Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadPulpit Commentary - 2 King 14:1 - 14:29
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
REIGNS OF AMAZIAH, SON OF JOASH KING OF JUDAH, OVER JUDAH, AND OF JEROBOAM, SON OF JOASH KING OF ISRAEL, OVER ISRAEL.
2Ki_14:1-20
THE REIGN OF AMAZIAH OVER JUDAH. This chapter takes up the history of the kingdom of Judah from the each of 2Ki_12:1-21; with which it is closely connected. The writer, after a few such general remarks as those with which he commonly opens the history of each reign (2Ki_12:1-4), proceeds to relate
(1) the punishment by Amaziah of the murderers of his father (2Ki_12:5, 2Ki_12:6);
(2) the war of Amaziah with Edom (2Ki_12:7);
(3) the challenge which he sent to Joash King of Israel, that king's reply, and the war which followed (2Ki_12:8-16); and
(4) the circumstances of Amaziah's death (2Ki_12:17-20). Between 2Ki_12:14 and 2Ki_12:16 there is interposed a summary of the reign of King Joash of Judah, which is little more than a repetition of 2Ki_13:12, 2Ki_13:13, and is thought by many to be an interpolation.
2Ki_14:1
In the second year of Joash son of Jehoahaz King of Israel reigned Amaziah the son of Joash King of Judah. Again the chronology is defective. If Joash of Israel ascended the throne in the thirty-seventh year of Joash of Judah (2Ki_13:10), and the latter reigned forty years (2Ki_12:1), Amaziah cannot have become king till the fourth or fifth year of the Israelitish Joash, instead of the second. The ordinary explanation of commentators is a double accession; but this is unsatisfactory. It is best to allow that the chronology of the later half of the Israelite kingdom is in confusion.
2Ki_14:2
He was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. Josephus ('Ant. Jud.,' 9.' 9. § 3) and the author of Chronicles (2Ch_25:1) confirm these numbers. And his mother's name was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem. Josephus (l.s.c.) calls her Jodade, but the LXX. have, more correctly, Joadim.
2Ki_14:3
And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, yet not like David his father. Only one King of Judah hitherto, viz. Asa, had obtained the praise that he "did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, as did David his father" (1Ki_15:11). All the others had fallen short more or less; and Amaziah fell short in many respects. He was wanting in "a perfect heart" (2Ch_25:2), i.e. a fixed intention to do God's will; he was proud and boastful (2Ki_14:10); he gave way to idolatry in his later years (2Ch_25:14), and he despised the reproof of the prophet who was sent to rebuke his sin (2Ch_25:16). Though placed among the "good kings' by the authors of both Kings and Chronicles, it is, as it were, under protest, with a distinct intimation that, although better than most of his predecessors, he did not reach a high standard. He did according to all things as Joash his father did. There is something of Oriental hyperbole in this statement, which must be understood in the spirit, not in the letter. The two kings were differently circumstanced, and history did not "repeat itself" in their reigns. The position of Joash with respect to Jehoiada finds no parallel in the circumstances of the life of Amaziah. Still, the lives are parallel to some extent. Both kings began better than they ended. Both were zealous for Jehovah at first, but turned to idolatry at last. Both opposed themselves to prophets, and treated their rebukes with scorn. Both reused conspiracy against them by their misconduct, and were murdered by the malcontents. Further, both were unsuccessful in war, had to withstand a siege of their capital, and bought off their enemy by the surrender of the greater part of its wealth, including the treasures of the temple.
2Ki_14:4
Howbeit the high places were not taken away. No king ventured to touch the "high places" until the time of Hezekiah, by whom they were put down (2Ki_18:4). Even Asa did not remove them (1Ki_15:14). They were remnants of an old ancestral worship which went back to the time of the judges, and which had been connived at by judges and kings and prophets. Local feeling was everywhere in their favor, since they provided for local needs, and enabled men to dispense with the long] and tedious journey to the distant Jerusalem. As yet the people did sacrifice and burnt incense on the high places; literally, were sacrificing and burning incense; i.e. continued the practice, which had come down to them from their ancestors. (On the morality and legality of the practice, see the comment on 1Ki_3:2.)
2Ki_14:5
And it came to pass, as soon as the kingdom was confirmed in his hand. Joash had been murdered in Jerusalem by conspirators (2Ki_12:20). A time of trouble had, no doubt, supervened. The conspirators would not wish to see Amaziah placed upon the throne, and may have opposed and delayed his appointment. But their efforts proved fruitless. After a time, the young king was confirmed (literally, "strengthened"), i.e. settled and established in his kingdom, all opposition being overcome or dying away. This seems to be what the writer means. He cannot intend a confirmation by a foreign suzerain, which the phrase used might import (2Ki_15:19), when he has given no hint of any subjection of the kingdom to any foreign power, or indeed of any serious attack on its independence. That he slew his servants. Jozachar and Jehozabad were "servants" of Joash, apparently domestic servants employed in his palace, and are therefore reckoned "servants" also of his successor. Which had slain the king his father. In the "house of Millo,' where he lay sick. They "slew him on his bed" (see 2Ch_24:25).
