TEXT [Commentary]

L. Synchronistic History of the Late Divided Monarchy, Concluded (2 Kgs 14:1–17:41)

1. Amaziah rules in Judah (14:1-22)

1 Amaziah son of Joash began to rule over Judah in the second year of the reign of King Jehoash[*] of Israel. 2 Amaziah was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-nine years. His mother was Jehoaddin from Jerusalem. 3 Amaziah did what was pleasing in the LORD’s sight, but not like his ancestor David. Instead, he followed the example of his father, Joash. 4 Amaziah did not destroy the pagan shrines, and the people still offered sacrifices and burned incense there.

5 When Amaziah was well established as king, he executed the officials who had assassinated his father. 6 However, he did not kill the children of the assassins, for he obeyed the command of the LORD as written by Moses in the Book of the Law: “Parents must not be put to death for the sins of their children, nor children for the sins of their parents. Those deserving to die must be put to death for their own crimes.”[*]

7 Amaziah also killed 10,000 Edomites in the Valley of Salt. He also conquered Sela and changed its name to Joktheel, as it is called to this day.

8 One day Amaziah sent messengers with this challenge to Israel’s king Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz and grandson of Jehu: “Come and meet me in battle!”[*]

9 But King Jehoash of Israel replied to King Amaziah of Judah with this story: “Out in the Lebanon mountains, a thistle sent a message to a mighty cedar tree: ‘Give your daughter in marriage to my son.’ But just then a wild animal of Lebanon came by and stepped on the thistle, crushing it!

10 “You have indeed defeated Edom, and you are proud of it. But be content with your victory and stay at home! Why stir up trouble that will only bring disaster on you and the people of Judah?”

11 But Amaziah refused to listen, so King Jehoash of Israel mobilized his army against King Amaziah of Judah. The two armies drew up their battle lines at Beth-shemesh in Judah. 12 Judah was routed by the army of Israel, and its army scattered and fled for home. 13 King Jehoash of Israel captured Judah’s king, Amaziah son of Joash and grandson of Ahaziah, at Beth-shemesh. Then he marched to Jerusalem, where he demolished 600 feet[*] of Jerusalem’s wall, from the Ephraim Gate to the Corner Gate. 14 He carried off all the gold and silver and all the articles from the Temple of the LORD. He also seized the treasures from the royal palace, along with hostages, and then returned to Samaria.

15 The rest of the events in Jehoash’s reign and everything he did, including the extent of his power and his war with King Amaziah of Judah, are recorded in The Book of the History of the Kings of Israel. 16 When Jehoash died, he was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel. And his son Jeroboam II became the next king.

17 King Amaziah of Judah lived for fifteen years after the death of King Jehoash of Israel. 18 The rest of the events in Amaziah’s reign are recorded in The Book of the History of the Kings of Judah.

19 There was a conspiracy against Amaziah’s life in Jerusalem, and he fled to Lachish. But his enemies sent assassins after him, and they killed him there. 20 They brought his body back to Jerusalem on a horse, and he was buried with his ancestors in the City of David.

21 All the people of Judah had crowned Amaziah’s sixteen-year-old son, Uzziah,[*] as king in place of his father, Amaziah. 22 After his father’s death, Uzziah rebuilt the town of Elath and restored it to Judah.

NOTES

14:1 Amaziah. Already cited in 12:21 as succeeding his father Joash to the throne after the latter’s assassination, he is the 10th king of the Davidic dynasty. Amaziah’s name means “Yahweh has been strong, mighty” (cf. the short form of the name, “Amoz,” borne by the father of the prophet Isaiah [Isa 1:1]).

14:2 twenty-five years old . . . reigned in Jerusalem twenty-nine years. The length of reign here seems excessive if it doesn’t include any coregencies (Barnes 1991:156 notes l and m; also Cogan and Tadmor 1988:154); possibly a 15-year coregency with his son Uzziah (or Azariah) should be included here as part of the regnal total (cf. 14:17). In any case, the curious “25/29” correspondence with Hezekiah (who also comes to the throne at the age of 25 and reigns 29 years [see 18:2]) led me some time ago to posit some sort of grand inclusio between these two kings in a hypothetical Judahite king-list used by the final Deuteronomist (see Barnes 1991:147-148; cf. “Literary Style” in the Introduction for a basic introduction to this Judahite king-list).

14:3 did what was pleasing. This is the second in a string of five positive notices for the Judahite kings (see endnote 33 of the Introduction for details); in every case, however, the positive notice is tempered with a reminder that the pagan shrines still had not been removed.

14:5 executed the officials who had assassinated his father. See 12:20-21. Unfortunately, Amaziah himself eventually suffered the same fate as his father.

