IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?
If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus. (But preferably not from aol.com, for some reason they do not deliver our messages).
FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.
THE PENTATEUCH --- GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS --- NUMBERS --- DEUTERONOMY --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- THE BOOK OF RUTH --- SAMUEL --- KINGS --- EZRA---NEHEMIAH--- ESTHER--- PSALMS 1-58--- PROVERBS---ECCLESIASTES--- SONG OF SOLOMON --- ISAIAH --- JEREMIAH --- LAMENTATIONS --- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL --- --- HOSEA --- --- JOEL ------ AMOS --- --- OBADIAH --- --- JONAH --- --- MICAH --- --- NAHUM --- --- HABAKKUK--- --- ZEPHANIAH --- --- HAGGAI --- ZECHARIAH --- --- MALACHI --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- READINGS IN ROMANS --- 1 CORINTHIANS --- 2 CORINTHIANS ---GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS--- PHILIPPIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- PHILEMON --- HEBREWS --- JAMES --- 1 & 2 PETER --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- JUDE --- REVELATION --- THE GOSPELS & ACTS
By Dr Peter Pett BA BD (Hons) DD
The Reign Of Amaziah, King Of Judah (25.1-28).
The reign of Amaziah received qualified approval from the Chronicler. He says of him that he ‘did what was right in the eyes of YHWH but not with a perfect heart’. 2 Kings 14.3 puts it, ‘yet not like David his father. He did according to all the Joash his father had done.’ In other words he mainly followed in the pathway of encouraging Yahwism, but later to some extent came short as we shall see.
Once his kingship was established he avenged the death of his father by executing his assassins, and won approval by not also avenging himself on their children. He then amassed his troops in preparation for an invasion of Edom. But he made the mistake of hiring mercenaries from Israel, for which he was rebuked on the grounds that in YHWH’s eyes Israel and its assistance was unacceptable. Israel could only drag Judah down. Having remedied this at some cost, he then defeated Edom soundly and they presumably became subject to him. Meanwhile the Israelite mercenaries took revenge on a portion of Judah. And it was at this stage that Amaziah fell and began to worship the gods of Edom which he had captured and taken back with him to Jerusalem.
Because of his turning to idolatry the Chronicler informs us that God then put it in his heart to invade Israel. Humanly speaking this may well have been because of the activities of the Israelite mercenaries against Judah. This venture, however, ended in disaster because YHWH was no longer with Him, and as a consequence part of the wall of Jerusalem was broken down and all the treasures of Judah, including the Temple treasure, were taken as spoil by Israel together with a number of important hostages.
It would appear that the disaster he had brought on Judah aroused the leaders of Judah against him. As a consequence of his following idols, and no doubt as a consequence of his fiasco against Israel, a conspiracy grew in Judah which meant that he eventually had to flee for refuge in Lachish. But the conspirators eventually followed him to Lachish and slew him. So the reign that had begun so promisingly ended in disaster. Meanwhile it would appear that Uzziah was acting as his co-regent in Jerusalem. The conspiracy had been against Amaziah, not against the house of David.
Note that in A we have the commencement of his reign and in the parallel we have its cessation. In B Amaziah amasses his army and hires Israelite mercenaries, and in the parallel his army is thoroughly trounced by Israel. In C Amaziah successfully invades Edom, sending home the Israelite mercenaries, and in the parallel prepares to invade Israel because of the activities of the Israelite mercenaries. Central in D is the fact that Amaziah worshipped the Edomite gods and thus came under the wrath of YHWH.
Amaziah Comes To The Throne And Does What Is Right In The Eyes Of YHWH (25.1-4).
The passage commences with a subsection summarising his reign, and indicating somethin of what he was like.
Analysis.
Note that in A, on coming to the throne, Amaziah did what was right in the eyes of YHWH, and in the parallel he obeyed the command of YHWH as written in the Torah (Law) of Moses. In B he slew the officials who had slain his father, and in the parallel he did not slay their children.
2.25.1 ‘Amaziah was twenty five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty nine years in Jerusalem, and his mother’s name was Jehoaddan, of Jerusalem.’
