worship but the worship of God in high places that I speak of. God met these good men, honoured and blessed them, as He does thousands in human religious systems now... These godly men had grown up in the evil and been taught it. The question of whether it was right had never been raised in their consciences. So God blessed and owned their faithfulness up to the light they had... Did He therefore approve, sanction, or even overlook the direct breaking of His own word? He has answered this Himself with unmistakable clearness. "But the high places were not taken away," or the like, again and again qualifies the approval given to the otherwise faithful acts of His servants. It shows that He never lost sight of the sin, however much they had grown up unaware of it.
Rossier applies the same test to Joash. A king's own hands may be clean of the incense and still not clear him.
Joash tolerated the people's incense burning on the high places; he himself, no doubt, did not take part in these idolatrous customs, but he was no less guilty. To tolerate evil among the people whom God had entrusted to him was the same as committing it himself.
The verse is not a museum piece. Where God has already shown His people a gathering centre, choosing another one repeats Amaziah's "only."
In His Word and by His Spirit, God has provided a true Centre of gathering for His people. To ignore that Centre, and to choose places and ways of worship that the word of God does not provide for, is really to worship in the high places. No doubt much of this is done in all sincerity, and God, as we were saying, meets His people in grace according to the measure of their faith.
- Centre. God chose His own centre for worship. Once the temple stood, the hilltops were no longer a concession but plain disobedience.
- Self-will. The offence was not foreign gods but human choosing — hearts that worshipped the true God on their own terms.
- Refrain. "But the high places were not removed" returns again and again over Judah's better kings. One small flaw breaks the whole casting under pressure.
- Toleration. A king need not burn the incense himself. Leaving it standing among the people God entrusted to him counted as his own act.
- Grace. God honours sincere faith up to the light it has, yet still records the sin. His blessing is never His permission.
And it came to pass when the kingdom was established in his hand, that he slew his servants who had smitten the king his father.
Amaziah's father Joash died at the hands of his own servants. Once the throne was firmly his, the new king put those men to death — a good start, commentators say, in a kingdom that was far from settled.
Joash ended badly. So why did his son begin well? One writer finds only one explanation.
An evil-doing son may succeed a righteous father. That proves an evil nature is not made good by righteous example or teaching... But take the reverse case: a righteous son succeeds a wicked father. That he does what is right in the sight of the Lord is proof that God has stepped in with the power of His grace. So in this case Amaziah, who did right, succeeds Joash his father, who at the last did wickedly. It was a little brightness for Judah, but only for a short time. Before he died the brightness passed away, and treachery at home dealt with him as it had with his father.
The timing in the verse says something about the kingdom Amaziah took over.
"As soon as the kingdom was confirmed in his hand" seems to imply that the affairs of state were somewhat unsettled at his father's death. What follows confirms this thought. Amaziah gathered Judah together and appointed commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds throughout all Judah and Benjamin. He began to reorganise the scattered army.
Amaziah dealt with evil in the place where he held authority. One writer presses the same duty on readers now.
He did not let evil go unpunished in the area for which he was responsible. In this at least he understood, as Solomon did at the start of his reign, that tolerating crime and evil would make him answerable for it. This question of answerability is little understood today. Most Christians feel they are not guilty when they tolerate evil in the circle they belong to. They think their responsibility is covered if they keep clear of the evil themselves. This is a serious error, which sooner or later bears its sad fruit.
The very next verse shows the other half of the act: the killers died, their children did not. One writer traces that restraint to a single line in the law.
When he was established in his kingdom, Amaziah rightly executed the two men who had murdered his father. Yet Amaziah was not vindictive. He respected God's word in Deuteronomy 24:16: "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin." So the children of the two men were not put to death.
One writer points out that even a bad king can act on what Scripture says.
Amaziah, when he came to the throne, put to death the murderers of his father. But he did not put their children to death. He did as it is written in the law, in the book of Moses. This king was far from being a good man, but he had respect for the book of the law and its divine instructions.
Amaziah's good start did not last. One writer draws the warning from what came later.
Amaziah shows a measure of righteousness. But at last his heart becomes lifted up within him, and he challenges the king of Israel. Then this solemn fact appears: God will never approve the presumption of a righteous man. If a righteous man presumptuously challenges a bad man, God will side with the bad man rather than with him... there is not a single failure in righteousness, even in God's own people, where God does not set His face against it.
- Grace starts it. A good son after a bad father is not inherited decency. It is God stepping in — "a little brightness for Judah," and only for a short time.
- Order secures it. The timing points to unsettled affairs at Joash's death. Amaziah steadied the kingdom first, then acted.
- Responsibility drives it. He punished evil where he held authority. Tolerating crime would have made him answerable for it.
- Scripture limits it. The killers died; their children did not. Written law, not appetite for revenge, set the boundary — each dies for his own sin.
- Pride can still undo it. A measure of righteousness at the start is no guarantee at the end. God sets His face against failure in righteousness, even in His own people.
But the children of those that smote [him] he did not put to death; according to that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein Jehovah commanded saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
Amaziah's first recorded act as king is an execution — and a restraint. He puts his father's killers to death, but he stops short at their children. The reason he gives is not his own mercy. It is a line already written in the law of Moses.
Amaziah punished the men who killed his father. He did not touch their children.
Yet Amaziah was not out for revenge. He respected God's word in Deuteronomy 24:16 … So he did not put the two men's children to death.
The verse does not say Amaziah felt pity. It says he acted according to what was written. His justice had a boundary, and the boundary came from outside himself.
There again, Amaziah shows an intelligent respect for the Word of God. The Lord had given this commandment in Deuteronomy 24:16. Amaziah governed himself by it, with the obedient heart God requires of everyone who hears and reads His Word.
The words "the book of the law of Moses" point to a text the first readers already knew.
2 Kings 14:6 tells us that Amaziah killed the murderers of his father, but he did not kill their children. The historian adds, "according to what is written in the book of the law of Moses…" Suppose he had left that reference out and only stated the fact. Every attentive reader would still have thought of Deuteronomy 24:16, above all because Amaziah was a godly king, "who did what was right in the eyes of the Lord."
Amaziah was not the first king to face this rule. David faced it when the Gibeonites came to him about Saul's house.
Then they demanded seven of Saul's sons, to be hanged before the Lord in Gibeah of Saul. David still answers, "I will give them." There is no sign of any fresh appeal to God in the matter; and indeed there is no need of it to refuse the Gibeonite request. It had been already clearly announced in Israel's statute-book: "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin." (Deuteronomy 24:16.) Long after this, in Ezekiel 18, the people of Israel twisted the words of the law itself in the same way. God then reasserts the principle of Deuteronomy, defending the righteousness of His ways: "As I live, declares the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die."
One writer weighs this act against the rest of Amaziah's reign.
He made a good beginning in closely following the law like this. Happy would it have been for him and for his kingdom had he continued as he began.
Another writer follows the same king's heart past this good start.
So Amaziah shows a measure of righteousness. But his heart becomes, at last, lifted up within him, and he challenges the king of Israel. Then this solemn fact appears: God will never sanction the presumption of a righteous man. God will rather take the part of the bad man who is challenged presumptuously than of the righteous man who challenges him presumptuously… The truth is, God will always be where righteousness is. There is not a single failure in righteousness, even in God's own people, where God does not set His face against it.
- Written — Amaziah's mercy came from a text, not a mood. He acted "according to what is written in the book of the law of Moses."
- Governed — he let the Word rule his decision. That obedient heart is asked of everyone who hears and reads it.
- Limited — the law drew a line through his justice. The guilty die; their children do not. Each one dies for his own sin.
- Reasserted — David set this rule aside for the Gibeonites, and Israel twisted it in Ezekiel 18. God defends it as the righteousness of His own ways.
- Unfinished — a good beginning is not a finished course. Amaziah started in obedience and ended in presumption. God sets His face against failure even in His own people.
He smote of Edom in the valley of salt ten thousand, and took Sela in the war, and called the name of it Joktheel to this day.