14:6 obeyed. Here is a positive indication that Amaziah was implicitly fulfilling the requirement specified in the “law of the king” (Deut 17:14-20; cf. the previous commentary): The monarch was to make a copy of the Torah for himself and read from it all the days of his life. The actual “law” he obeys here is found in Deut 24:16 (cf. Ezek 18), and it limits blood revenge (contrast the excesses of Queen Athaliah, as described in 11:1-2, a bloodbath whose repercussions must have made a vivid impression on Joash, Amaziah’s father). Commentators differ on whether Amaziah here follows customary procedure in his relative leniency toward the families of the assassins (Jones 1984:508) or represents a departure from traditional practice (Cogan and Tadmor 1988:155), but all are united in seeing the Deuteronomistic editor as implicitly commending the king for his mercy. It should not be ignored that during this time, dynastic stability is more evident among the Jehuites than it is among the Davidides. Adopting, as it were, policies more congruent with the peaceful dynastic succession of the northern kingdom (1) makes Amaziah’s later stubbornness toward King Jehoash of Israel even more incomprehensible (see 14:8-14), and (2) opens the way for—maybe even encourages—those who eventually bring about his assassination (see 14:19-20; as Hens-Piazza [2006:327] points out, “Ironically though, the very ones he spared may be those who are later responsible for his death”).

14:7 10,000 Edomites in the Valley of Salt. This is an archival reference, presumably, and one of a number of references to the land of Edom vis-à-vis Judah (and occasionally Israel) to be found throughout 1–2 Kings (3:9; 8:20-22; cf. 14:22; 16:6; 1 Kgs 9:26; 22:47 [48]). The “10,000” slain, a very large number, accords exactly with the number of foot soldiers previously left to King Jehoahaz of Israel by the Arameans (13:7; cf. Wiseman 1993:244); possibly that is one reason Amaziah thought he could take on Jehoahaz’s son Jehoash. In any event, as Seow (1999:241) notes, “Judah’s relation with Edom has been something of a gauge of the status of the Davidic king in the eyes of God.” (The “Valley of Salt” is probably somewhere in the Arabah south or southeast of the Dead Sea [cf. 2 Sam 8:13, reading “Edom” for “Aram,” as in 1 Chr 18:12; also cf. the title of Ps 60].)

Sela. This is a term meaning “rock,” “crag,” or “cliff” in Hebrew (cf. 2 Chr 25:12, where it is used twice as a common noun), but probably it is a proper noun here (often identified as Petra [cf. LXX] but more likely al-Sela’, 20 mi. [32 km] south of the Dead Sea and 2.5 mi. [4 km] northwest of Buseira [biblical Bozrah]; cf. Jones 2009; Hart 1986:91-95).

Joktheel. Renaming a captured location implied control over it (cf. Israelite “Dan” for the originally Canaanite city of “Laish” in Judg 18:29). For the significance of the eyewitness testimony implied in the phrase “to this day,” see the note on 2:22. The meaning of the name Joktheel is uncertain.

14:8 Come and meet me in battle! Lit., “Come, let us look at each other (in the) face” (cf. NLT mg), an expression used only here and in 14:11 (there in a clear context of military confrontation). It is less certain whether the intent here is hostile or not, which may be the very point the narrator wishes to make. Was Amaziah open to Jehoash’s suggestion that he refrain from further military action, or was his mind already made up? Cogan and Tadmor (1988:156) cite semantically equivalent Akkadian examples signifying both peaceful meetings or, less often, hostile confrontations.

14:9 thistle . . . mighty cedar tree. Thus begins a brief parable or “fable” (cf. Solomon 1985:114-125 for an excellent discussion of this literary genre), which Jehoash (the “mighty cedar tree” of Lebanon) uses to try to “disarm” Amaziah (the “thistle” of Lebanon). As is the case with parables, the details should not be pressed (e.g., whether an actual marriage proposal had ever been proffered or who was represented by the “wild animal of Lebanon”; cf. Japhet 1993:868). Plant and animal fables are attested elsewhere in the Bible (e.g., Jotham’s fable in Judg 9:8-15), as well as throughout the ancient Near East (e.g., in the Amarna letters [see the commentary on 1 Kgs 10:14-29 for details], as when King Labayu of Shechem writes the Pharaoh: “When an ant is struck, does it not fight back and bite the hand of the man that struck it?” [Moran 1992:305-306; cf. Sweeney 2007:365]). Cogan and Tadmor (1988:156) cite other examples from Mesopotamia, and Wiseman (1993:245), from Ugarit.

