Chapter 14

1 Amaziah’s good reign. 5 His justice on the murderers of his father. 7 His victory over Edom. 8 Amaziah, provoking Jehoash, is overcome and spoiled. 15 Jeroboam succeedeth Jehoash. 17 Amaziah slain by a conspiracy. 21 Azariah succeedeth him. 23 Jeroboam’s wicked reign. 28 Zachariah succeedeth him.

1. Second year of Joash. The history of Judah is now resumed, because Amaziah of Judah was the next king to begin his reign after Joash (Jehoash) of Israel took the throne (see on ch. 13:10). On the method of reckoning Amaziah’s reign, see p. 148.

3. Not like David. “Not with a perfect heart” (2 Chron. 25:2). The outstanding sin of Amaziah was his worship of the gods of Edom after he had defeated the Edomites in battle, and his threatening the life of the prophet who rebuked him because of his defection from God (2 Chron. 25:14–16).

4. Not taken away. Judah continued to worship at the high places till these shrines were taken away by Hezekiah (ch. 18:4).

5. Was confirmed. There was obviously a period of unrest and confusion after the murder of Joash of Judah (ch. 12:20, 21), during which time the new king doubtless experienced difficulty in asserting and maintaining his rights. When these troubles had passed and the authority of the king had been established throughout the nation, he was in a position to take effective measures against the murderers of his father.

6. Children of the murderers. The mention of this point denotes that it was common in those days to put the children to death with their parents for such offenses.

Law of Moses. See Deut. 24:16.

7. He slew of Edom. This is a brief mention of Amaziah’s war with Edom, which is treated at greater length in 2 Chron. 25:5–13. According to that account Amaziah not only slew 10,000 of the Edomites in battle but took another 10,000 captive, who were later slain by being cast from the top of a rock.

Valley of salt. The location of this valley is not certain. Two sites have been suggested: (1) an area on the south end of the Dead Sea; (2) the Wadi elРMilh (salt) to the east of Beersheba.

Selah. Literally, “rock.” This is probably the famous region of Petra, 51 mi. (81.6 km.) south of the Dead Sea. “Petra” is the Greek name for “rock.” The capital of Edom may have been in this area at that time.

8. Sent messengers. The record in Chronicles gives a fuller account of the underlying causes of the impending war. In addition to his own large army, Amaziah had hired “an hundred thousand mighty men of valour out of Israel for an hundred talents of silver” (2 Chron. 25:6). The king, being warned, however, by a prophet that the Lord would not be with him if these forces from Israel accompanied him, dismissed the men. Disgusted at this treatment, the returning soldiers attacked and plundered a number of the cities of Judah (2 Chron. 25:7–10, 13). Amaziah, intoxicated by his success against Edom, and angered by the ravaging of the cities of Judah by the returning Israelites, decided on war against Israel.

Look one another in the face. A challenge to war. The language suggests an invitation to personal combat.

9. Thistle. The king of Israel replied by sending a message expressing his disdain for the king of Judah. Had Amaziah been successful against Edom? Jehoash had also been successful against the much stronger kingdom of Syria. His retort was that of a superior gentleman who considers it an insult to receive a challenge from so unworthy a foe. The cedar was the largest, strongest, most majestic tree of Palestine. The thistle was a lowly, useless, contemptible shrub that one would crush underfoot.

Give thy daughter. Jehoshaphat had entered into an alliance with Ahab. The arrangement was sealed by the marriage of Ahab’s daughter Athaliah to Jehoshaphat’s son Jehoram (1 Kings 22:44; 2 Kings 8:18, 26; 2 Chron. 18:1). The royal families further indicated their friendship for each other by giving their children the same names, Jehoram and Ahaziah in Judah, and Ahaziah and Jehoram in Israel. The king of Israel, whom Amaziah was now challenging to battle, bore the same name as Amaziah’s father, Jehoash, suggesting a continued period of friendship between the two nations. It is entirely possible that Amaziah had made overtures to Jehoash about a formal alliance to be sealed by the marriage of the daughter of Jehoash to the son of Amaziah. If so, Jehoash was now taunting Amaziah about the overture.

10. Lifted thee up. Jehoash was here calling attention to the real facts in the matter. Amaziah’s victory over Edom had gone to his head. Having been successful in his war against Edom without the assistance of the forces of Israel, Amaziah felt he could easily humble Jehoash.

Why shouldest thou meddle? Men’s troubles are often of their own making. There was no reason for Judah now to engage in war with Israel. Jehoash did well not to take up the challenge and to warn Amaziah that he was courting trouble for himself and his nation.

11. Would not hear. Amaziah’s feelings had been ruffled and as a result, reason had fled. He was acting like a spoiled child, and refused to give ear to the sound counsel being offered him by the man he was seeking to engage in battle.