One short line of victory over Edom sits between Amaziah's obedience to the law and his downfall. These few words hold a battle in the Valley of Salt, a captured mountain fortress, and a new name for it. What Amaziah did before the fighting explains the win.
Amaziah had hired soldiers from Israel to help him fight Edom. Then a prophet spoke, and the king sent them home.
For a time Amaziah is willing to use the troops of Israel he had hired to fight Edom. Then the prophet warns him that "the LORD is not with Israel." He gives up the plan he had already carried out in part, and sends these troops back home. He takes on the campaign against Edom with only his own army, depending on the Lord, and wins a brilliant victory. The dismissed troops of Israel fall on the cities of Judah, striking down three thousand men and taking much spoil. But, as the prophet had said to Amaziah, the Lord was able to give him much more than the wages paid to the men of Ephraim.
Commentators read Edom as more than a nation on the map.
Amaziah did good work in judging Edom, killing 10,000 Edomites in the Valley of Salt. Edom pictures the flesh, so this victory was spiritually a victory over the flesh. May we also judge the flesh without sparing it.
The same valley appears in David's day, and the salt in its name carries meaning.
The occasion was when David fought against Mesopotamia and Syria. Joab then returned and killed 12,000 Edomites in the Valley of Salt. This speaks of the judgment of the flesh. Being in the Valley of Salt shows it to be a judgment preserved for the welfare of Israel.
The verse reports the deaths and says nothing about them. One writer refuses to explain the act away, and refuses to lay it on God.
This seemingly cruel treatment of conquered enemies is told without comment. We know nothing of the circumstances around it, nor the cause of Judah's invasion… We neither judge nor excuse them for their terrible act. God has left it without comment. It was not God's act, but Amaziah's.
The captured city was no ordinary town. Its name is the Hebrew word for rock, and the place fits the name.
The rock city of Edom… The same Hebrew word is the one usually translated 'rock.' It is judged to be the same as Petra. Petra is a remarkable place. It stands about two thousand feet above the sea, yet mountain cliffs shut it in. You enter through a narrow ravine, and the river winds through it too.
Edom lived high up, and commentators see more in that height.
Mount Seir is the stronghold of the flesh, the fortress of godless man. But Edom would be pulled down from his eagle's nest (see Obadiah). In the end he would lose his high perch and be brought low. And so shall all proud thoughts and pretentious strongholds of the flesh be laid in the dust!
Why rename the city? One writer ties the new name to the silver Amaziah lost by obeying.
He "took Sela by storm" — Petra, the rock, Edom's capital. He "called it Joktheel," which means the reward of God. He seems to have looked on this captured city as God's repayment for the hundred talents of silver lost on the worthless Ephraimites. And does not God always repay His obedient people with abundant increase?
Here the king does right. His next move was presumption.
So Amaziah shows a measure of righteousness. But his heart is at last lifted up within him, and he challenges the king of Israel. Then this solemn fact appears: God will never approve the presumption of a righteous man. God will side with the bad man who faces a presumptuous challenge rather than with the righteous man who makes it.
The raid on Judah's cities came soon after the victory.
This disaster, which cast a shadow over his victory over Edom, does not drive the king to the Lord. Even his victory becomes an occasion of stumbling for him. He brings the gods of the Edomites to Judah and bows down before them, without listening to the protests of a new prophet.
- Obey first. The win came after Amaziah obeyed the prophet, sent the hired troops home, and trusted the Lord.
- Repaid. God gave back what obedience cost him: a captured city he named Joktheel, "the reward of God."
- Judge the flesh. Edom stands for the flesh. The Valley of Salt pictures judging it without sparing it, for Israel's welfare.
- No fortress holds. Sela sat high among cliffs, yet it fell. Every proud stronghold of the flesh will go the same way.
- Guard the win. Amaziah did right, but the win lifted up his heart. It drew him to Edom's gods and led to his fall.
Then Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz, son of Jehu, king of Israel, saying, Come, let us look one another in the face.
Amaziah has just crushed Edom, and his next move is not worship but a summons to Jehoash — also called Joash — king of Israel. The words sound like an invitation to meet, but they are a challenge to battle: why does a king who had done right in God's eyes pick a fight with his own people?
Commentators trace the challenge back to the win over Edom. They also note who was really to blame for the quarrel with Israel.
But success with Amaziah (as with most of us) puffs him up. Filled with pride at his conquest of the Edomites, he shamelessly challenged the king of Israel to meet him in combat, saying, "Come, let us look one another in the face." The offended Ephraimites had indeed harmed some of his subjects without cause. Yet for this the king of Israel was less responsible than Amaziah himself, who had hired them to join his army.
The danger is not unique to Amaziah.
There are secrets of defeat as there are secrets of victory, and the believer's chief danger lies in victory. The soul gains that victory in real dependence upon God. Then, if it dwells on the results, it willingly gives itself some of the credit — and the next defeat dates from that moment.
Edom was an outside enemy. Israel was family — the ten tribes split from Judah generations earlier.
Amaziah's success against the enemies of the Lord seems to have awakened his pride — the pride of thinking he could subdue the ten tribes of Israel too. When Rehoboam gathered a great army with the same aim, God sent word to him, "You shall not go up or fight against your relatives the people of Israel" (1 Kings 12:24). Divisions between brothers are not going to be healed this way. If Israel had attacked, the case would be very different. But Amaziah should have known better than to start a conflict with his brothers the people of Israel.
Something worse lies behind the boast. Amaziah had brought Edom's gods home with him, and he would not hear the prophet who came to him.
"You have done this" means his seeking after the gods of Edom, and afterwards not listening to the prophet's counsel… To sin is to deserve condemnation. But to refuse mercy and reproof brings out God's determination to destroy (Prov. 1:24-31). His own pride and folly become the immediate cause of his ruin. His victory over Edom lifted him up, and he challenges the king of Israel… Yet for this act of foolish pride he took advice — whose advice? Like Rehoboam he sought the mind of flatterers.
The victory itself became the trap.
Even his victory becomes an occasion of stumbling for him. He brings the gods of the Edomites to Judah and bows down before them. He does not listen to the protests of a new prophet.
Joash sent back an answer Amaziah had not reckoned with. Who delivers a rebuke is part of the point here.
Amaziah foolishly decided to attack his brothers, the ten tribes of Israel. Joash sent him a crushing reply. He used a parable that belittled Amaziah by calling him a "thistle" challenging a cedar tree, and a wild beast trampled the thistle (v. 9). So the unbeliever reproved the believer. Joash saw that Amaziah's defeat of Edom had filled him with the pride that thought he could defeat Israel too. He advised Amaziah to stay at home, for in meddling with trouble he would fall, and Judah with him (v. 10).
Amaziah had misjudged the man he challenged.
He collides with a pride even greater than his own.
Amaziah was not the last king of Judah to ignore this warning. A descendant of his fell the same way.
Josiah, like his ancestor Amaziah in 2 Kings 14:8-14, meddled with strife that he should have stayed away from. It brought about his death… The Lord has surely given it as a warning to His people: do not meddle with strife to which He has not called them.
One figure in Scripture stands in complete contrast to Amaziah.
Pride still goes before a fall, and a haughty spirit before destruction. God's Word gives us many examples of this. All of them stand in clear contrast to that One who humbled Himself and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross.
- Victory. Edom fell to Amaziah — and the win, not a loss, is what exposed him. The believer's greatest danger comes right after success.
- Idolatry. He brought Edom's gods home and silenced the prophet who confronted him. Refusing reproof is what turned sin into settled judgment.
- Challenge. His summons to Israel was pride looking for a stage. It aimed at his own brothers — never the way division gets healed.
- Warning. The rebuke came through an unbeliever: a thistle picking a fight with a cedar. Stay home; why meddle to your own hurt?
- Fall. He would not hear, and Judah fell with him. The opposite path is the One who humbled Himself to the death of the cross.
And Jehoash king of Israel sent to Amaziah king of Judah, saying, The thorn-bush that is in Lebanon sent to the cedar that is in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son as wife; and there passed by the wild beast that is in Lebanon, and trode down the thorn-bush.