Amaziah was twenty five years old when he began to reign. That means that he was born in the fifteenth year of the reign of Joash, and therefore in his early years would have come under the influence of Jehoiada, and would have been aware of the renewing of the Temple whilst it was still important to Joash. (The renewal work had not begin in the twenty third year of Joash’s reign - 2 Kings 12.5). He would then have witnessed Joash’s defection from YHWH, the murder of Zechariah, and God’s later punishment of Joash. This was almost certainly a factor which influenced the early years of his reign, ensuring that he was pleasing to YHWH.
He reigned for twenty nine years, for the first part of which he did what was right before YHWH, and as usual we are given the name of the Queen Mother who in this case was a native of Jerusalem. She was presumably one of the wives whom Jehoiada had found for Joash, and was therefore probably a godly woman (24.3).
Note On The Co-regency of Uzziah, Amaziah’s Son, With Amaziah.
Jeroboam II reigned for 41 years (2 Kings 14.23). Uzziah (Azariah) came to the throne in Jeroboam’s 27th year (2 Kings 15.1). Thus prior to Jeroboam’s death Uzziah reigned for 14 years (41-27).
But in 2 Kings 15.8 we are also told that Uzziah was in his 38th year when Jeroboam died, and his son Zechariah became king (2 Kings 15.8). There is thus a difference of 24 years (38-14). The only valid explanation, if the statistics are correct, is a 24 year co-regency of Uzziah with Amaziah. That would mean that Uzziah came to the throne as co-regent in Jeroboam’s 3rd year (41-38) and as sole king in his 27th year. Amaziah reigned for 29 years so, taking the 24 years into account, Uzziah must have become co-regent in his 5th year, possibly standing in for Amaziah when Amaziah invaded Edom, or even more likely when he challenged Israel and was defeated and taken captive. The statement that Amaziah ‘lived after the death of Jehoash king of Israel for fifteen years’ (verse 25) may well indicate that he had been held as a captive until Jehoash died and was only then released. This would explain why the Chronicler, who does not usually tie in dates between Judah and Israel, did so in this case. This would provide a sound explanation as to why Uzziah had to become co-regent so early, and explain why the people of Judah ‘took Uzziah and made him king’ when he was sixteen years old (26.1).
End of note.
2.25.2 ‘And he did what was right in the eyes of YHWH, but not with a perfect heart.’
For the first part of his reign he did what was right in the eyes of YHWH. That indicated that he worshipped YHWH truly, encouraged Temple worship, and discouraged idolatrous worship at the high places, although not too assiduously (2 Kings 14.4). His behaviour was seen as being like that of Joash his father, who was also righteous for the first part of his reign, rather than that of David who continued righteous to the end (2 Kings 14.3).
‘But not with a perfect heart’ indicates that his worship of YHWH was not as genuine as it should have been, which was why later he could sink into idolatry. Those who are half-hearted are always in danger of falling.
2.25.3 ‘Now it came about, when the kingdom was established to him, that he slew his servants who had killed the king his father.’
The reference to the kingdom taking time to be established suggests that there were some problems when he first began to reign. Some of the conspirators against Joash may well have been seeking to put on the throne their own candidate. We are told nothing of the details but it is apparent that Amaziah in the end triumphed so that his position on the throne was made secure. And it was then that he began to deal with those who had opposed him. Seemingly among them were the two named assassins of his father, and he therefore had them put to death.
2.25.4 ‘But he did not put their children to death, but did according to what is written in the law in the book of Moses, as YHWH commanded, saying, “The fathers shall not die for the children, nor shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin”.’
But his faithfulness at this time to YHWH was evidenced by the way in which he obeyed the Torah of Moses. It was seen as the test of a good king that he read and obeyed the Torah (Deuteronomy 17.18-19). Thus in obedience to Deuteronomy 24.16 he did not carry out a program against the children of the conspirators. This was unusual for kings who had to fight for their thrones. Usually they exterminated whole households of those who had conspired against them. We can compare also how when Ahab falsely accused Naboth in order to obtain his vineyard, he also slew his sons (2 Kings 9.26).