Beth-shemesh. A town 15 mi. (24 km.) west-southwest of Jerusalem. Jehoash did not wait for the attack, but sent his forces south, evidently intending to approach Jerusalem from the west by the ancient highway passing through the Valley of Sorek. This is the route now followed by the railroad from Jaffa to Jerusalem. The site of Beth-shemesh, now Tell erРRumeileh, was excavated in 1928–1933.

12. Put to the worse. The results were as Jehoash had predicted. Amaziah had meddled to his own hurt, and Judah had now to pay the price for the folly of its king.

13. Took Amaziah. In ancient times wars were fought with great vigor, and kings and commanders were often found in the forefront of the lines of battle with their troops. Ahab of Israel and Josiah of Judah lost their lives in battle (1 Kings 22:34–37; 2 Kings 23:29), and the life of Jehoshaphat was seriously threatened (1 Kings 22:32, 33).

Gate of Ephraim. This was a large section of either the northern wall at the western end or the western wall at the northern end. The object of this destruction was evidently to leave the capital of Judah at the mercy of Israel. The loss of this portion of the wall was a great humiliation to the people of Judah.

Four hundred cubits. Over 600 ft.

14. The gold and silver. This incident occurred only a few years after Joash had sent the Temple treasures to Hazael to secure the Syrian king’s departure from Jerusalem (ch. 12:18). Now the treasures that had been accumulated since that time fell also into enemy hands.

Hostages. The taking of hostages was a common practice in ancient times. These prisoners were selected from among the prominent citizens of a country. The victors hoped, by this device, to ensure the future good behavior of the vanquished. Not only had the pride of Amaziah been humbled, but the entire nation of Judah had to suffer severely because of the king’s rash challenge to Jehoash.

15. The rest of the acts. Verses 15, 16 interrupt the account of the reign of Amaziah, which is continued in v. 18. They contain the closing formula of Jehoash’s reign which had, however, already been given in ch. 13:12, 13. The repetition of this formula is thought by some to be an indication of a coregency of Jeroboam II with his father Jehoash (see p. 82).

17. Fifteen years. This is the only place in the records of the kings where such an item as this occurs.

19. Conspiracy. Amaziah was evidently far from popular in Judah. His rash challenge to Jehoash, his disastrous defeat, the humiliation connected with the tearing down of a large part of the wall of Jerusalem, the seizure of hostages, and the loss of the Temple and palace treasures probably all contributed to make the people bitter against their ruler.

Lachish. A city now generally identified with Tell edРDuweir, about 27 mi. (43.2 km.) southwest of Jerusalem.

20. On horses. Lachish was connected with Jerusalem by a chariot road leading east to the central highlands and then north to the capital. Micah mentions chariots in connection with Lachish in his prophetic allusion to the city (Micah 1:13).

21. All the people. This statement suggests a popular movement in which the whole nation was involved. When one king dies and his son comes to the throne, there is normally no need of mentioning the fact that all the people were involved. On a probable coregency of Azariah with his father, from the time of Amaziah’s capture (v. 13), see on 2 Chron. 25:27; 26:1.

22. Elath. A city on the Gulf of Aqabah, near Ezion-geber (Deut. 2:8), in the land of Edom (1 Kings 9:26). It probably fell to Israel when David conquered Edom (2 Sam. 8:14). Solomon utilized its port facilities (1 Kings 9:26; 2 Chron. 8:17, 18). It was probably lost to Judah when Edom revolted from Jehoram (2 Kings 8:20–22).

23. Jeroboam. The same name as that of the first king of Israel (1 Kings 12:20). He is sometimes called Jeroboam II by present-day scholars to distinguish him from the first Jeroboam. Jeroboam II may have been named after the founder of the kingdom of Israel, and, in giving this name to his son, the father may have hoped that his successor would be a second founder, and bring the nation into a new era of strength and prosperity.

24. Evil. This is the regular condemnation of the rulers of the northern kingdom. In the long line of Israel’s kings there was none of whom it could be said that he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord. Jeroboam was of the dynasty of Jehu, but he followed in the evil ways of the dynasty of Omri and Ahab that Jehu overthrew.

25. Coast. Literally, “boundary.” Jeroboam restored the nation to its original borders.

The entering of Hamath. This expression is used to designate the northern limit of the nation (see on Num. 34:8; see also Joshua 13:5; Judges 3:3; 1 Kings 8:65; and Amos 6:14). Ezekiel also set Hamath as the northern limit of the state (Eze. 47:16; 48:1). Under the reign of Solomon the nation reached this region as its boundary (2 Chron. 8:3, 4).

Sea of the plain. The Dead Sea (see Num. 34:12; Deut. 3:17; 4:49; Joshua 3:16). The territory east of the Jordan had been lost to Israel during the reigns of Jehu (2 Kings 10:32, 33) and Jehoahaz (2 Kings 13:3, 25), and was partially recovered by Jehoash (2 Kings 13:25).