2Ki_14:6
But the children of the murderers he slew not. It was the ordinary usage in the East for the sons of traitors to share the fate of their fathers. A Greek poet went so far as to say that a man was a fool who put to death the father, and allowed the son to live. The practice had a double ground. Sons, it might be assumed, would be cognizant of their father's intention, and would so be accessories before the fact. And the law of claim, or "blood-feud," would make it dangerous to spare them, since they would be bound to avenge their father's death on his destroyer. That the practice prevailed among the Israelites appears from Jos_7:24, where we find the children of Achan involved in his fate, and again from 2Ki_9:26, where we are told that Naboth's sons suffered with their father. But it was contrary to an express command of the Law, as the writer goes on to show. According unto that which is written in the book of the Law of Moses. "The book of the Law of Moses" ( ñÅôÆø úåÉøÇúÎîùÆÑä ) may be either the Pentateuch regarded as one book, or Deuteronomy, the particular" book" of the Pentateuch in which the passage occurs. In either case the passage is fatal to the theory of the late' composition of Deuteronomy, which is here found to have ruled the conduct of a Jewish king a hundred and fifty years before Manasseh, two hundred before Josiah, and two hundred and eighty before the return from the Captivity—the dates assigned to Deuteronomy by recent "advanced" critics. Wherein the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin. As usual, when one sacred writer quotes another, the quotation is not exact. "But" ( ëÄÌåÌ àÄí ) is inserted at the beginning of the final clause, and the form of the verb in the same clause is modified. It seems to be intended that we should be made to feel that it is the sentiment or meaning conveyed, and not the phraseology in which it is wrapped up, that is of importance.
2Ki_14:7
He slew of Edom in the valley of salt ten thousand. Edom had revolted from Judah and recovered complete independence in the reign of Jehoram, about fifty years previously (2Ki_8:20). Since that time the two countries had remained at peace. Now, however, Amaziah resolved upon a great effort to resubjugate them. According to Josephus ('Ant. Jud.,' 9.9. § 1) and Chronicles (2Ch_25:5), he levied an army of 400,000 men—300,000 Jews, and 100,000 hired Israelites—with which he marched against the three nations of the Amalekites, the Idumaeans, and the Gabalites. Rebuked by a prophet for want of faith in calling to his aid the wicked Israelites, he consented to dismiss them, and made the invasion at the head of his own troops only. These were carefully organized (2Ch_25:5), and met with a great success. Ten thousand of his enemies fell in battle, and an equal number were made prisoners. These last were barbarously put to death by being precipitated from the top of a rock (2Ch_25:12). "The valley of salt," the scene of the battle, is probably identified with the sunken plain, now called Es Sabkah, at the southern extremity of the Dead Sea. This is "a large flat of at least six miles by ten, occasionally flooded" (Tristram), but dry in the summer.time. It is full of salt springs, and is bounded on the west and northwest by a long ridge of pure salt, known as the Khasm Usdum, so that the name "valley of salt" would be very appropriate. And took Selah by war. Selah with the article (has-Selah) can only be the Idumaean capital, which the Greeks called Petra ( Πέτρα or ἡ Πέτρα ), and which is one of the most remarkable sites in the world. In the rocky mountains which form the eastern boundary of the Arabah or sandy slope reaching from the edge of the Sabkah to the Red Sea, amid cliffs of gorgeous colors, pink and crimson and purple, and ravines as deep and narrow as that of Proffers, partly excavated in the rook, partly emplaced upon it, stood the Edomite town, difficult to approach, still more difficult to capture, more like the home of a colony of sea-gulls than that of a number of men. Petra is graphically described by Dean Stanley, and has also received notice from Robinson, Highten, and others. And called the name of it Joktheel; i.e. "subdued by God." The name took no permanent hold. Selah is still "Sela" in Isaiah (Isa_16:1), Obadiah (Oba_1:3), and Jeremiah (Jer_49:16). It is known only as "Petra" to the Greeks and Romans. Unto this day; i.e. to the time of the writer who composed the account of Amaziah's reign for the 'Book of the Kings,' and whoso words the author of Kings transcribes here as so often elsewhere.
2Ki_14:8
Then Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz son of Jehu, King of Israel, saying. Amaziah had a cause of complaint against Jehoash, or at any rate against his subjects, which does not appear in the narrative of Kings. The author of Chronicles tells us that, when Amaziah dismissed his Israelite mercenaries, they were offended, and vented their anger by an inroad into his territories (2Ch_25:13), where they killed three thousand men and "took much spoil." This was a clear casus belli, if Amaziah chose to consider it such. Come, let us look one another in the face. A rude message, if it was actually couched in these terms. But perhaps the writer substitutes the gist of the message for the language in which it was wrapped up. Josephus says that Amaziah wrote a letter to Joash, and required him to submit himself and people to the authority of the Jewish state, and thus restore the state of things which had existed under David and Solomon. Otherwise the sword must decide between them ('Ant. Jud.,' 9.9. § 2). Whatever its terms, pride and self-confidence, the result of his success against Edom, were at the root of the challenge.
2Ki_14:9
And Jehoash the King of Israel sent to Amaziah King of Judah, saying. According to Josephus, the reply to the challenge was given in a formal letter, of which he presents us with a copy-
"King Joash to King Amaziah [sends greeting]:
"Once upon a time there was in Mount Lebanon a very tall cypress, and also there was a thistle. And the thistle sent to the cypress, saying,' Contract thy daughter in marriage to my son.' And while this was transacting, a wild beast passed by and trod down the thistle. Let this be a warning to thee not to cherish immoderate desires, and not, because thou hast had success against Amalek, to pride thyself thereupon, and so draw down dangers both upon thee and upon thy kingdom."