So in this introduction Amaziah is pictured as ruling faithfully, encouraging the worship of YHWH, and, at least half-heartedly, discouraging idol worship, whilst himself seeking to understand YHWH’s will in His word, and living in accordance with it. It will be noted that in his usual fashion, the Chronicler has not included any reference to idol worship, has excluded the comment found in 2 Kings that he did not live in accordance with the pattern of David, and has demonstrated that he followed the Torah of Moses, although not whole-heatedly. He wanted the Davidic monarch to be seen as reasonably righteous, even though he will later have to expose him. This has been the regular pattern throughout apart for when kings were under the influence of the house of Ahab.
Amaziah Amasses His Army, And Mistakenly Hires Israelite Mercenaries, For Which He Is Rebuked By A Prophet, In Readiness For An Attack On Edom (25.5-9).
The strong relationship between Judah and Israel appears to have been maintained. At no stage has Israel threatened Judah (although this could possibly partly have been because they were afraid of the Syrian threat on their northern border), And Amaziah clearly felt happy at the thought of using Israelite mercenaries. It suggested confidence in Israel, and was something which must have been acceptable to the King of Israel, who was thus encouraging a friendly relationship. But God was not happy with that relationship, for He knew where it might lead. He thus discouraged the use of Israelite mercenaries, pointing out that Israel were disapproved of by Him. The revolution of Jehu, whose descendant was now on the throne of Israel, was not seen as having resulted in an Israel that truly worshipped YHWH (see 2 Kings 13.2, 11). Once again a king of Judah was to learn that relationship with Israel led to chastening because YHWH disapproved (verse 13).
So when Amaziah amassed his force in order to retake Edom, which had been lost to them by Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat, the hiring of Israelite mercenaries was seen as unacceptable to YHWH, Who sent a prophet to rebuke Amaziah for doing so on the grounds that He was not ‘with Israel’ and would not therefore assist any army which contained Israelites who dwelt in Israel.
Analysis.
Note that in A Amaziah gave a hundred talents of silver to the army of Israel, and in the parallel wondered what would happen to them. In B the man of God warned against Amaziah taking the Israelite army with him to battle, and in the parallel warned what would happen if he did.
2.25.5 ‘Moreover Amaziah gathered Judah together, and ordered them according to their fathers’ houses, under commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds, even all Judah and Benjamin, and he numbered them from twenty years old and upward, and found them three hundred large military units (thousands) of chosen men, able to go forth to war, who could handle spear and shield.’
Presumably with his invasion of Edom in view Amaziah ‘gathered Judah together’, Judah being made up of Judah and Benjamin and presumably Israelites who had settled in Judah and had been amalgamated. They were organised in sub-clans (thousands) and further divided into smaller military units (hundreds), with commanders over them. This is a clear case where ‘thousands’ and ‘hundreds’ are not intended literally (we can compare the legions and centuries in the Roman army). As usual the conscription was of those twenty years old and upwards (Exodus 30.14; 38.26; Numbers 1.1; etc. - we are not told the upper limit, probably because most died before it was reached), and they amounted in all to three hundred large military units. Asa had had 580 military units and Jehoshaphat 1,160. Whilst all the units might not have been the same approximate size, it does indicate how the population of Judah had been decimated by the activities of Jehoram, Ahaziah, Athaliah and Joash either through death or through men separating themselves from Judah.
2.25.6 ‘He hired also a hundred large military units (thousand) of brave warriors out of Israel for a hundred talents of silver.’
Presumably because he thought that his army was not large enough Amaziah then hired mercenaries from Israel. This suggests that there were good relations between Israel and Judah. He hired a hundred large military units and offered them a hundred talents of silver (three hundred thousand shekels), a talent of silver per unit. They would then expect to gain even more wealth from the spoils of war.
But this was both encouraging relations with Israel, and coming under obligation to it, both things which were not pleasing to YHWH. Association with Israel involved association with idolatry and false Yahwism, and could lead down to a watering down of Judah’s own faith. As we know they had enough problems with idolatry already without importing any.