Fresh from crushing Edom, Amaziah of Judah challenged Joash of Israel to fight. Joash answered with a mocking story about a thistle and a cedar — so who do the plants stand for, and why did Amaziah want a second war?
One writer reads the parable as a portrait of the two kings and the army about to march:
A thistle on Lebanon (Amaziah) sent to a cedar on Lebanon (himself, Joash), saying, "Give your daughter to my son for a wife." Then a wild beast of Lebanon (Joash's army) passed by and trampled down the thistle. And Joash adds, "Stay now at home; why should you meddle to your hurt, so that you fall, you and Judah with you?" Good, sound advice, this.
Commentators differ here. Another writer reads the parable as family history, and sees pride on both sides:
Amaziah collides with a pride even greater than his own. Joash answers him with a very transparent parable. Jehoram of Judah was the thorn-bush of Lebanon, and the husband of Athaliah the daughter of Ahab. He had sent to Jehoram of Israel, the cedar of Lebanon, asking for a wife from the house of Ahab for his son Ahaziah. Jehu, the wild beast in Lebanon, had trampled down Ahaziah, the king of Judah. And now his successor, instead of humbling himself, was glorying in his victory over Edom! Here Joash's irritation breaks out: his own soldiers had been treated as worthless, since Judah alone had been enough to conquer Edom.
On either reading the sting is the same. Judah had once come begging to Israel's royal house, and the outcome was ruin.
The two plants are not chosen at random. The cedar of Lebanon carries a settled meaning through Scripture:
In Scripture the cedar always stands for power or exaltation, if not pride. When the king of Israel wanted to pour contempt on the king of Judah, he compared himself to a cedar and Judah's king to a thistle (2 Kings 14:9). … When judgment comes on the great of the earth, the prophet Isaiah says it is the day of the LORD on the cedars of Lebanon (2:13). These mark the cedar as the symbol of dignity and power.
The thistle sits at the other end of the scale. It belongs to a family of words in Scripture for what the ground grows under the curse:
The thistle signifies a worthless person in the parable of Jehoash, king of Israel. 2 Kings 14:9.
One victory had gone to Amaziah's head. Another writer traces the chain from success to swagger to collapse:
His own pride and folly become the direct cause of his ruin. His victory over Edom lifted him up, and he challenges the king of Israel. See the scorn Joash pours on him! Amaziah, driven by his own vanity, would not hear. That was the first step on the path to his downfall. His defeat was the first public stroke of God's judgment, which was now certain, for this came of God (2 Chron. 25:20). Man's pride and folly, when persisted in, become the forerunner of God's judgment.
There is an irony here that is easy to miss. The scornful king of Israel gives the wiser advice, and the believing king will not take it:
Joash sent him a crushing reply. He used a parable that belittled Amaziah by calling him a "thistle" challenging a cedar tree, and a wild beast trampled the thistle (v. 9). So the unbeliever reproved the believer. Joash saw that beating Edom had filled Amaziah with the pride that thought he could beat Israel too.
Joash's closing question — why meddle and bring harm on yourself? — outlived the quarrel. Generations later another king of Judah made the same mistake:
"Why should you meddle to your hurt, so that you fall?" said the king of Israel to Amaziah, Josiah's ancestor, years before (2 Kings 14:10). Josiah should also have known the proverb: "Whoever meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a passing dog by the ears" (Prov. 26:17). And another: "It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife, but every fool will be quarreling" (Prov. 20:3).
- Victory. Amaziah's win over Edom was real, but it fed a pride that made him think he could take on Israel too.
- Insult. Joash answers with a parable. A worthless thistle asks a cedar, the symbol of power and dignity, for a royal marriage.
- Trampling. The wild beast that flattens the thistle carries the warning: this quarrel ends with Judah crushed.
- Counsel. The sound advice comes from the unbeliever, and the believer refuses it. Good counsel is not measured by the mouth it comes from.
- Ruin. Pride that will not let go opens the door to judgment. Amaziah fell, and Judah fell with him.
Thou hast indeed smitten Edom, and thy heart has lifted thee up boast thyself, and abide at home; for why shouldest thou contend with misfortune, that thou shouldest fall, thou, and Judah with thee?
Amaziah of Judah had just beaten Edom, and the win went to his head. He challenged Jehoash of Israel to war, and Jehoash answered with a warning: what does a win do to the heart, and who pays when the winner overreaches?
Amaziah's victory over Edom was real, and that is what made it dangerous. One writer sees the same pattern in most people, not just kings:
But success with Amaziah (as with most of us) puffs him up. Full of himself after conquering the Edomites, he rudely challenged the king of Israel to meet him in battle, saying, "Come, let us look one another in the face."
Another writer notes where the rebuke came from:
So the unbeliever corrected the believer. Joash saw that Amaziah's win over Edom had filled him with pride, and that pride thought he could defeat Israel too.
Jehoash's advice comes attached to the story of the thistle and the cedar in the previous verse. Commentators read that picture in two ways. The common reading treats it as a straight put-down of the man in front of him:
"The thistle that was in Lebanon (Amaziah) sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon (himself, Joash), saying, Give your daughter to my son as a wife: and there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon (Joash's army), and trampled down the thistle." … Good, sound advice, this.
Another writer hears in it a piece of family history the two kings both knew, and finds a second pride hidden in the man giving the advice:
He runs into a pride even greater than his own. Joash answers him with a parable that is easy to see through. Jehoram of Judah was the thorn-bush of Lebanon, the husband of Athaliah the daughter of Ahab. He had sent to Jehoram of Israel, the cedar of Lebanon, asking for a wife from the house of Ahab for his son Ahaziah. Jehu, the wild beast in Lebanon, had trampled Ahaziah the king of Judah underfoot … And now his successor, instead of humbling himself, was glorying in his victory over Edom!
"Why should you provoke trouble" is the heart of the counsel. Later Scripture treats this as a settled principle, and one of Amaziah's own descendants ignored it and died for it:
"Why should you meddle to your hurt, that you should fall?" said the king of Israel to Amaziah, Josiah's ancestor, years before (2 Kings 14:10). Josiah should also have been familiar with the proverb, "copied by the men of Hezekiah," "He who passes by, and meddles with strife belonging not to him, is like one who takes a dog by the ears" (Prov. 26:17). And another: "It is an honour for a man to cease from strife: but every fool will be meddling" (Prov. 20:3).
Amaziah also picked his fight with his own relatives. God had already ruled on such a war:
When Rehoboam gathered a great army with the same object in view, God sent word to him, "You shall not go up or fight against your relatives the people of Israel" (1 Kings 12:24). Separations between relatives are not going to be healed in this way. … If Israel had attacked, the case would be very different. But Amaziah should have known better than to start a fight with his relatives, the people of Israel.
Amaziah refused the warning. One writer weighs what refusing correction costs a man:
To sin is to deserve condemnation, but to refuse mercy and correction brings out God's determination to destroy (Prov. 1:24-31). His own pride and folly become the immediate cause of his ruin. His victory over Edom lifted him up, and he challenges the king of Israel. … it was the first step on the path that led to his downfall, and his defeat was the first public stroke of God's judgment.
The closing words warn that Judah falls with its king. Amaziah's own name pointed away from the self-confidence he acted on:
His name means "strength of Jah"; but we read, "he strengthened himself" (2 Chron. 25:11); his self-sufficient character contradicted his name — something still common today.
- Victory — the win over Edom was real. The danger came next, and it came from inside: success puffs up most of us the same way.
- Warning — the rebuke came from an unbelieving king. God can send truth through a mouth you would rather not hear.
- Meddling — Proverbs calls it folly to jump into a quarrel that is not yours. Amaziah's descendant Josiah forgot that too.
- Refusal — sin deserves condemnation, but refusing mercy and correction is what brings out God's determination to destroy.
- Fall — "you and Judah with you": a leader's pride is never private. The man named "strength of Jah" fell because he strengthened himself.
