TEXT [Commentary]

2. Amon rules in Judah (21:19-26)

19 Amon was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem two years. His mother was Meshullemeth, the daughter of Haruz from Jotbah. 20 He did what was evil in the LORD’s sight, just as his father, Manasseh, had done. 21 He followed the example of his father, worshiping the same idols his father had worshiped. 22 He abandoned the LORD, the God of his ancestors, and he refused to follow the LORD’s ways.

23 Then Amon’s own officials conspired against him and assassinated him in his palace. 24 But the people of the land killed all those who had conspired against King Amon, and they made his son Josiah the next king.

25 The rest of the events in Amon’s reign and what he did are recorded in The Book of the History of the Kings of Judah. 26 He was buried in his tomb in the garden of Uzza. Then his son Josiah became the next king.

NOTES

21:19 Amon. He was the 17th king from the line of David. Amon’s name, ironically, probably means “faithful” (so McMurray [2006]); but other possibilities include “master-workman” (so BDB 54) or even a reference to the Egyptian god Amon (but since most commentators suspect King Amon was, if anything, pro-Assyrian [like his father], rather than pro-Egyptian, this last option is unlikely). Amon’s reign of “two years” need only include a small portion of one year (his accession year), plus a small portion of the next year (if antedating is practiced [see “Excursus on Chronology” in the Introduction; but as noted there, many chronographers argue for the Babylonian practice of postdating as being practiced in Judah at this time]).

21:20 did what was evil. A stereotypical Deuteronomistic evaluation (cf. endnote 2 of the Introduction); after all, how much “evil” could occur in a short “two-year” reign? Probably the idea is that such “evil” kings allowed pagan ritual practices to continue.

21:22 abandoned. The same verb (‘azab [TH5800, ZH6440]) was also used in Elijah’s bitter refrain found in 1 Kgs 19:10, 14, as well as in Huldah’s prophecy to Josiah in 22:17 (cf. 17:16); in all those cases it was Yahweh’s rebellious people who “abandoned” him and his ways (see the first note on 21:9).

21:23 conspired. This will be the last “palace coup” (so Cogan and Tadmor [1988:275]; cf. ABD 1.198-199) in 1–2 Kings (although four of the next five Davidic kings, including Zedekiah, the final Davidide reigning in Jerusalem, will either meet premature death or be exiled by foreign powers). So, whether it was the result of international interests or domestic politics, this drastic resort to regicide represents a rare but devastating event in Judah. On the international front, Assyria was clearly waning in power by this time, whereas Egypt was resurgent. On the domestic front, the Jerusalem priesthood’s power and influence had been suppressed during Manasseh’s long reign, and more importantly, those bypassed in the line of succession to the throne—Amon is unlikely to have been Manasseh’s eldest son—would likely engage in palace intrigue.

21:24 the people of the land. See the second note on 11:14 for details concerning these recurring references to a distinct group of powerful individuals (landed aristocrats?), who remained loyal to the Davidic ancestral line, stepping forward whenever that dynasty was threatened (cf. 23:30, 35 [?]; also cf. the earlier references listed in the fourth note on 15:5). Such a stabilizing influence by a group largely independent of Jerusalem and its palace intrigues probably contributed greatly to the remarkable length of the Davidic dynasty, which, after all, represented something far more important than just another obscure line of petty kings who happened to reign in the ancient Near East.

21:25 are recorded in The Book of the History of the Kings of Judah. See “Literary Style” in the Introduction, and cf. 21:17.

21:26 garden of Uzza. See the note on 21:18.

COMMENTARY [Text]

Is King Amon another “cipher,” merely a generational placeholder between two prominent kings, Manasseh, the notoriously evil villain, and Josiah, one of the best kings of all? Or does Amon, brief though his reign was (see the note on 21:19), deserve to be condemned in terms equivalent to those used for the apostate Manasseh? Can one truly be so “evil” and still remain, as it were, only a footnote of history? Obviously, with the paucity of information we now have, these questions must remain without definite answer. But we do know this much: Amon followed his father, literally and theologically, and that fact apparently led directly to his own all-too-quick assassination. The “people of the land” (21:24), to be sure, did step in and ensure that the Davidic dynasty would not come to an untimely end, and they also made certain that those who had threatened it for whatever reason (rival claimants to the throne from Manasseh’s own family?) were quickly and properly dealt with. (For further comments on the “people of the land” and the lasting implications of their actions, see the next commentary section.) Thus, to sum up, we find here an evil son slavishly following his notoriously evil father. End of story. But not really—for Amon’s quick demise will open the doors for a very young King Josiah to take the throne and eventually change irrevocably the course of theological history.