The force of the original message is much weakened in this paraphrase. The thistle that was in Lebanon. "Thistle" is a better translation than "thorn-bush" (Keil), first, as a meaner, growth, and secondly, as more likely to be trodden down by a wild beast. The monarch intends to say that the meanest thing in the vegetable world sent to the grandest, claiming equality. Sent to the cedar—certainly "the cedar." and not "the cypress," as translated by Josephus—that was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife. Nube pari was a Roman maxim; and the rule was one generally established throughout the ancient world. To ask a man's daughter in marriage for one's self or for one's son was to claim to be his equal. And there passed by a wild beast—literally, a beast of the field—that was in Lebanon (on Lebanon as the haunt of wild beasts, see Son_4:8), and trode down the thistle. So leveling with the dust the pride of the impertinent one. We must not seek an exact application of all the details either of a fable or of a parable. It is not required that metaphors should "run on all fours."
2Ki_14:10
Thou hast indeed smitten Edom (see 2Ki_14:7, and the comment), and thine heart hath lifted thee up—i.e; made thee proud, exalted thee above measure—glory of this, and tarry at home—i.e; rest content with the glory which thou hast gained in thy Edomite war; make thy boast thereof, but do not affront fresh dangers—for why shouldest thou meddle to thy hurt—literally, why wilt thou meddle with misfortune?—that thou shouldest fall, even thou, and Judah with thee? Joash was as confident of success, if it came to war, as Amaziah. His three victories over Syria (2Ki_13:25) were, he thought, at least as good evidence of military strength as Amaziah's one victory over Edom.
2Ki_14:11
But Amaziah would not hear. The message of Joash was not conciliatory, but provocative. On hearing it, Amaziah (as Josephus says, 'Ant. Jud.,' 9.9. § 3) was the more spurred on to make his expedition. Therefore Jehoash King of Israel went up. "Joash," as Bahr says, "did not wait for the attack of Amaziah, but anticipated his movements, and carried the war into the enemy's country." Defensive warfare often requires such an Offensive movement. And he and Amaziah King of Judah looked one another in the face—e.g; came to an engagement—at Beth-shemesh, which belongeth to Judah. Beth-shemesh was assigned to Judah by Joshua (Jos_19:38), and lay on its western frontier line. Its position is marked by the modern Ain-Shems, which lies nearly due west of Jerusalem, on the road from Hebron to Jaffa. Ain-Shems itself is an Arab village, but "just to the west of it are the manifest traces of an ancient site". The position commands the approach from the Philistine plain; and we may suspect that Joash, avoiding the direct line of approach, led his troops to the attack through Philistia, as was so often done by the Syrians in their attacks on the Maccabees (see 1 Macc. 3:40; 13:12, 13; 15:40; 16:4-8, etc.).
2Ki_14:12
And Judah was put to the worse before Israel; and they fled every man to their tents; i.e. "to their homes" (see the comment on 2Ki_13:5). This was the first trial of strength between the two nations of which we have any distinct account. It resulted in the complete discomfiture of Israel. There was another great struggle in the time of Pekah and Ahaz, wherein Judah suffered even more severely (see 2Ch_28:6-8).
2Ki_14:13
And Jehoash King of Israel took Amaziah King of Judah, the son of Jehoash the son of Ahaziah at Beth-shemesh—Josephus says (l.s.c.) that Amaziah was deserted by his troops, who were seized with a sudden panic and fled from the field—and came to Jerusalem, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem. According to Josephus, Joash threatened his prisoner with death unless the gates of Jerusalem were opened to him, and his army admitted into the town; and it was upon Amaziah's representations that the surrender was made as soon as the Israelite army appeared before the place. The breach in the wall was therefore not the result of siege operations, but the act of a conqueror, who desired to leave his enemy as defenseless as possible. From the gate of Ephraim; i.e. the main gate in the northern wall of the city—that by which travelers ordinarily proceeded into the territory of the tribe of Ephraim. In later times it seems to have been called indifferently "the gate of Ephraim" (Neh_8:16; Neh_12:39) and "the gate of Benjamin" (Jer_37:13; Zec_14:10). The great north road, which passed through it, led across the Benjamite into the Ephraim-its territory. Unto the corner gate. The, "corner gate" is generally thought to have been that at the north-western angle of the City wall, where it turned southward, but this is perhaps doubtful. The exact line of the city wall in the time of Amaziah is exceedingly uncertain. Four hundred cubits; six hundred feet, or two hundred yards. This seems to have been the entire distance between the two gates. As there were at least thirteen gates in the circuit of the walls (Neh_3:1-31; Neh_12:31-39; Zec_14:10), which were probably not mere extensive than those of the present town, the distance of two hundred yards between one gate and another would not be improbable, the average distance being about three hundred yards.
2Ki_14:14
And he took all the gold and silver, and all the vessels that were found in the house of the Lord. As Joash of Judah had, fifteen or twenty years previously, stripped the temple of its treasures to buy off the hostility of Hazael (2Ki_12:18), there could not have been at this time very much for Joash of Israel to lay his hands on. Still, whatever there was passed into the possession of the Israelite king. And in the treasures of the king's house. Neither can this have amounted to much, unless the booty taken from Hazael after his defeats (2Ki_14:25) was very considerable. And hostages. This is a new feature in the warfare of the time; but hostages were given and taken from an early date by the Persians (Xen; 'Cyrop.,' 4.2. § 7; Herod; 6.99), the Greeks, and the Romans.
2Ki_14:15, 2Ki_14:16
Now the rest of the acts of Jehoash which he did, and his might, and how he fought with Amaziah King of Judah, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? And Jehoash slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel; and Jeroboam his son reigned in his stead. These verses are repeated with very slight alterations from 2Ki_13:11, 2Ki_13:12. Curiously, on both occasions they are out of place. It is scarcely worth while to consider how they came into the text at this point, since no explanation could be more than a conjecture. In point of fact, they are redundant.