But Amaziah would not hear. And Jehoash king of Israel went up; and they looked one another in the face, he and Amaziah king of Judah, at Beth-shemesh, which is in Judah.
Amaziah had just crushed Edom, challenged Jehoash of Israel, and got a stinging refusal. This verse is the hinge: he stops listening, and the two armies meet on Judah's own soil.
One writer traces the whole collapse back to what filled Amaziah after Edom fell.
He was lifted up by the victory he had won over Edom. So he takes the gods of Seir, which could not save their own people, and bows down before them. He then turns a deaf ear to the prophet who rebukes him. But pride comes before ruin, and a proud spirit before a fall. Amaziah makes war against Israel, suffers a shameful defeat, and is taken prisoner. Jerusalem itself is laid waste.
One writer hears an old habit in the way Amaziah brushed the prophet off, and draws a line between sinning and refusing correction.
The stern, impatient word "Stop!" seems to imply that this was not the first time the prophet had reproved the king. To sin is to be worthy of condemnation, but to refuse mercy and reproof brings out God's determination to destroy. His own pride and folly become the immediate cause of his ruin. His victory over Edom lifted him up, and he challenges the king of Israel. Joash treats him with contempt! Amaziah, driven by his own vanity, would not hear. That was the first step on the path that led to his downfall, and his defeat was the first public stroke of God's judgment, which was now certain.
A man who shuts one voice out does not go on in silence. He finds another.
Puffed up by his conquest of the Edomites, he shamelessly challenged the king of Israel to meet him in battle, saying, "Come, let us look one another in the face." … He "took advice," we read, in doing this. Like his father Joash, "the counsel of the ungodly" led him into disaster. … So God let him take other counsel, since he refused His own, and that led to his ruin.
The warning Amaziah brushed aside did not come from a prophet. It came from the king he had challenged.
When Amaziah foolishly decided to attack his relatives, the ten tribes of Israel, Joash sent him a crushing reply. He used a parable that belittled Amaziah by calling him a "thistle" challenging a cedar tree, with the result that a wild beast trampled the thistle. So the unbeliever reproved the believer: Joash saw that Amaziah's victory over Edom had filled him with the pride that thought he could defeat Israel too. He advised Amaziah to stay at home, for in meddling with trouble he would fall, and Judah with him.
The march to Beth-shemesh looks like one proud man's miscalculation. The parallel account in Chronicles gives a deeper reason.
Amaziah does not listen to this warning. Chronicles tells us that "it was of God, that He might deliver them into the enemy's hand, because they had sought after the gods of Edom." Judah is beaten, Amaziah taken prisoner, Jerusalem broken down. All the treasures of the king and of the temple are carried off as spoil, along with hostages. Amaziah had claimed to serve and honour his God. From the moment he leaves Him to serve other gods, he meets Him as a consuming fire.
The meeting place carries its own weight. Amaziah lost on his own ground.
A town on the north border of Judah, set apart for the Levites. … Here Jehoash king of Israel defeated Amaziah king of Judah.
A later king of Judah, Josiah, repeated the mistake.
Josiah, like his forefather Amaziah in 2 Kings 14:8-14, meddled with strife that he should have kept away from. It brought about his death. … Surely the Lord has given it as a warning to His people not to meddle with strife to which He has not called them.
- Victory. Edom fell to Amaziah, and the success puffed him up. The victory he could not handle set up his fall.
- Deafness. Pride's first act is to stop the ears. Amaziah waved off the prophet, then waved off Jehoash. Refusing reproof is what brings out God's determination to destroy.
- Substitute counsel. No one goes on without advice. Having refused God's, he took the counsel of the ungodly, and God let him have it.
- Collision. The thistle met the cedar at Beth-shemesh, on Judah's own ground. Jehoash beat Judah, took Amaziah prisoner, broke down Jerusalem, and carried off the treasures of the king and the temple.
- Warning. The defeat was of God, because Judah had turned to the gods of Edom. The story stands as a warning to God's people: do not meddle in strife He has not called you into.
And Judah was routed before Israel; and they fled every man to his tent.
Amaziah of Judah had beaten Edom. He then dared the king of Israel to meet him in battle. This verse records the answer: his army broke and ran. Commentators ask what turned one victory into this collapse.
One writer traces the rout back to Amaziah's own heart:
But Amaziah stubbornly refused to listen, and took his army to fight Israel. Amaziah's pride at the time was such that he felt no need of consulting the Lord. Can we wonder that the Lord then let Israel defeat Judah badly, so that they fled for their lives?
Another writer finds the same pattern all through Scripture, and one great contrast to it:
It is true that Amaziah, proud after defeating Edom, had challenged Joash to battle. Joash had replied, warning Amaziah where his reckless challenge would lead, but Amaziah would not listen. God then let Israel rout him. Pride still goes before a fall, and a proud spirit before destruction. God's Word gives us many examples of this. All of them stand in clear contrast to the One who humbled Himself and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross.
The defeat was not unannounced. One writer notes who gave the warning, and who ignored it:
When Amaziah foolishly decided to attack his own countrymen, the ten tribes of Israel, Joash sent him a crushing reply. He used a parable that belittled Amaziah, calling him a thistle challenging a cedar tree, with the result that a wild animal trampled the thistle (v.9). So the unbeliever corrected the believer, for Joash saw that beating Edom had filled Amaziah with the pride that thought he could beat Israel too. He advised Amaziah to stay at home, because if he meddled with trouble he would fall, and Judah with him (v.10).
The parallel account in Chronicles gives the reason behind the rout. It reaches back further than the challenge:
Amaziah does not listen to this warning. Chronicles tells us it was of God, "in order that he might give them into the hand of their enemies, because they had sought the gods of Edom" (2 Chr. 25:20). Judah is beaten and Amaziah taken prisoner. Jerusalem is broken down. All the treasures of the king and of the temple are carried off as plunder, along with hostages (vv. 12-14). Amaziah had claimed to serve and honour his God. From the moment he leaves Him to serve other gods, he meets Him as a consuming fire.
There is an irony in the way the verse names the two sides. Amaziah had earlier hired soldiers from Israel, and now Israel routs him:
2 Chronicles 25 shows us how Amaziah ended after his ungodly alliance with Israel. They were hired to their own shame, but to the greater shame of the man who could hire them. The end of it is fighting between the two who should never have joined. And further, Judah should have been the more faithful side, since they had the truth in a way Israel did not — yet the men of Israel put them to flight.
The flight opened the road to Jerusalem, its wall, and the treasures of God's house. One writer turns that loss into a warning:
What a lesson is this for us! If we meddle where we have no right, we will find the wall that separates us from the world broken down. Worse still, the precious things that belong to the Lord, which we hold in trust, will be stolen from us! Let us pay close attention to the words Paul wrote to Timothy, "O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you" (1 Tim. 6:20).
Amaziah picked a quarrel God had not given him, and a later king of Judah repeated the mistake:
Like his forefather Amaziah in 2 Kings 14:8-14, Josiah meddled in a fight he should have kept out of. It cost him his life. He should not have meddled with the wars of the king of Egypt. The king of Egypt had even warned him to stop opposing God, "lest He destroy you" (2 Chr. 35:21). This was the one dark blot on the bright history of good king Josiah. The Lord has surely given it as a warning to His people: do not meddle in strife He has not called them to.
- Cause. Amaziah's pride after beating Edom led him to pick a fight, and he did not consult the Lord before going.
- Warning. An unbeliever warned him, in a parable about a thistle and a cedar, and he would not listen.
- Verdict. The rout was of God — judgment for seeking the gods of Edom, not an accident of war.
- Irony. Judah held the truth in a way Israel did not — and Judah was the side that ran.
- Cost. A fight God never gave him left Jerusalem's wall broken and the treasures of God's house carried off.
And Jehoash king of Israel took Amaziah king of Judah, the son of Jehoash 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.
Amaziah of Judah beat Edom, and the win went to his head. He challenged Jehoash of Israel, lost at Beth-shemesh, and then watched the victor tear open six hundred feet of Jerusalem's wall — so how did a king who started well end here?