2.25.7 ‘But there came a man of God to him, saying, “O king, do not let the army of Israel go with you, for YHWH is not with Israel, that is to say, with all the children of Ephraim.’
Thus a ‘man of God’ (a prophet) came to him and denounced what he had done. He pointed out that YHWH was not supportive of Israel, and would therefore not support anyone who fought alongside them. It would therefore be wise to separate his army from that of Israel so that YHWH could then go with them. Note the stress on the fact that the Israel in question consisted of ‘the children of Ephraim’, that is those who were faithful to the northern kingdom and its idolatry. Northern Israel were becoming known by the name of their largest tribe.
2.25.8 “But if you will go, do bravely, be strong for the battle. God will cast you down before the enemy. For God has power to help, and to cast down.”
He then warned them if they did go ahead and take the Israelite contingents with them, then, however strong they were, and however bravely they fought, it would do them no good. God would cast them down before their enemy. For it was in God’s power to aid or to cast down.
There was a clear indication in this that if Amaziah used only his own forces God would give him victory, no matter what their size, as He had in the past with Asa and Jehoshaphat.
2.25.9 ‘And Amaziah said to the man of God, “But what shall we do concerning the hundred talents which I have given to the army of Israel?” And the man of God answered, “YHWH is able to give you much more than this.”
It was to Amaziah’s credit at this stage that he accepted the prophet’s word. He was willing to do what the prophet had directed. But he had paid a large sum for their assistance. What was he to do about that? The Israelites would be unwilling to hand it back. The prophet assured him that that did not matter, for YHWH was able to give him much more than one hundred talents.
We are reminded here that delayed obedience is disobedience. His dallying with the assistance of Israel had already resulted in the loss of 100 talents. But there would be an even greater cost when the Israelite mercenaries retaliated (verse 13). His moment of weakness would cost Judah dear (but nowhere near what it would have cost if he had taken the Israelite mercenaries with him). God may enable us to restore ourselves, but He does not guarantee that it will be without loss.
Amaziah Releases The Israelite Mercenaries From Going With Him, And Successfully Invades Edom, But Judah Suffers Under Retaliation From The Mercenaries (25.10-13).
By his folly in establishing a relationship with idolatrous Israel Amaziah had put himself in a difficult position from which it was impossible for him to extricate himself without further cost. Meanwhile, however, he accomplished his purpose in defeating the forces of Edom. YHWH was with him in his battle against Edom, but would not assist him to avoid the recompense from the Israelite mercenaries that he had brought on himself and Judah.
Analysis.
Note that in A the army of Israelite mercenaries went home in great anger, and in the parallel they returned to northern Judah to gain revenge. In B Amaziah smote ten large Edomite military units, and in the parallel he captured a further ten large Edomite military units and put them to death.
2.25.10 ‘Then Amaziah separated them, that is, the army that had come to him out of Ephraim, to go home again. For this reason their anger was greatly kindled against Judah, and they returned home in fierce anger.’
In obedience to the words of the man of God Amaziah separated the Israelite troops from his own and sent them home. And in spite of the fact that they had been duly paid they were furiously angry with Judah, presumably because they had been anticipating rich booty.
2.25.11 ‘And Amaziah took courage, and led forth his people, and went to the Valley of Salt, and smote of the children of Seir ten large military units.’
Amaziah then led forth his men to the Valley of Salt, the marshy plain in the valley south of the Dead Sea which continued the Jordan rift valley (the Arabah). And there he seemingly faced twenty large Edomite military units. Ten of these were destroyed before him and the other ten seemingly surrendered.
2.25.12 ‘And the children of Judah carried away alive another ten military units (thousand), and brought them to the top of the Rock, and cast them down from the top of the Rock, so that they were all broken in pieces.’
The ten units which surrendered were dealt with without mercy. They were carried off alive and hurled down from the top of the Rock, with their bodies shattered on landing. We can compare how when David took Moabite prisoners he put two thirds of them to death (2 Samuel 8.2). The idea was to so weaken the enemy that any future resistance was prevented. It was horrific, but typical of the times. It was not God’s doing, but man’s. We are not told that Edom again subjected themselves to Judah at this time but it seems probable that at least part of it did, although Uzziah would later have to retake Elath (26.1).