14:10 be content. Jehoash, who was presumably allied with Adad-nirari III of Assyria at this time (see the note on 13:10), shows “judicious patience” in his advice to Amaziah to remain satisfied with his victory over Edom. The northern provenance of the present tradition is once again quite evident (see the first note on 13:6), with Jehoash appearing in a positive light vis-à-vis Amaziah.

14:11 Beth-shemesh in Judah. This is an important site (Tell al-Rumeileh) 15 mi. (24 km) west of Jerusalem in the Shephelah (lowlands). As a border town with Philistia in the Sorek Valley, it plays a prominent role in the story of the capture and return of the Ark (cf. 1 Sam 6:9-15). In the present text, inclusion of the phrase “in Judah” again indicates the likely northern origin of this material (although it may merely be used to distinguish the well-known Judahite site from other, northern “Beth-shemeshes” mentioned in Josh 19:22 [in Issachar] and in Josh 19:38 [in Naphtali]).

14:13 600 feet of Jerusalem’s wall. Lit., 400 cubits; concerning the length of the “cubit,” see the note on 1 Kgs 6:2. Jerusalem’s northern wall, its most crucial, was thus extensively breached and the city immediately rendered defenseless (steep ravines helped protect Jerusalem on the western and eastern sides, as well as to some degree on the narrow southern side).

Ephraim Gate . . . Corner Gate. The former was probably the main gate in the center of the northern wall, and the latter the gate in the northwest corner tower (Cogan and Tadmor 1988:157).

14:14 gold . . . silver . . . articles . . . treasures. This embarrassed Amaziah as thoroughly as Hazael the Aramean had embarrassed Joash his father (see 12:17-18). This sad similarity between father and son will soon extend to the manner of their deaths (see the commentary for a discussion on whether these violent deaths represent further fulfillment of Elijah’s curse against the house of Ahab).

hostages. This is an unusual Hebrew idiom, lit., “sons of pledges” (bene hatta‘aruboth [TH8594, ZH9510]). Cogan and Tadmor (1988:157) note that in contemporary Assyrian records, family members related to the defeated king were often carried off and kept under guard in order to ensure good behavior of the king left on the throne; such hostages could also be held for ransom at a later time.

14:15-16 The information presented in these verses appears with only slight differences in 13:12-13 (see the note there, which includes the observation that the present location of these verses was probably original). Recently, Provan (1995:236-237) has argued persuasively that the inclusion of these verses concerning Jehoash of Israel here may well indicate that it was he (and not Amaziah) who was in essence the real ruler of Judah at this time (also see Leithart 2006:240).

14:17 lived for fifteen years. This was presumably part of Amaziah’s 29-year reign (see the note on 14:2 for details).

14:18 are recorded in The Book of the History of the Kings of Judah. See “Literary Style” in the Introduction.

14:19 a conspiracy. Heb., qesher [TH7195, ZH8004]; the verbal form is also used. This same phrase was used concerning the sadly analogous fate of Amaziah’s father, Joash (cf. the first note on 12:20). Whether the Jehoash debacle is the cause of this conspiracy is not clearly stated, but it is definitely implied (this is similar to the evident cause of his father’s untimely death, again at the hands of assassins; see 12:20-21).

Lachish. This was an important and heavily fortified site in the Shephelah (Tell al-Duweir), 30 mi. (50 km) southwest of Jerusalem (Ussishkin 2008). Sweeney (2007:366) suggests that it served as a sort of “second capital” to Jerusalem, projecting Judahite power onto the Philistine plain and the coastlands; it thus served as an appropriate spot for Amaziah to rally support against the conspirators.

14:21 Uzziah. Or “Azariah”; see the first note on 15:1 for details.

14:22 Uzziah rebuilt the town of Elath and restored it to Judah. This is yet another reference to Edom vis-à-vis Judah. Elath is an Edomite seaport near Ezion-geber (1 Kgs 9:26); see the first note on 14:7 concerning such continuing focus on Edomite locations (cf. 16:6). Possibly, this took place after the death of King Jehoash of Israel, the de facto power over Judah at the time (so Na’aman 1993:228-230; also see the note on 14:15-16).