2Ki_14:17
And Amaziah the son of Joash King of Judah lived after the death of Jehoash son of Jehoahaz King of Israel fifteen years. This note of time is based on 2Ki_14:2, which makes Amaziah begin to reign in the second year of Joash of Israel, and hold the throne for twenty-nine years. If he really began to reign in the fourth year of Joash, he would have survived him only thirteen years (see the comment on 2Ki_14:2).
2Ki_14:18
And the rest of the acts of Amaziah—especially the circumstances of his war with Edom, as related in 2Ch_25:5-13, his idolatry (2Ch_25:14), and the rebuke which he received from one of God's prophets (2Ch_25:15, 2Ch_25:16) in consequence—are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
2Ki_14:19
Now they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem. The author of Chronicles connects this conspiracy with the idolatry of which Amaziah was guilty (2Ch_25:27); but, though his subjects may have been offended by his religions changes, and have become alienated from him in consequence, the actual conspiracy can scarcely have been prompted by an act which was fifteen, or at any rate thirteen, years old. It is more likely to have sprung out of dissatisfaction with Amaziah's military inaction from and after his defeat by Joash. While Jeroboam H. was carrying all before him in the north, recovering his border, pushing it as far as Hamath, and even exercising a suzerainty over Damascus (2Ki_14:25, 2Ki_14:28), Amaziah remained passive, cowed by his one defeat, and took no advantage of the state of weakness to which he had reduced Edom, but sat with folded hands, doing nothing. The conspirators who removed Amaziah, and placed his son Azariah, or Uzziah, upon the throne, may be credited with the wish and intention to bring the period of inaction to an end, and to effect in the south what Jeroboam was effecting in the north. It is true that Azariah was but sixteen years of age, but he may have given indications of his ambition and capacity. Sixteen, moreover, is the time of manhood in the East, and the conspirators had probably waited until Azariah was sixteen in order that his competency to reign should not be disputed. As soon as he was on the throne he initiated the warlike policy which they desired (see verse 22). And he fled to Lachish. Lachish, one of the south-western Judaean towns (Jos_15:39), was at all times a fortress of importance. It resisted Joshua (Jos_10:3, Jos_10:31), and was taken by storm. It was fortified by Jeroboam against the Egyptians (2Ch_11:9). It was besieged and taken by Sennacherib. The position is marked by the modern Um-Lakis, on "a low round swell or knoll," between Gaza and Beit-Jibrin, about thirteen miles from Gaza and nearly thirty-five from Jerusalem. But they sent after him to Lackish, and slew him there. So the author of Chronicles (2Ch_25:27) and Josephus ('Ant. Jud.,' Jos_9:9. § 3); but details are wanting.
2Ki_14:20
And they brought him on horses; literally, on the horses, which must mean "on his horses." Probably Amaziah had fled to Lachish in the royal chariot, and his body was now brought back in it to Jerusalem. The conspirators were evidently minded to treat the royal corpse with all respect. And he was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David; i.e. the city on the eastern hill, which David took from the Jebusites (see the comment on 1Ki_2:10).
2Ki_14:21, 2Ki_14:22
SUCCESSION OF AZARIAH AND RESUMPTION OF THE WAR WITH EDOM. Though reserving his account of the reign of Azariah to the next chapter (verses 1-7), the writer is led by the circumstances of Amaziah's death to mention at once the fact of his son Azariah's succession, and the first important act of his reign, the resumption of war with Edom. He then breaks off suddenly, in order to interpose an account of the reign of Jeroboam II; who was contemporary with Amaziah during fourteen years of his reign,
2Ki_14:21
And all the people of Judah took Azariah. This is a new expression, and implies a new, perhaps a tumultuary, proceeding. The people, uncertain probably of the intentions of the conspirators, and fearful that they might set up a king not of the house of David, took the initiative, went to the royal palace, and finding there a son of Amaziah—whether his eldest son or not, we cannot say—proclaimed him king and placed him upon the throne. The author of Chronicles (2Ch_16:1) agrees. Josephus is silent. Which was sixteen years old. Young certainly, considering that his father was fifty-four (see verse 2), but not necessarily "a younger son," since Amaziah's earlier children may have been daughters, or he may have married late in life. It is not doubted that Manasseh was Hezekiah's eldest son, yet he was only twelve when Hezekiah died at the same age as Amaziah, viz. fifty-four. And made him king instead of his father Amaziah. There are two forms of the king's name, Azariah and Uzziah. The difference between them is not so great in the Hebrew, where they both begin with the same letter; but still it is considerable. One name is not a mere contraction of the other. Some suppose that the king changed one name for the other upon his accession; others, that he was called indifferently by either, since they were very similar in meaning. "Azariah" is "he whose help is Jehovah;" "Uzziah," "he whose strength is Jehovah." "Uzziah" is the predominant form, occurring four times in 2 Kings, twelve times in 2 Chronicles, three times in Isaiah, once in Hoses, once in Amos, and once in Zechariah; while "Azariah" occurs only in 2 Kings (eight times) and in 1Ch_3:12 (once). Josephus uses the form "Ozias" (equivalent to, Uzziah), and so does St. Matthew (Mat_1:8, Mat_1:9).
2Ki_14:22
He built Elath, and restored it to Judah. On the position of Elath, or Eloth, and its importance, see the comment on 1Ki_9:26. It had been the headquarters of Solomon's fleet (1Ki_9:26), and again of Jehoshaphat's (1Ki_22:48; 2Ch_20:36); but had been, of course, recovered by the Edomites when they revolted (2Ki_8:22). Azariah's re-occupation seems to imply an intention on his part of, renewing the old Red Sea trade. By "built ' in this passage we must understand "rebuilt" or (as in 2Ch_11:6) "fortified." After that the king slept with his fathers. Keil is probably right in understanding this to mean "immediately after he had ascended the throne," or "as soon as ever his father was dead" (see the comment on verse 19). His further military successes will be considered in the comment on his reign, as sketched in the next chapter.