2 Kings 14.7 tells us that during that war he captured Sela (which means ‘the Rock’) permanently enough for it to be renamed Joktheel ‘to this day’. Renaming a city was a comparatively rare occurrence and indicated permanent occupancy. By this means he was seeking to redress the previous failure of Jehoram (8.20-22).
This invasion probably took place because, in view of the military problems that Judah had been having due to Hazael’s incursion, and the unrest that had led to Joash’s assassination, Edom had seen an opportunity of interfering with the trade routes, or even trying to take them over,. Important trade routes ran through the Negeb from the King’s Highway towards Egypt, and to the port of Elath on the Red Sea, which gave access to south Arabia, both of which could be affected by Edom.
It is doubtful if this Sela was the city of Petra, which was certainly also called Sela, because he does not appear to have gained control of Elath (see 26.1). Had he been so successful that he had captured Petra, that would hardly have been so. The name means ‘the Rock’, and could apply to a number of sites. Comparison with Judges 1.36 might indicate a site in the Arabah south of the Dead Sea, which may well have been a city overseeing the trade routes.
2.25.13 ‘But the men of the army whom Amaziah sent back, that they should not go with him to battle, fell on the cities of Judah, from Samaria even to Beth-horon, and smote of them three sub-clans (thousand), and took much spoil.’
Meanwhile the Israelite mercenaries whom Amaziah had sent back to Israel determined that they would obtain the spoil of which they considered they had been robbed, by attacking cities of Judah and taking spoil from them. Departing from Samaria to which they had returned, they fell on cities of Judah as far as Beth-horon, smiting three sub-clans and taking much spoil.
We are probably intended to see that by this means Amaziah was punished for having made the steps towards Israel that had resulted in the hiring of the mercenaries. Whilst by sending them back he had prevented his army being defeated by the Edomites, he had not got off scot free.
Beth-horon was divided up into Upper and Lower, and controlled the Valley of Aijalon up which went the road from the Coast Plain to the hill country.
Amaziah Starts To Worship The Gods Of Edom Which He Had Captured And Comes Under YHWH’s Anger, Being Warned That YHWH Will Now Destroy Him (25.14-16).
It is testimony to the sinfulness of man’s heart that Amaziah, having been given the victory by YHWH, began to worship the gods of his defeated foe. We do not know what about them was so attractive to him. Perhaps he considered that they had aided his victory (conquerors often saw their success as indicating that their enemies gods had favoured them). But whatever it was he set them up, bowed down before them and burned incense to them. And when a prophet of God sought to warn him of the consequences, he dealt with him cursorily by advising him to ‘shut up or else’. We can only assume that he ignored the fact that the victory was from YHWH, and had begun to take all the credit for the victory himself. He may also have been reacting to the fact that having previously obeyed YHWH parts of Judah had been devastated as a result. He may conveniently have overlooked the fact that had he not entered into relationships with Israel in the first place it would never have happened. Indeed, his folly totally justified YHWH’s position, for if he was foolish enough to worship the gods of a defeated foe, how much more likely was he to worship the gods of a successful ally.
Analysis.
Note that in A Amaziah worshipped the gods of Edom, and in the parallel is informed that therefore YHWH will destroy him. In B the prophet questions Amaziah about his actions, and in the parallel Amaziah warns the prophet off.
2.25.14 ‘Now it came about, after Amaziah had 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 himself down before them, and burned incense to them.’
It was a common practise in the Ancient Near East for a conqueror to claim that he had been assisted in his victory by the gods of the defeated nation. Possibly the hope was then to render those nations quiescent on the grounds that their servitude was the will of their gods. Thus when the Assyrian Rabshakeh called on Jerusalem to surrender in the days of Hezekiah, he claimed that it was YHWH who had sent him to take Jerusalem because of the behaviour of Hezekiah (2 Kings 18.22, 25). That would appear to be the only explanation of what Amaziah did here.