One writer notes where the attackers struck, and how they got inside:
This is the first time the walls of Jerusalem had ever been injured. It was on the north — the only side from which the city is easily accessible. Josephus states that Joash gained entrance into the city by threatening to kill their captive king if the people refused to open the gates.
Amaziah's ruin started before the battle did:
His own pride and folly become the immediate occasion of his ruin. He was lifted up because of his victory over Edom and challenges the king of Israel. Joash treats him with contempt! Amaziah, driven by his own vanity, would not hear. That was the first step on the path that led to his downfall. His defeat was the first public stroke of God's judgment, which was now certain, for this came of God (2 Chron. 25:20). Man's pride and folly, when persisted in, become the forerunner of God's judgment.
The defeat had a cause, and it was not military:
Amaziah and all Judah were humiliated before the idol-worshipping Israelites, though Amaziah's life was spared. But 2 Chronicles 25:14 shows us why God allowed this shameful defeat of Amaziah by Israel. When Amaziah had defeated the Edomites, he brought Edom's idols back to his own house and bowed down to them and offered incense to them. God sent a prophet to reprove him for this, but Amaziah refused his message with contempt. So Amaziah had slipped far from his first actions of obedience to the Lord.
What does a man meet when he leaves the God he claimed to serve?
Amaziah does not listen to this warning. "It was of God," Chronicles tells us (2 Chron. 25:20), "in order that he might give them into the hand of their enemies, because they had sought the gods of Edom." Amaziah meets his God, whom he had professed to serve and honour, as a consuming fire from the moment he forsakes Him to serve other gods.
The order of events carries a warning: first the wall goes, then what it guarded:
The king of Israel captured Amaziah himself. He came to Jerusalem and broke down the wall from the gate of Ephraim to the corner gate, a length of 400 cubits (about 600 feet). He took all the articles of gold and silver that were in the house of the Lord. What a lesson this is for us! By meddling where we have no right, we shall find the wall of our separation from the world broken down. Worse still, the precious things belonging to the Lord which we hold in trust will be stolen from us!
One part of God's people wrecked the capital of the other, and the same thing still happens:
There is nothing new under the sun. Today, sad to say, believers also challenge one another to combat. They forget that we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against mighty satanic hosts of spiritual wickedness in the heavenly places. Instead of praying for the peace of Jerusalem, they break down its walls. That makes it hard to keep godly separation and protection from evil. The precious vessels of God's house are taken, just as was later done by Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian king. And hostages — we try to force our brothers' good behaviour through such pressure! What a loss for God when we believers treat one another like this!
- Cause — pride. A win over Edom lifted Amaziah's heart. Pride held on to runs ahead of God's judgment.
- Root — idolatry. He brought Edom's gods home and bowed to them. He refused the prophet sent to reprove him. The defeat was God's answer.
- Breach — the wall. Four hundred cubits fell on the north side. It was the first damage Jerusalem's walls had ever taken, and a hostage king bought the enemy his way in.
- Loss — the treasure. Once the wall goes, the gold and the vessels of the house of the Lord go too. Meddling where we have no right costs us what we hold in trust.
- Warning — each other. One part of God's people did this to the other. The same spirit still breaks down walls meant to keep evil out.
And he took all the gold and the silver, and all the vessels that were found in the house of Jehovah, and in the treasures of the king's house, and hostages, and returned to Samaria.
Jerusalem's wall lay open, and now the temple itself is stripped. An idol-worshipping king carries off the gold, the silver, the vessels of God's house, the palace treasure and human hostages, all the way north to Samaria. The question is not how Israel won. It is why God let the treasures of His own house go to the wrong side.
Amaziah had just crushed Edom, and the win went to his head. One writer traces the fall step by step:
Amaziah, up to a certain point, walks with God, but in weakness and with an unsteady step. He leans on human strength, but he listens to the prophet, and this keeps him from defeat... His victory over Edom lifts him up. He takes the gods of Seir, gods that could not save their own people, and bows down before them. He then turns a deaf ear to the prophet who rebukes him. But pride goes before confusion, and a haughty spirit before a fall. Amaziah makes war against Israel. He is defeated in disgrace, taken prisoner, and Jerusalem itself is laid waste.
The stripping of the temple was not a military accident. Chronicles gives the reason behind the defeat:
Amaziah does not listen to this warning. Chronicles tells us "it was of God" (2 Chr. 25:20), "that He might deliver them into the enemy's hand, because they had sought after the gods of Edom." Judah is beaten and Amaziah is taken prisoner. Jerusalem is broken down. The enemy carries off all the treasures of the king and of the temple as spoil, along with hostages (vv. 12-14). Amaziah meets his God, whom he had claimed to serve and honour, as a consuming fire from the moment he forsakes Him to serve other gods.
Idolatry, once tolerated, leaves a man open to every other bad influence:
Amaziah's foolish stubbornness refused to consider such a serious warning. He did not realize that God was moving him in this bad direction, because he had adopted the idols of Edom (v. 20). When someone gives himself up to idolatry, he can expect to give in to any evil influence. He has chosen folly instead of wisdom.
Joash was the worse man of the two, yet God gave him the victory. One writer explains why:
So Amaziah shows a measure of righteousness. But in the end his heart is lifted up, and he challenges the king of Israel. One solemn fact stands out. God will never approve the arrogance of a righteous man. He will sooner take the side of the bad man who is challenged than the side of the righteous man who arrogantly challenges him... God will always be where righteousness is. And wherever righteousness fails, even in God's own people, God sets His face against it.
The gold and silver were not Amaziah's private wealth. They belonged to God's house, and losing them is the sharp end of the lesson:
Amaziah himself was captured. The king of Israel came to Jerusalem and broke down the wall from the gate of Ephraim to the corner gate, a length of 400 cubits (about 600 feet). He took all the articles of gold and silver that were in the house of the Lord (vv. 13-14). What a lesson this is for us! If we meddle where we have no right, we shall find the wall of our separation from the world broken down. Worse still, the precious things that belong to the Lord, which we hold in trust, will be stolen from us! Let us pay close attention to the words Paul wrote to Timothy, "O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust" (1 Tim. 6:20).
The verse ends with hostages. One writer sees the same thing when believers turn on each other:
There is nothing new under the sun. Today, sad to say, believers also challenge one another to fight. They forget that our struggle is not against flesh and blood. It is against mighty satanic armies of spiritual wickedness in the heavenly places. Instead of praying for the peace of Jerusalem, they break down its walls. That makes it hard to keep up godly separation and protection from evil. The precious vessels of God's house are taken, just as was later done by Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian king. And hostages — we try to force our brothers' and sisters' good behaviour through such pressure! What a loss for God when we believers treat one another like this!
- Pride — Victory over Edom lifted Amaziah's heart, and a haughty spirit went before the fall.
- Provocation — He picked a fight God never called him to, and Judah was beaten with him.
- Permission — The defeat was of God, because Judah had sought the gods of Edom. The God Amaziah claimed to serve met him as a consuming fire.
- Plunder — Judah held the temple treasures in trust; they never owned them. Meddling still costs us our wall of separation and the precious things left in our care.
- Principle — God stands with righteousness itself, not with reputations. He sets His face against every failure, even in His own people.
And the rest of the acts of Jehoash, what 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?
Jehoash's reign ends the way almost every reign ends in these books: the rest of his story sat in a royal archive that is now lost. The one deed named here is his war against Amaziah of Judah, which asks us what "might" is worth and who keeps the real record.
The book named here is not the Bible's book of Chronicles. Two histories of these kings exist, and their writers drew on different material:
Another clear difference between these two books is the source their writers drew from. In Kings it always comes from state records. Examples are "the book of the acts of Solomon" (1 Kings 11:41) and "the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel" (1 Kings 14:19). Chronicles draws more on the writings of people, such as "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Gad the seer."
So a book of the Bible points to human paperwork. One writer explains how that fits with inspiration:
The author of the books of Kings could use these "references" under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. God inspired the work he wrote.