2Ki_14:23-29
REIGN OF JEROBOAM THE SON OF JOASH OVER ISRAEL. This reign, the most important of those belonging to the kingdom of Israel since that of Ahab, is treated with great brevity by the writer, whose interest is far more in Judah than in Israel. Seven verses only are devoted to him. The result of his wars is given without any account of the wars themselves. And the great fact of his ruling over Damascus only comes in by a sort of afterthought (verse. 28). The usual formulas are followed in introducing his reign and missing it.
2Ki_14:23
In the fifteenth year of Amaziah the son of Joash King of Judah—this note of time agrees with those in 2Ki_13:10 and 2 Kings 45:1, 17, but not with that in 2Ki_15:1 (see the comment on that passage)—Jeroboam the son of Joash King of Israel began to reign in Samaria, and reigned forty and one years. Josephus says "forty years; Many moderns (Thenius, Bahr, and others) extend the term to fifty-one years. Some suppose that Jeroboam was joint-king with his father in Amaziah's third year, solo king from his fifteenth. But it is better to acknowledge the general confusion of the chronology, and to regard it as uncertain, unless where a synchronism is distinctly made out. Such assured synchronisms are the following:
(1) The synchronism of Ahab with Jehoshaphat:
(2) the synchronism of Jehoram, Ahab's son, with the same;
(3) the synchronism of Jehu's first year with the first year of Athaliah;
(4) the synchronism of Amaziah with Joash of Israel;
(5) the synchronism of Pekah with Ahaz;
(6) the synchronism of Hoshea's last year with Hezekiah's sixth;
(7) the synchronism of Amaziah's fourteenth year with Jeroboam II.'s first, being twice asserted in two distinct forms (2Ki_15:17 and 2Ki_15:23), is, at any rate, highly probable.
Numbers which occur once only in ancient writers can seldom be implicitly trusted, since the liability of numbers to corruption is excessive.
2Ki_14:24
And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord: he departed not from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. The judgments which had fallen upon Jehu and Jehoahaz on account of these sins did not teach any lesson to Joash or Jeroboam II. The fatal taint, which was congenital with the Israelite monarchy, could never be purged out, hut clung to it to the end.
2Ki_14:25
He restored the coast of Israel from the entering in of Hamath. By "the entering in of Hamath" is to be understood the opening into the Coele-Syrian valley a little north of Baalbec, where the ground begins to slope northwards, and the streams to flow in the same direction to form the Orontes. Hamath itself was between eighty and ninety miles further to the north, on the middle Orontes, about N. lat. 35° 22'. The "entering in of Hamath" was always reckoned the northern boundary of the Holy Land (see Num_34:8; Jos_13:5; Jdg_3:3; 1Ki_8:65). It corresponded with the watershed between the Orontes and the Litany. Unto the sea of the plain. The "sea of the plain" is undoubtedly the Dead Sea, the plain (ha-Arabah) being used as a sort of proper name for the lower Jordan valley, like El-Ghor at the present day (see Deu_3:17; Jos_3:16; Jos_12:3, etc.). The territory recovered no doubt included all the trans-Jordanic region as far south as the river Aruon; but the recovery of dominion over Moab, and even over Ammon, which some have seen in this passage, is scarcely con-rained in it. According to the word of the Lord God of Israel, which he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai (comp. Jon_1:1). Jonah's date is determined by this passage. He was contemporary with Hosea and Amos, and earlier than Micah. His prophecy concerning Jeroboam is probably assigned to the early part of that king's reign. The prophet, which was of Gath-hepher. Gath-hepher is mentioned in Joshua, under the name of Gittah-hepher, as a city of Zebulon (2Ki_19:13), not far from Mount Tabor. It is conjecturally identified with El-Meshhed north of Nazareth, where the tomb of Jonah is shown.
2Ki_14:26
For the Lord saw the affliction of Israel, that it was very bitter. The repetition is perhaps to be accounted for by the desire of the writer to explain how it came to pass that so great a deliverance was granted to Israel under a king who maintained the worship of the calves. He views it as the consequence of God's infinite compassion, and of the extreme bitterness of Israel's sufferings under the Syrians. For there was not any shut up, nor any left (see the comment on 1Ki_14:10), nor any helper for Israel. Apart from Jehovah, Israel had no one to come to her aid. Judah would not help her, for Judah had just suffered at her hands (2Ki_14:11-14); still less would Philistia, or Moab, or Ammon, who were her constant enemies. Her isolation rendered her all the more an object for the Divine compassion.
2Ki_14:27
And the Lord said not that he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven. God's decision under the circumstances was not, as it well might have been, considering Israel's ill desert, to blot out forthwith the very name of Israel from the earth. On the contrary, he gave the nation a breathing-space, a gleam of light, a second summer before the winter set in—a further opportunity of repenting and turning to him with all their hearts if they would only have taken advantage of it, a chance of redeeming the past and reestablishing themselves in his favor. He might well have destroyed them at this time if he had looked only to considerations of justice, if in his wrath he had not thought upon mercy. But he saved them; i.e. he gave them the deliverance promised first by Elisha (2Ki_13:17), and then by Jonah the son of Amittai (verse 25)—deliverance from Syria, recovery of their borders, and triumph over their enemies. He gave them all this by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash. Joash began the salvation, but it was reserved for Jeroboam to complete it. He was the true "savior" (2Ki_13:5), the true accomplisher of the work, for which his father only paved the way. Thus one Jeroboam founded the kingdom; another refounded it, restored its ancient glories, and gave it its old dimensions.