Certainly the bearing off of the gods of a defeated nation is well attested. Compare how the Philistines carried of the Ark which to them represented the God of Israel (1 Samuel 5.1-2), and the Assyrians carried off the gods of Babylon (Isaiah 46.1-2). In contrast David burned the gods of the Philistines which he had captured (1 Chronicles 14.12). He knew that he owed them no gratitude.
It is an indication of how prone Amaziah was to idolatry, that having captured the gods of Edom he bowed down before them and burned incense to them. It may well have been because he was deceived by his own propaganda that they had helped to give him the victory. It does serve to demonstrate how willing he may have been to serve the gods of Israel if he had had a successful alliance with them. No wonder that YHWH had forbidden such an alliance. He did not want His glory to go to false gods.
2.25.15 ‘For which reason the anger of YHWH was kindled against Amaziah, and he sent to him a prophet, who said to him, “Why have you sought after the gods of the people, which have not delivered their own people out of your hand?”
Amaziah’s actions brought YHWH’s wrath on him, and He sent an unnamed prophet to try to bring him to his senses. The fact that he was unnamed indicates how loyal the Chronicler was to his sources. It would have been so easy to give him a name, especially the name of a known prophet. And this prophet pointed out to him the folly of his position. Why had he worshipped gods who had been unable even to deliver their own people out of his hand? Was he really suggesting that YHWH would have been unable to bring about the victory for him without their aid? It was a denial of the all-sufficiency of YHWH.
2.25.16a ‘And it came about, as he talked with him, that the king said to him, “Have we made you of the king’s counsel? Forbear. Why should you be smitten?”
The king’s response demonstrated the truth of what was in his heart. He rejected the prophet of YHWH and asked him who had made him one of the king’s counsellors. He did not want YHWH’s counsel, but the counsel of men whom he himself had appointed. And having in mind what his father had done to the prophet Zechariah, son of Barachiah, son of Jehoiada, he warned him to cease prophesying lest he also be smitten. It was at least in his favour that he gave the prophet a chance to withdraw. But it was a clear rejection of YHWH.
2.25.16b ‘Then the prophet forbore, and said, “I know that God has determined to destroy you, because you have done this, and have not listened to my counsel.”
Recognising the total unwillingness of Amaziah to listen, the prophet gave up his efforts, but not without warning him that as a consequence of his attitude God had determined to destroy him, both because he had worshipped idols, and because he had refused to listen to the counsel of a prophet of YHWH. It was a brave response which could well have had him executed.
Note the use of ‘God’. The prophet wanted him to recognise that there was only one God. Note also the play on the word ‘counsel’. The king relied on the counsel of his own appointees (verse 16a). He thus rejected the counsel of YHWH through His prophet (verse 16b). But it was the counsel of his own appointees which would result in his destruction as determined by YHWH (verse 17).
Amaziah Challenges Jehoash, King Of Israel To Battle, Probably Because Of The Activities Of The Israelite Mercenaries, And Is Warned Off By Jehoash, But Persists Because It Was YHWH’s Intention Thereby To Deliver Him Into The Hands Of His Enemies (25.17-20).
Rejecting the counsel of YHWH Amaziah turned to the counsel of his own appointees who, no doubt seething at what the Israelite mercenaries had done to a portion of northern Judah, advised retaliation against Israel. Both he and they were encouraged by what they had done to Edom. Thus he called on Israel to meet him in battle.
Joash’s reply was hardly conciliatory. It was rather in the form of an insult. He likened Amaziah to a thistle likely to be trodden down by any passing wild beast. He further suggested that Amaziah was deluding himself because of his victory over Edom. Let him rather stay at home like a good little boy, and not try to interfere with those who were superior to him, something which could only bring him hurt. It gives the impression that he was trying to goad him into an invasion.
But the Chronicler (or his source) tells us that in the end it was YHWH Who was in control. It was He Who was ensuring that the battle went ahead so that He could punish Amaziah.
Note that in A Amaziah did listen, to the counsel of his own advisers, and in the parallel would not listen to the counsel of the King of Israel. In B we have the parable spoken by the King of Israel, and in the parallel the practical explanation of it.