Scripture uses the same wording about Jehu, an earlier king of Israel. One writer points out what such official records leave out:
The chronicles of the kings of Israel, if anyone ever found them, contain the acts and all the might of Jehu. They do not contain what he was before God, or God's judgment on his conduct as king.
The archive lists achievements. Scripture gives a verdict, and Jehoash's is short. Some have thought better of him than the record allows:
Some have supposed that Joash reformed, or repented, toward the end of his life. But the words "He did not depart from all the sins of Jeroboam" rule that out. He showed no real or lasting repentance at any point in his life. God is more eager to record any good in these kings' lives than any of His people are to read it. He has noted none in Joash's; and where He is silent, who will dare to speak?
This war was not against a foreign enemy. Israel fought Judah, and Amaziah started it:
What a sad picture is before us here! Israel and Judah have clashed at other times too, but this conflict goes beyond all that had gone before. Joash (also called Jehoash), Jehu's grandson, defeats Amaziah king of Judah. He captures Jerusalem, Amaziah's capital, breaks down a large part of its wall, and takes away its treasure. It is true that Amaziah was flushed with pride at having defeated Edom, and he challenged Joash to battle... Pride still goes before a fall, and a haughty spirit before destruction. God's Word gives us many examples of this. They all stand in clear contrast to the One who humbled Himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross.
The defeat had a deeper cause than bad strategy:
Amaziah does not listen to Joash's warning. Chronicles tells us it was of God, so that He might hand them over to the enemy, "because they had sought the gods of Edom." Amaziah meets his God, whom he had claimed to serve and honour, as a consuming fire from the moment he forsakes Him to serve other gods.
Jehoash's "might" left a visible mark. One writer turns it into a warning:
Amaziah himself was captured, and the king of Israel came to Jerusalem. He broke down the wall from the gate of Ephraim to the corner gate, four hundred cubits long, and took all the articles of gold and silver in the house of the Lord. What a lesson this is for us! If we meddle where we have no right, we will find the wall of our separation from the world broken down. Worse still, the precious things belonging to the Lord which we hold in trust will be stolen from us.
That state archive is gone. Another record still stands:
There is something deeply solemn in going over a record of names that people forgot long ago. God has remembered every one of them, with every detail of their path through this world. One day people will forget our names too, but God will not forget us or our ways.
- Two records. The chronicles named here were national state papers, not the Bible's book of Chronicles. The inspired writer of Kings drew on them.
- Two contents. Human archives keep a king's acts and his might; they cannot keep what he was before God, or God's judgment on him.
- One verdict. Jehoash's file holds military success and not one good deed. Where God notes none, no one should invent any.
- One cause. Amaziah started the fight. He was proud after beating Edom, and he sought Edom's gods. The strong man's victory was a proud man's fall.
- One remembrance. Jehoash's archive is gone. God noted every detail, and He still remembers names the world has long forgotten.
And Jehoash slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel; and Jeroboam his son reigned in his stead.
Jehoash of Israel dies in his bed. He gets a royal grave in Samaria, and his son Jeroboam takes the throne. It is a dignified close to the reign of a man the record calls evil. So what does a peaceful death and an honoured grave prove?
Some have called this king good. He is named Jehoash here and Joash elsewhere, and his defenders point to his visit to the dying prophet Elisha. One writer answers that God's silence about him settles the matter.
"And he did what was evil in the sight of the Lord; he did not depart from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, but he walked in them." Josephus calls him a "good man." This misjudgment of Joash's character is probably based on the incident of his visit to the dying prophet Elisha. A little display of religious, or even half-religious, feeling goes a long way with some people in accounting others "good." … God is more eager to record any good in these kings' lives than any of His people are to read it. He has noted none in Joash's; and where He is silent, who will dare to speak?
Put his quiet end beside the other kings of the northern kingdom.
Out of the nineteen kings who reigned from the division of the kingdom to the deportation to the land of Assyria, only seven died natural deaths (Baasha, Omri, Jehu, Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II, and Menahem). Seven were assassinated (Nadab, Elah, Joram, Zachariah, Shallum, Pekaiah, and Pekah). One killed himself (Zimri). One died of wounds received in battle (Ahab) …
"Slept with his fathers" is said of king after king in these books. One commentator warns against reading anything about eternity into it.
"Asa slept with his fathers" — the same words that are said of Jeroboam, of Rehoboam, and of so many others. It may be a special favour, for the opposite is said of certain wicked kings and of their descendants. But this favour is far from showing that the Lord took pleasure in them. Nor does it show that they had found beyond the grave the happiness their hearts had sought in vain in the world. It is still the same everywhere here below. The sons are buried beside their fathers. They die, if one may put it so, a natural death. But that lets us draw no comforting conclusion about their eternal future.
His death also closed a door. What he left unfinished was Syria.
Like Asa, he had the opportunity to end the power of Syria. From its beginning Syria had been a plague to both Judah and Israel. But, like Asa, he let it pass, and the work was left to the Assyrian, who destroyed both it (Syria) and them (Israel and Judah).
The new king's family line began with Jehu. God had already fixed how long it would last.
The result was that the Lord gave His decision about him. God would meet his comparative faithfulness. To the fourth generation, kings of Jehu's house would sit on the throne of Israel. God gave Israel a short-lived tenure, but out of that tenure Jehu's house was to rule for four generations. And so God carried it out. But there was to be no lasting line, for Jehu had shown no real conscience towards God. How different from David!
The son was no better than the father. Israel's relief under him came from somewhere else.
Jeroboam, king of Israel, the third successor of Jehu, succeeds Joash, his father. … Nonetheless his reign lasted forty-one years! One might think that God always promptly cut off the kings whose conduct dishonoured Him. We have several examples of that in this history. … but it is not so here. God has different ways, which He knows how to reconcile with His longsuffering and His mercy. His pity for Israel's oppressed condition directs His ways concerning Jeroboam's reign. … God raises up a saviour for this people in the person of this king who had incurred His displeasure, just as He had previously done with Joash his father.
- Verdict — God records no good in Jehoash's life. He notes good more readily than we read it. Where He is silent, no one should speak for Him.
- Grave — A peaceful death and a royal burial were rare in Israel. Neither tells us where a man stands beyond the grave.
- Loss — He could have ended the power of Syria, and he let the chance pass. Assyria finished the work and destroyed Syria, Israel and Judah alike.
- Limit — His son's reign fills out the four generations God promised Jehu. The line was lent, not lasting like David's.
- Mercy — Israel still finds relief under an undeserving son. God's pity for their oppressed state, not the king's worth, sets the terms.
And Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah lived after the death of Jehoash son of Jehoahaz, king of Israel, fifteen years.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
And the rest of the acts of Amaziah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
Amaziah's reign closes the way most reigns close in Kings: a short note says the fuller account lies somewhere else. That raises two questions — what Kings leaves out, and who keeps the real account of a life.
The phrase points to records kept outside this book. One writer names the prophets who kept those records.
So the acts of David are written in the words of Samuel the seer, in the words of Nathan the prophet, and in those of Gad the seer... Isaiah the son of Amoz wrote the acts of Uzziah.
The record named here is not the book of Chronicles in our Bibles. One writer makes that distinction while dealing with a later king whose reign closes with the same line:
It seems that other acts of Amon were written in a book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah. But they were not in the scriptural book of Chronicles, since it says nothing more than this book of Kings.
The gap in Amaziah's story is deliberate. Kings tells of his victory over Edom and then his defeat by Israel, but skips the part that explains both.
Between verses 6 and 7 we have an intentional gap, filled in by 2 Chronicles 25:5-16. As usual, we will not go into what this later book presents, except in passing. By leaving it out, the Word brings out the sin of the kings of Israel. It sets that sin against what was righteous and godly in the conduct of the kings of Judah.
The missing piece is the hidden cause of his defeat.