2Ki_14:28
Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, and all that he did, and his might, how he warred, and how he recovered Damascus and Hamath. It has been suggested that these words mean no more than that Jeroboam took territory from Damascus and Hamath—from Damascus the trans-Jordanic territory which Hazael had conquered from Jehu (2Ki_10:33); from Hamath some small portion of the Coele-Syrian valley, about the head-streams of the Orontes and Litany (so Keil and Bahr). But there does not seem to be any sufficient reason for giving the words used this narrow signification. Damascus was conquered and annexed by David (2Sa_8:6), and held for a time even by Solomon (1Ki_11:24), of whose kingdom Hamath also seems to have formed part (1Ki_4:21-24; 2Ch_8:4; 2Ch_9:26). The word "recovered" is, therefore, a suitable one. The prophecy of Amos, no doubt, represents Damascus as independent (Amo_1:3, Amo_1:4); but this may have been written before Jeroboam conquered it. Hamath's subjection seems to be implied in Amo_6:2, Amo_6:14. We may, therefore, well understand, with Ewald and Dr. Pusey, that Jeroboam ' subdued Damascus and even Hamath," and added them to his kingdom. How long the subjection continued is a different question. Probably, in the troubles that followed the death of Zachariah (2Ki_15:10-14), the yoke was thrown off. In the Assyrian Inscriptions, Damascus appears under its own king about B.C. 786, and it was certainly independent in B.C. 743. At the latter date Hamath also appears as the capital of an independent kingdom under its own monarch. Which belonged to Judah. Keil and Bahr render,"Hamath of Judah," regarding ìÄéäåÌãÈä as a genitive. Ewald proposes to read öÂîÈú ìÀöåÉáÈä , "Hamath of Zobah", or else to cut out ìéöåãä altogether. The passage is one of great difficulty. For Israel. It is questionable whether this meaning can be obtained from the present text, which is áÀéÄùÒøÈàÅì . Bahr thinks that it can; but Ewald regards the change into ìÀéÄùÒøÈàÅì as one "of necessity." Might we not avoid all these alterations by translating simply—" how he recovered Damascus and Hamath to Judah through Israel"? Attaching them to Israel was a sort of recovering of them to Judah, to which (i.e. the Judah of David and Solomon) they had once belonged. Are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?
2Ki_14:29
And Jeroboam slept with his fathers, oven with the kings of Israel—his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather had been actually among the kings of Israel; but all the kings, his predecessors, were probably reckoned among his ancestors—and Zachariah his son reigned in his stead (see the comment on 2Ki_15:8). By Zachariah's accession the promise given to Jehu (2Ki_10:30), that his "children to the fourth generation should sit on the throne of Israel," was literally fulfilled. No other royal house occupied the Israelitish throne for more than three generations.
I. NO MAN IS TO BE CALLED MASTER, NOT EVEN A FATHER. God gives men in his Law and in their conscience a standard of right, which they are to follow. He nowhere bids them take any man but the "God-Man" for pattern. He warns them that men are, all of them, more or less imperfect. He requires that parents shall be "honored," not imitated.
II. THE EVIL EXAMPLE OF A FATHER IS A WARNING TO SONS, WHICH SHOULD LEAD TO AVOIDANCE, NOT IMITATION. The sight of a drunken father should disgust sons with drunkenness. Blasphemous and violent words should so shock them as to suggest an exactly opposite behavior. Looseness of morals should breed in them a determination never to offend in a way so absolutely revolting. Given that simplicity which is natural to youth, and every fault of a father should so keenly wound and vex their souls as to bend them in the exactly contrary direction. Sin is so ugly, so offensive, so coarse, that in another it naturally disgusts us; and the more plainly it is revealed, the closer it is brought to us, the more are we naturally provoked and angered by it.
III. THE PUNISHMENT WHICH SIN DRAWS AFTER IT SHOULD COME ESPECIALLY HOME TO THOSE WHOSE HOMES ARE CURSED WITH IT, AND ACT AS A DETERRENT. Disease, decay, the loss of others' respect, the severing of friendships, general dislike and aversion, in some cases contempt, dog the footsteps of sin, and mark it as a thing to be avoided. Sons are naturally sensitive with regard to their fathers' honor, and keen to mark whether they are held in respect or no. There can be no natural deterrent from evil courses stronger than the perception that one with whom we are bound up is deteriorating from day to day, not merely in character, but in reputation, falling in men's esteem, becoming a mark for their scorn. The father's fall should thus not produce the son's, but rather stimulate the son to rise to greater and greater heights of virtue.
2Ki_14:5, 2Ki_14:6
I. BY NATIONS. Nations infringe it when they cashier a royal family for the fault, or even the crime, of the reigning sovereign. In a hereditary monarchy the son has a right to succeed, though his father may by unconstitutional acts have justly forfeited the crown. Still more unjust is the perpetual exile of all those whose ancestors have ever reigned over a country. Such persons are punished, not so much for the sins as for the merits—the wisdom, prowess, high renown—of their forefathers, since it is for their merits, ordinarily, that persons are first placed upon thrones. Confiscation of the property of exiled princes is still more indefensible, since it is at once unjust and mean. It may be added that forfeiture and attainder, as they exist in our own law, seem to be contrary to the spirit of the rule, which is that no one should be punished for anything but his own acts.