COMMENTARY [Text]

The material regarding Amaziah represents a paradox: A king who was said to be good (14:3) is generally presented in quite a bad light. This is in part due to the inclusion of tradition that is probably northern in origin (see 14:10), but rather than explaining this as the result of unintended editorial inconsistency, I would submit that we end up with an evaluation remarkably accurate as well as subtle in overall effect. King Amaziah did try to do well (cf. 14:3), both in internal (14:5-6) and external affairs (14:7). But he eventually overreached in the latter category, prompting King Jehoash of Israel to caution him with the famous fable about the thistle and the cedar tree of Lebanon (14:9-10, with the threefold reference to “Lebanon” in the north acting as an obvious literary contrast to Amaziah’s exploits in the south just enumerated). Along with other signs of northern origin, this narrative ends with a sober recitation of an abject, humiliating defeat for Amaziah (14:11-14) at the hands of the north, an ignominious debacle almost on par with Nebuchadnezzar’s victory over Jerusalem and its Temple, described in the last chapter of Kings. As in the days of Joash his father (12:17-18) and Hezekiah his great-grandson (see 18:14-16), so also during Amaziah’s reign: Foreigners brought about nothing less than the embarrassing emptying of the Temple treasury, as well as much other mischief.

Leithart (2006:238) makes much of the symmetry between Joash of Judah as a second Solomon and his son Amaziah as a second Rehoboam (son of Solomon); this certainly does seem fitting in reference to the ransacking of the Temple by powerful foreigners, which takes place in each of their reigns (14:11-14; cf. 1 Kgs 14:25-26). Though artificial, such symmetries nonetheless do gain some currency in light of the curious chronological symmetries I have found between Amaziah and Hezekiah (see the first note on 14:2 for details). But what to do with Amaziah himself? I guess, as with life in general, we must remain open to the intriguing inconsistencies here. Amaziah was a “good” king, yet not like David but rather like his father, Joash (14:3). Amaziah commendably followed the strictures of Mosaic Torah as found in the book of Deuteronomy (14:6). Amaziah attained some stability in his reign through bold actions (14:5), and he also attained some remarkable victories over the Edomites, Judah’s persistent nemesis (14:7). But he eventually overreached—and that may have been the reason for his demise (14:11-14, 19). Thus, he was a complicated king for a complicated time, serving under a complicated God (cf. Leithart 2006:239), who was sovereign not only of his kingdom of Judah, but also of Jehoash’s kingdom of Israel (13:23-25). Then, as today, things get very complicated when the people of God go to war against other people of God.

But the most intriguing, continuing parallel between Amaziah and his Judahite predecessors when compared with Jehoash and his Israelite predecessors has not been discussed up to this point. I owe this insight to Sweeney (2007:343, 349, 363), who traces with considerable detail the eventual fulfillment of Elijah’s prophecy against the whole house of Ahab (1 Kgs 21:20-26), which in its entirety would encompass all the related kings both northern and southern. As was seen in chapters 9–10, Jehu exterminated every possible candidate for kingship over the northern house of Israel (cf., particularly, 10:10-11, 17) and, for that matter, nearly every candidate for the southern house of Judah as well (cf. 10:14). And in chapter 11, Athaliah (daughter or granddaughter of Omri [see the note on 11:1], and thus also subject to Elijah’s curse) met her own untimely death, but not until after she had attempted to exterminate the rest of the southern royal family. Joash (Athaliah’s grandson) was hidden from her and in due course was crowned king. But he too was eventually assassinated (12:20-21), as was his son Amaziah (14:19-20). The various events and vicissitudes facing these southern monarchs preclude simple moralizing, but it does seem that Elijah’s curse continued in its effect at least “to the third and fourth generation” of those who hated him (concerning that famous phrase, originally found in the Ten Commandments, see “The ‘Sins of Manasseh’” under “Major Themes” in the Introduction). Sweeney provocatively also sees the end of 2 Kings, where Jehoiachin (Mephibosheth-like) is released from prison to eat at the table of the Babylonian king (thus bringing the Davidic dynasty effectively to an end [25:27-30; cf. 2 Sam 9:1-13; 19:24-30]), as representing the final fulfillment of Elijah’s stern pronouncement against any and all possible descendants of the house of Ahab! (Talk about a powerful prophecy!) The Davidic hope for Christian believers is by no means snuffed out with the effective end of the Davidic dynasty, but it is no longer to be personified by political kings on a Judean throne.

Finally, and on a more practical note, we find in the present passage perhaps the most vivid negative example in Scripture of the importance of Jesus’ sobering reminder (in Luke 14:31-32) that we are to “count the cost” before we even consider entering into battle against an obviously superior foe. Amaziah evidently did not, and that ended up costing him dearly—from the loss of the Temple and palace treasuries to the effectual loss of his capital city, Jerusalem, as a defensive bulwark, and even the eventual loss of his own life. We disciples of the ultimate Son of David should count the cost carefully as well, for Jesus bids us to contemplate nothing less than the giving of everything we own as the continuing price of following him (Luke 14:33). For those who are willing, the price is worth it, for what else in this world truly matters (cf. John 6:68-69)?