Jonah. This is the prophet who was sent to Nineveh (Jonah 1:1, 2). Jonah had a wider ministry than the book of Jonah records. The observation here made that the ministry of Jonah occurred during the reign of Jeroboam II enables us to fix the approximate date of the incidents recorded in the book of Jonah.

According to the tentative chronology employed in this commentary, the kings who reigned over Assyria during the reign of Jeroboam II are Adad-nirari III, 810–782; Shalmaneser IV, 782–772; Ashur-dan III, 772–754; and Ashur-nirari V, 754–746 (see p. 77).

Gath-hepher. A place in the borders of Zebulun (Joshua 19:13), 2 3/4 mi. (4.4 km.) north by east of Nazareth. An alleged tomb of Jonah is still exhibited there. The site now bears the name Khirbet ezРZurraЖФ in the modern Arabic.

26. Saw the affliction. God does not permit the fires of affliction to burn any hotter than is necessary to consume the dross. If His children respond to mild chastisements, severer judgments become unnecessary. On the other hand, a persistent refusal to repent under the easier tests requires that each successive affliction come with increased intensity. This was the case with Israel. The minor calamities had been insufficient to accomplish any lasting reformation, and the nation, by its continued course of rebellion, was rapidly approaching the ultimate doom of complete national destruction. It appears that the temporary alleviation under Jeroboam was designed to give a demonstration of what God was willing to do even at this late hour for the rebellious nation. It was not yet too late, but the limits of divine forbearance had almost been reached; the end was hastening on apace.

The period was one of intense prophetic activity. In times of crisis and need God provides special divine direction. In addition to the prophetic utterances of Jonah, the prophecies of Hosea and Amos fell in this period. The messages of these books throw additional light on the conditions of the times.

Any shut up, nor any left. The exact meaning of this phrase is not clear. It seems to denote that the widespread calamity was to be upon all classes (see Deut. 32:36; 1 Kings 14:10; 2 Kings 9:8). The two ideas may be in antithesis to each other, meaning, “him that is shut up and him that is loose,” or “him that is bound and him that is free.”

27. Said not. God had as yet given no fiat for the destruction of Israel. On the contrary, He designed the temporary prosperity to be a strong inducement to Israel to return to Him. The restored boundaries were to be a foretaste of future blessings on condition of obedience. The writer seems to have had in mind Deut. 32:36–43. The time had not yet come for the Lord to blot out their “name from under heaven” (Deut. 29:20).

Saved them. This prosperity came despite Jeroboam’s wickedness (see v. 24   ). The wicked never know to what extent they owe their blessings to the prospering hand of God. The victories were no indication that God approved of the course of either king or people. Instead, these victories were God’s renewed invitation to His people to return to the original purpose of their calling.

28. All that he did. Jeroboam did much to strengthen his nation, but the record of his reign is brief. National success was followed by national pride, which contemporary prophets strongly condemned (Hosea 5:5; 7:10; Amos 6:13).

Recovered Damascus, and Hamath. This statement points to the northward extent of the kingdom of Judah at this time. Damascus was brought under the control of Israel by David (2 Sam. 8:6) and continued to be part of the empire of Solomon (1 Kings 11:23, 24). The kingdom of Solomon also included Hamath (2 Chron. 8:4). It is not clear whether the town or district of Hamath is meant (see on v. 25). The town of Hamath is about 120 mi. north of Damascus (see The Empire of David and Solomon). Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria (745–727 b.c.) claimed that he brought under his power “19 districts of Hamath, together with the cities of their environs … which had gone over to Azriau.” This Azriau was probably Azariah, or Uzziah, of Judah, although there has been some dispute among scholars as to the identification (see on 2 Kings 16:5).

If this statement refers to Azariah of Judah, it assigns to Judah the control of the territory of Hamath at the time of Tiglath-pileser’s campaign. It seems that Israel and Judah were vying for control of this northern area, with Jeroboam at one time, at least, being successful in wresting the control from his rival to the south. Judah later must have regained control, for Tiglath-pileser’s campaign against this territory came in 743 b.c., 10 years after the death of Jeroboam, according to the chronology employed in this commentary. It has been suggested that the interest of Judah in these northern areas may have been associated with Assyrian activities there. It may be that Azariah of Judah played a leading role in a western coalition against Assyrian aggression, and that the smaller states of northern Syria acknowledged him as overlord—or at least that Azariah claimed that rank—in return for his help in meeting the Assyrian aggressor. Israel probably resented this interest of Judah in states lying north of its border and at one time during Jeroboam’s reign succeeded in gaining the upper hand.

Ellen G. White comments

21, 22 PK 303