II. BY INDIVIDUALS. Individuals infringe this rule when they maintain a family feud, transferring to the children of those by whom they consider themselves to have been injured the animosity which they have long entertained towards their parents. Or when they treat a man with coldness or incivility because his father has done something disgraceful. Or, generally, when they attach blame or discredit to any one, not for anything that he has done, but for something that somebody connected with him has done. Strict justice requires that each man should "bear his own burden," and stand or fall by his own acts. If we allow anything but his own acts to affect our estimate of a man—still more, if we allow it to affect our demeanor towards him—we act unjustly, we infringe the principle of the law, "Every man shall be put to death [i.e. shall suffer] for his own sin."
2Ki_14:8-14
I. THE WEAK GROUND OF THE PRIDE. This was military success, which is just as often the result of good fortune, or one's enemies' mistakes, as of any merits of one's own. Amaziah's after-life showed that he did not possess any great military capacity, and so had nothing on which he ought to have prided himself. Men constantly over estimate their own merits.
II. THE WRONGFUL WAY IN WHICH THE PRIDE VENTED ITSELF. In quarrel, causeless quarrel with a neighbor. Amaziah had no grievance which he felt it necessary to redress, no need to quarrel with Joash. Having gained one success, he was simply greedy for more. And to gratify his self-esteem he was careless how many lives he sacrificed or what injuries he inflicted
(1) on his adversaries;
(2) on his own subjects.
He forgot that the Israelites were of kindred blood (1Ki_12:24), of the same religion, a portion of God's people. He plunged into an unnecessary war—in itself always a sin—with a nation towards which he ought to have felt friendly, without obtaining or seeking any Divine sanction, in sole reliance on himself. What wonder that God punished such combined folly and wickedness!
III. THE OBSTINACY WITH WHICH THE WRONGFUL COURSE WAS PERSISTED IN. Proud men dislike above all things admitting that they are in the wrong. Amaziah had ample time to retract his challenge and. give up his enterprise. Joash was not at all eager for the encounter; on the contrary, he was quite willing to have remained at peace if Amaziah would have let him. But to retract, still more to apologize, would have been unpleasant. The pride which had given birth to the challenge absolutely forbade its withdrawal.
IV. THE COMPLETENESS AND EXTREME IGNOMINY OF THE FALL. Amaziah had, no doubt, counted on an easy victory; he went to war "with a light heart." He would do with Israel as he had done with Edom—smite and slay, and make prisoners, and perhaps punish his prisoners with death (2Ki_14:7). The result is, not a victory, not even a drawn battle, not a long war with alternations of success and defeat, but one crushing blow, from which there is no recovery even for an instant. His army is defeated, dispersed; he himself is a prisoner in the hands of his enemy, his capital is taken, its walls broken down, its treasures carded off. He is disgraced in the eyes of all his subjects, as well as of the neighboring nations, and thenceforth remains absolutely quiescent, attempts nothing, but, humbled and confounded, "sits in the dust."
2Ki_14:1-4 with 7-20
I. AMAZIAH'S COMPROMISE PREPARED THE WAY FOR POSITIVE SIN. The high places in themselves were not necessarily places of idolatry. There is no doubt that sincere worship to the true God was often offered up in them. Thus we find Solomon sacrificing to the Lord in Gibeon, which was the great high place. But the associations of these places were entirely idolatrous. From time immemorial they had been associated with the worship of the heathen gods. It was for this reason that God forbade the use of them. It was necessary to make the wall of separation between his people and the heathen as wide as possible—to teach them that they could not serve God and Baal, that there could be no compromise between right and wrong without danger to the right. The results showed the wisdom and necessity of God's strict command. The natural tendency of the human heart is to worship what is seen, to look at the outward symbol rather than at the thing signified. This was just what happened in Amaziah's case. He did not see that there was any harm in preserving the high places. Might not God be worshipped there as well as in Jerusalem? And so he made the compromise: "The high places were not taken away." But look at the result. "Now it came to pass, after that Amaziah was come from the slaughter of the Edomites, that he brought the gods of the children of Seir, and set them up to be his gods, and bowed down himself before them, and burned incense unto them" (2Ch_25:14). What a falling off was there! This is that Amaziah who began his career by doing right in the sight of the Lord, now stupidly bowing down before the lifeless idols of the heathen! He conquered the heathen in one sense, but the heathen conquered him in another and more dangerous sense. Has it not been the same in the history of the Christian Church? The early Christian Church was simple in its worship and its government; its members were simple in their habits and pure in their lives. But when it became powerful at Rome, and in a sense captured pagan Rome, its very power was its danger. There was a sense in which the paganism of Rome captured the simplicity of the gospel. As Mourant Brock has so fully shown in that interesting book of his on 'Rome: Pagan and Papal,' and as Gibbon and other historians have pointed out, Christianity, in Rome at least, made a compromise with paganism. And the compromise was anything but an advantage to the Christian religion. The ill effects of it remain to this day in the images and pilgrimages, and the many other superstitions which deface the Roman branch of the Christian Church. Such facts of history carry with them a memorable lesson. The Christian Church ought ever to keep in mind the spiritual objects for which it exists. It ought, therefore, to guard most scrupulously the spirituality and scripturality of its worship. "God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." It ought to guard also the spirituality and scripturality of its doctrine, and teach men to trust, not to penances or indulgences for their acceptance with God, but to the work and merits of Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and man. The countries of the Reformation are marked out among the nations of Europe for their prosperity and industry. The more thorough the work of religious reformation, the stronger has been the national character, the more vigorous the national life. And on the other hand, as we look at the general decay of the Roman Catholic nations, and the corruption that has marked their history, may we not trace the secret of their downfall in the words of the fourth verse, "The high places were not taken away?"
