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.