But 2 Chronicles 25:14 shows us why God let Israel shamefully defeat Amaziah. After Amaziah defeated the Edomites, he brought Edom's idols home to his own house. He bowed down to them and burned incense to them. God sent a prophet to correct him for this, but Amaziah refused his message with contempt. So Amaziah had slipped a long way from his first actions of obedience to the Lord.
So the man who began in obedience ended by refusing the prophet God sent to him.
Kings does record how his life ended. One writer reads that ending through the meaning of his name.
Amaziah lived more than fifteen years after his humiliating defeat and capture by the king of Israel. He died by violence, like his father and grandfather before him... Lachish was the first city of Judah to take up the idol worship of the kingdom of Israel. So it was natural for Amaziah, an idol worshipper himself, to seek shelter there. They brought his body back to Jerusalem on horses, as they would a beast... His name means "strength of Jah"; but we read, "he strengthened himself" (2 Chron. 25:11); so his self-sufficient character contradicted his name — something common enough in our own day.
The words "he strengthened himself" come from an older translation of 2 Chronicles 25:11.
The chronicles of Judah's kings are long gone. Commenting on the same closing line used of another king, one writer points to a record that remains.
Yes, and they are written in God's books above, along with the wicked acts recorded here. Those books hold more than "the chronicles of the kings of Israel." They hold the deeds and doings of every person's life, whether good or evil. Solemn facts for us all!
- Written — Kings points to a fuller chronicle, now lost. Named prophets kept the acts of these kings, and that chronicle is not the Bible's book of Chronicles.
- Withheld — The gap in Amaziah's account is on purpose. Chronicles fills it in, and the gap lets Kings set Judah's righteous acts against the sin of Israel's kings.
- Wandering — The hidden cause of his defeat was the idols he carried home from Edom. He then refused the prophet God sent to correct him.
- Wasted — His name meant "strength of Jah," but he strengthened himself. He died by violence, like his father and grandfather, and horses carried his body home.
- Weighed — The chronicles of kings are gone. God's books above hold the deeds of every life, good or evil — a record no one can edit.
And they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem; and he fled to Lachish; and they sent after him to Lachish, and slew him there.
Amaziah's reign began full of promise. Then he came home from war with Edom carrying Edom's gods, and his throne was never safe again. This verse records the end: a plot in his own capital, a run for his life to Lachish, and assassins sent after him.
This chapter gives only the bare events: a plot, a flight, a killing, a burial. It never tells us why.
This same unfaithfulness is the cause of Amaziah's tragic death. Our chapter only tells us that they conspired against him at Jerusalem and that he fled to Lachish. They sent after him to kill him. They brought him back on horses and buried him with his fathers in the city of David. But Chronicles gives us the solemn reason for this drama: "From the time when he turned away from the LORD they made a conspiracy against him."
The conspiracy did not begin the day it broke out. One writer notes that it was already growing underneath him during the years he felt most secure.
He returned in triumph and thought his throne was secure. But he never saw it coming. He was like Jonah, resting in the shade of the gourd while a worm destroyed it at the root. A conspiracy formed against him in the hour of his boasting. It was the judgment of God. "I know that God has determined to destroy you," said the prophet. Whether he was boasting against Israel, or humbled by his defeat at the hands of the king he had recklessly challenged, or fleeing to Lachish from the conspirators, this determination of God still followed him. God was overruling the wickedness of the conspirators to accomplish what He had determined. He might flee to Lachish from them, but he could not flee from the judgment of God.
The same writer draws the line back to a single public act, and makes the plot dependent on it.
No conspiracy would have succeeded had he not turned away from the Lord... it was when he publicly set up Edom's idols that the Lord allowed these evils to come on him.
Commentators differ over which moment the record means by his turning away.
His "turning away from following the Lord" was probably his final and complete break with the LORD God of Israel. It was not when he first bowed down to the gods of Seir, which was the beginning of his downward course.
Of all the cities in Judah, the one Amaziah ran to had a reputation. Its history explains why a king with foreign gods would feel at home there — and why his corpse came back the way it did.
Lachish was the first city of Judah to take up the idolatry of the kingdom of Israel. Micah 1:13 says of it, "it was the beginning of sin to the daughter of Zion, for in you were found the transgressions of Israel." So it was natural for the idolatrous Amaziah to seek refuge there. They brought his body back to Jerusalem on horses, as they would a beast.
Amaziah outlived the king who had humiliated him. Those extra years were not an accident.
The Lord gave the king a long time in which to repent. He lived fifteen years after the king who had plundered Jerusalem. But there seems to be no sign of repentance in Amaziah. His history closes with the words, "From the time when he turned away from the LORD they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem." What a sad end after such a promising start.
Rossier describes the God Amaziah was dealing with through those years.
Amaziah meets his God, whom he had claimed to serve and honour, as a consuming fire from the moment he forsakes Him to serve other gods.
His own name made a claim about where his strength came from. His record tells a different story.
His name means "strength of Jah"; but we read, "he strengthened himself" (2 Chron. 25:11); his character of self-sufficiency contradicting his name — something not uncommon in our day.
The way the record sums up his reign carries a warning for everyone else.
The record of his reign has the same sad monotony as so many kings of Judah at this time. His deeds are summed up "from first to last" — the first full of promise, and the last, decline or turning away from God. "Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall."
- Turning — He set up Edom's gods in public. From that moment the conspiracy against him began to form.
- Waiting — God gave him fifteen more years after his defeat. He used none of them to repent.
- Falling — The plot ripened while he felt safest, like the worm at the root of Jonah's gourd.
- Running — He fled to Lachish, the first city in Judah to copy Israel's idols. He could run from the conspirators, but not from the judgment of God.
- Warning — "From first to last": a promising start is no promise of a good end. Let anyone who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.
And they brought him on horses, and he was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers, in the city of David.
Amaziah, king of Judah, fled his own capital for his life and was killed at Lachish. This verse brings his body home to a royal grave, and leaves two questions: why did his people turn on him, and why is a hunted king buried with honour?
The book of Kings tells us what happened, not why. One writer sets the two accounts side by side:
Our chapter only recounts this: they conspired against him at Jerusalem. He fled to Lachish. They sent after him to kill him. They brought him on horses to bury him with his fathers in the city of David. But Chronicles gives us the solemn reason for this drama: "From the time when he turned away from the LORD they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem."
One writer names the moment his ruin began:
Amaziah had claimed to serve and honour his God. From the moment he forsakes Him to serve other gods, he meets Him as a consuming fire.
The choice of hiding place was not random. Lachish had a reputation, and it matched the man:
His "turning away from following the LORD" was probably his final and complete abandoning of the LORD, the God of Israel. It was not the day he first bowed down to the gods of Seir. That was only the beginning of his downward course. Lachish was the first city of Judah to take up the idol worship of the kingdom of Israel. Micah says of it, "it was the beginning of sin to the daughter of Zion, for in you were found the transgressions of Israel" (Micah 1:13). So it was natural for the idolatrous Amaziah to look for shelter there.
The plot against him was older than he knew. One writer dates it to the moment he felt safest:
He returned in triumph and thought his throne was secure. But he never knew or suspected it. Jonah rejoiced under the shade of the plant while a worm at the root was destroying it. In the same way, men formed a conspiracy against him in the hour of his boasting. It was the judgment of God.
The same writer looks past the plotters to the cause:
No conspiracy would have succeeded if he had not turned away from the Lord… He set up Edom's idols in public. That is when the Lord permitted these evils to come on him.
Commentators differ on how to read the burial. One sees a last insult in the way they carried him home. The other notes that Amaziah got what his own father did not:
They brought his body back to Jerusalem on horses, as they would a beast.
They carried his body back to Jerusalem for burial, and the record says it was "with his fathers." That sounds as though he was buried with the kings, though his father did not have such a burial.
His name pointed one way; his life went the other:
His name means "strength of Jah" — but we read that he strengthened himself. His self-sufficiency contradicted his name. That is not uncommon in our day, especially among a people called "Christians."
The closing summary of his reign shows a pattern that repeats through Judah's history:
The record of his reign has the same sad pattern as so many of the kings of Judah at this period — "his acts first and last." The first are full of promise. The last show decline, or falling away. "Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall."