II. AMAZIAH'S COMPROMISE LED TO TEMPORAL DISASTER. Amaziah had elements of strength mingled with the elements of weakness in his character. He was capable of acting upon certain occasions with decision and firmness. What a pity he had not carried that spirit of decision into the most important duty for every human being—obedience to the Law of God! Once, indeed, he had done so. And the success which followed his obedience to God's command on that occasion should have encouraged him in a similar decision always. He was going forth to battle against the Edomites. He had raised out of his own kingdom of Judah alone an army of three hundred thousand men. In addition to these, he hired out of the kingdom of Israel a hundred thousand men for a hundred talents of silver, that is to say at a cost of about £50,000. But there came to him a man of God, saying, "O king, let not the army of Israel go with thee; for the Lord is not with Israel" (2Ch_25:7). Amaziah had not yet hardened his heart against God's message. He was not yet blinded to the evil results of forsaking God. So he considered seriously this difficulty, and saw that it would be folly to go forth in defiance of God's warning. But the question arose about the payment of these hired soldiers, and he said, "What shall we do for the hundred talents which I have given to the army of Israel?" And the man of God answered, "The Lord is able to give thee much more than this." Amaziah hesitated no longer. He sent away these hired troops, though he incurred their anger and vengeance in consequence; but when he went forth against the Edomites, his army gained a most decisive and overwhelming victory. Would that Amaziah had acted in a similar spirit of decision all through his life! Would that he had showed in other matters a similar spirit of dependence on God and obedience to him! Would that he had always remembered the prophet's words, "The Lord is able to give thee much more than this"! Oh that we would all remember this when tempted to make compromise with the world—when, for the sake of worldly gain, or popular applause, or the favor of men, or earthly rank, we are tempted to disregard the voice of conscience and of God! God's commands are clear. His promises are equally clear. We never gain anything by making compromise with sin. From the moment that Amaziah forsook God, success began to forsake his banners. He and his army were defeated by the army of Israel, and eventually he himself was slain by a conspiracy of his own servants. Let us learn that we should never, for the sake of any temporal advantage, make a compromise with sin, or disobey the command of God. We may be the losers for the time, but the Lord is able to give us much more than this. In an interesting book lately published, which gives an account of the mission to the fishermen in the North Sea, we are told that some of the owners of the fishing-vessels refused to allow their vessels to be used for a prayer-meeting or other religious service; but expected the men to work on the Lord's day as on others. There was a small fleet, all the skippers of which were anxious to have no fishing on Sunday, and accordingly sent home a "round robin" to the owners, praying for this concession. They waited anxiously for the return of the cutter with the owners' reply, and when at length it reached them, their hopes were utterly dashed, for the employers, while saying they would not forbid the skippers to keep their fishing-gear on board, gave them clearly to understand that any skipper doing so would run the risk of losing his berth at the end of the voyage. The matter was quietly and prayerfully discussed, and eventually all but one agreed, "We ought to obey God rather than man;" and so sabbath after sabbath this solitary dissentient labored with his gear, while all the other vessels were lying-to. As each skipper's voyage expired, he ran home for the bi-monthly refit, yet not a word was said about discharging him, and as this happened to every skipper in turn, they made up their minds that the threat was an empty one. However, at Christmas the secret came out; for the owner, according to custom, read aloud to his assembled crews the list of the different vessels' earnings during the year. At last he stopped, and put down the paper. "Oh, but, sir," exclaimed several skippers, "you haven't read what So-and-so made" referring to the skipper who had fished seven days a week. "Why, what is that to you? I've read what you've made: doesn't that satisfy you?" "Why, no, sir, because, don't you see, he's fished every Sunday, while we've kept our trawls on board." "Well, well," muttered the owner, "I suppose it's sure to come out, so I may as well tell you. He's at the bottom of the list." The man who related this story added reverently, "Them that honor me I will honor, but they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed." Those men showed true faithfulness. They would have no compromise. Cost what it might, they would obey the command of God, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy." And he who gave the command honored and rewarded them for their observance of it. He prospered their industry on the six days of the week more than the industry of the man who labored on every day of the seven. Even in temporal blessings the policy of compromise is a policy of disaster. Much more when we look at the eternal consequences, "What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" We find that Amaziah's spirit of compromise infected his whole character. Unfaithful himself, he did not like faithfulness in others. When he began to worship the heathen idols, God sent a prophet to remonstrate with him. The prophet said to Amaziah, "Why hast thou sought after the gods of the people, which could not deliver their own people out of thine hand?" (2Ch_25:15). A very reasonable question, one would say. But the king was beyond rebuke. He commanded the prophet to cease, and threatened to punish him if he continued. It is a sign that something is wrong when men and women begin to dislike faithful preaching. Those whose own conscience is clear need feel no hurt when sin is rebuked. Beware of the policy of compromise. Let there be no compromise with the world, with godlessness, with sin; no compromise with godlessness in your family; no compromise with wrong in your business; no compromise with evil customs or companionships in your social life; no calling of evil good, and of good evil. Nail your colors to the mast. Let there be no compromise with your own besetting sins. Many a man has begun well, like Amaziah, but has ended badly, because he made a compromise with sin. He retained some old habit. He did not put away the high places of his pride, or his ambition, or his covetousness, or his passion—and in the long ran his sin became too strong for him.—C.H.I
2Ki_14:5, 2Ki_14:6
I. EVERY ONE OF US IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OWN LIFE. "For we must all appear before the judgment-scat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."
II. EVERY ONE OF US IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RIGHT DISCHARGE OF HIS OWN DUTIES. We cannot excuse ourselves by the unfaithfulness of others. Responsibility is something which we can never transfer to any one else. Men may deny their responsibility. They may