That pattern is not only an ancient one. Reading through these reigns, one writer noticed when the failures came:
We were struck recently in reading the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah. These kings did right in the sight of the Lord, yet they went astray and turned their backs on their God. It was not in youth that they did this, but in middle life and old age.
- Turning — The verse records a death; Chronicles supplies its cause. It all dates from the moment Amaziah turned away from the Lord.
- Idols — Setting up Edom's gods in public, not the plot of his servants, opened the door to the evils that came on him.
- Refuge — He fled to Lachish, the city that had led Judah into Israel's idolatry. A man runs toward what he has already become.
- Timing — The plot was forming while he was boasting. Judgment can be under way long before it is visible.
- Ending — "First and last": a promising start, a falling-away finish. The danger these kings warn of came not in youth but in later years.
And all the people of Judah took Azariah, who was sixteen years old, and made him king instead of his father Amaziah.
Amaziah's reign ended in a plot against his life, and the throne of Judah passed to a boy of sixteen. The people themselves handed him the crown, which raises two questions: how did David's line survive a murdered king, and what would this teenager become?
Amaziah was murdered. One writer sets out what this chapter reports, and the reason Chronicles gives behind the plot:
Our chapter only reports that they plotted against him in Jerusalem and that he fled to Lachish. They sent men after him to kill him. They brought him back on horses and buried him with his fathers in the city of David. But Chronicles gives us the solemn reason for this drama: "From the time that Amaziah turned aside from following Jehovah, they made a conspiracy against him."
(Note: this writer uses "Jehovah" where the ESV has "the LORD.")
This verse calls the new king Azariah. Other books call him Uzziah. One commentator explains both names and how he reached the throne:
Elsewhere he is called Azariah (helped by Jehovah). The two names mean so nearly the same thing that both were used of him. He appears to have come to the throne not by ordinary succession, but by the direct choice of the people. The Syrians had destroyed the princes near the end of his grandfather Joash's reign (2 Chron. 24:23), which left the people a free hand... If princes are selfish and "seek their own" things, they cannot judge rightly. But a needy, suffering people turn by instinct to a deliverer. Their choice of Azariah here was a good one, as later events proved.
Another writer notes the same double name and where else it appears:
He is called AZARIAH in 2 Kings 14:21; 2 Kings 15:1-27; 1 Chr. 3:12; and OZIAS in Matt. 1:8-9.
Judah's kings kept failing, yet the house of David kept standing. Commentators trace that survival not to the strength of the family but to a promise, as seen a few generations earlier when the royal children were nearly wiped out:
The royal house of Israel is destroyed, and not a single man is left. God begins the trial of His patience again with a new dynasty, that of Jehu. But it is not so with the house of Judah. The faithful God keeps His word, for He had said that He would give David "always a lamp for his sons" (2 Kings 8:19).
The kings themselves failed. Another writer shows where the promise finally lands:
It is true that royal power failed, so far as it was entrusted to man. But it is just as true that God has placed it in the house of David, according to His counsels, His gift, and His calling. And all the promises connected with it — the sure mercies of David — will be fulfilled in Christ.
A crown at sixteen was a heavy load. One writer shows where the young king's strength came from:
They crowned him king when he was only a youth of sixteen. His position of responsibility was especially hard for one so young. Yet he filled it well, for the fear of God was before his eyes, and the history tells us that "God helped him." God gave him this help in such a marked way that we read a second time how "he was marvelously helped, till he was strong" (2 Chron. 26:7, 15).
The sequel is not all bright. The very help that made him strong became the occasion of his ruin:
Uzziah was sixteen years old when he began to reign. He did what was right in the sight of the Lord, and he sought God, and God made him prosper. But in his old age his heart was lifted up, and it destroyed him. In his proud presumption he sinned against the Lord God, and he died a leper, in his sixty-ninth year.
- Cause — Amaziah "turned aside from following Jehovah." A conspiracy followed, and the throne stood empty.
- Choice — Azariah did not simply inherit the crown. The people took him and made him king, and their choice "was a good one, as later events proved."
- Care — God had promised David "always a lamp for his sons," and that promise, not human merit, kept Judah's line alive.
- Christ — Royal power failed in man's hands, but the promises tied to David's house "will be fulfilled in Christ."
- Caution — He was "marvelously helped, till he was strong." Then "his heart was lifted up," pride destroyed him, and he died a leper.
It was he that built Elath, and restored it to Judah, after the king slept with his fathers.
This short line records the first act of Amaziah's son, dated after his father's death: a harbour town rebuilt and brought back under Judah. Commentators find in it a name, a seaport, and a recovery that set the tone for a long reign.
The son who takes the throne here goes by two names, Azariah and Uzziah. He also came to power by an unusual route. One writer takes the two names as nearly the same word, and reads the people's choice of him as a good one:
Elsewhere he is called Azariah, which means "helped by Jehovah." The two names are so close in meaning that both were used for him. He seems to have come to the throne not by ordinary succession, but by the direct choice of the people. The Syrians had destroyed the princes toward the close of his grandfather Joash's reign, which left the people a free hand... a needy, suffering people instinctively turn to a deliverer. Their choice of Azariah was a good one, as what followed proved.
Commentators differ here. Another writer keeps the two meanings apart, and puts the second name later in his life:
The meaning of the two names is not exactly the same. Azariah means "Jehovah helps," and Uzziah means "My strength is Jehovah." Could Azariah have been his real name? Later he boldly forced his way into the sanctuary, and he was struck with leprosy for life. His name may then have been changed to the related Uzziah — "My strength is Jehovah" — to mark that the "help" he had received depended on his relationship to the LORD.
Elath was no ordinary village. It was a harbour with a royal past, and Judah did not keep it for long after this:
He recovered Elath for Judah and restored it. This city, and all the territory of Edom it belonged to, had once been under the rule of David, and it had formed part of Solomon's kingdom. It had been an important outlet for Solomon's sea power, since it lay not far from Ezion-Geber on the shore of the Red Sea. After Azariah, it did not remain in the hands of Judah for long. Sixty-eight years later, Rezin the king of Syria recovered it.
The town had to be restored because Judah had lost it. Edom, which held Elath, had broken free under an earlier king, and Scripture gives the reason:
Decline in power set in at once, and the neighbouring nations were quick to see it and take advantage. "In his days Edom revolted from the rule of Judah and set up a king of their own"... The spirit of rebellion spread: at the same time Libnah also revolted from his rule, because he had forsaken the LORD, the God of his fathers.
The record names this building project before anything else about him:
Uzziah, the son of Amaziah, took the throne of Judah when he was only 16 years old and reigned for 52 years. The first thing mentioned about him is the positive good work of building the city of Elath, bringing it back under Judah's authority. This was a good beginning. He did right in the Lord's eyes, as did his father Amaziah in the early stages of his reign.
Another writer sees that one harbour as an early sign of the wealth to come:
His first recorded work was the building, enlargement, or fortification of Eloth (Elath), and its restoration to the crown of Judah. It was an early pledge of the great industrial prosperity of his reign.
The strength he gained became the very thing that undid him:
He was marvellously helped till he was strong. But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction. His name meant "Strength of Jehovah." It would have been a happy thing for him to see that only in His strength is anyone truly strong. "My strength," says He who is the Almighty, "is made perfect in weakness."
Note: the ESV renders these words "my power is made perfect in weakness."
- Lost. Elath was Judah's Red Sea harbour, held by David and Solomon. Judah lost it when Edom revolted under a king who had forsaken the LORD.
- Chosen. The sixteen-year-old who won it back came to the throne by the people's choice, not simply by succession. The choice proved a good one.
- Rebuilt. His first recorded act was to build, not to destroy: a city recovered and brought back under Judah.
- Prospered. That one project was an early pledge of the commercial prosperity that filled his long reign.
- Forfeited. His name meant strength from the LORD. Yet when he grew strong, his heart was lifted up, and Syria took the harbour back within seventy years.