2.25.17 ‘Then Amaziah king of Judah obtained counsel, and sent to Joash, the son of Jehoahaz the son of Jehu, king of Israel, saying, “Come, let us look one another in the face.”
Having rejected the counsel of YHWH Amaziah turned to his own appointees for counsel, the ones about whom he had boasted to the prophet of YHWH (verse 16a). And it is clear that they advised retaliation against Israel for what the Israelite mercenaries had done. So Amaziah called on the king of Israel to meet him in battle (see verse 21 for the meaning of ‘looking one another in the face’). Such a call was an indication of his arrogance and of his new-found self-confidence. He could have invaded without warning, as the mercenaries had done, punished Israel and then withdrawn. He may have known how weak Israel was in the days of Jehoahaz and not have recognised how Jehoash of Israel had rebuilt its strength (Jehoash had subdued the Arameans (Syrians)). Perhaps he hoped that the king of Israel would capitulate and give compensation for the invasion.
2.25.18 ‘And Joash king of Israel sent to Amaziah king of Judah, saying, “The thistle which was in Lebanon sent to the cedar which was in Lebanon, saying, “Give your daughter to my son to marry”. And there passed by a wild beast which was in Lebanon, and trod down the thistle.”
Jehoash (Joash) King of Israel tried to warn Amaziah off. This may partly have been in order not to have to waste his own resources in fighting against Judah when the keeping out of Aram was his prime concern, but the reply was so insulting that we might see it as deliberately goading Amaziah to continue his action. No self-respecting king could have done anything but ignore the message, which would no doubt have been delivered in front of his courtiers.
His warning was in the form of a parable and followed a well known kind of illustration (compare Judges 9.7-15). He was stressing to Amaziah both his arrogance and his smallness. Compared with Israel, Judah was like a thistle contrasted with a cedar, a thistle that could easily be trodden down or blown away. Something of little account. Let him therefore continue to glory in his petty victory over Edom and not be foolish enough to take on someone as large as Israel, something which could only result in he himself being hurt.
The author is both seeking to bring out Amaziah’s foolhardiness, whilst at the same time no doubt recognising the true motive behind Joash’s message.
2.25.19 “You are saying (to yourself), ‘Lo, you have smitten Edom.’ And your heart lifts you up to boast. Abide now at home. Why should you meddle to your hurt, that you should fall, even you, and Judah with you?”
Jehoash pictures Amaziah as talking to himself and saying boastfully to himself. ‘Look what you have done, you have smitten Edom’. He then pictures him as getting above himself as a result with the consequence that he boasts about what he will do to Israel. And he then puts him in place. He tells him to stay at home, as though he was a silly schoolboy, and not to meddle in something that can only bring harm to him. For if he does he will fall and bring Judah down with him. The advice was good, but the way of presenting it was calculated to achieve the opposite effect..
2.25.20 ‘But Amaziah would not listen, for it was of God, that he might deliver them into the hand of their enemies, because they had sought after the gods of Edom.’
Understandably Amaziah would not listen. Indeed, had he done so he would have been belittled in front of his court. But we learn that this was all of God Who had determined by this means to bring Amaziah down and deliver him into the hands of his enemies, because he had sought after the gods of Edom. He had proved an unworthy ruler of YHWH’s people.
Amaziah And Judah Are Thoroughly Trounced By Israel And Lose Both Their Treasures And A Number Of Important Hostages (25.21-25).
That Joash of Israel had intended all along to do battle with Amaziah comes out in that he went round to Beth-shemesh of Judah to face him, rather than to the usual border crossing between the two countries. Beth-shemesh guarded the route from the uplands to the Coastal Plain and was thus important tradewise. It may not be without significance that the mercenaries had also attacked Beth-horon, another city which guarded a route from the Coastal Plain eastwards. Joash may well have coveted it for that reason. There he trounced Judah, who fled before him, leaving Amaziah captive in his hands. Accordingly he bore Amaziah up to what was now a Jerusalem, and deliberately made a large breach in the walls of Jerusalem. He then spoiled Jerusalem, taking both the king’s treasures, and the treasure of the house of God. Along with these treasures he also took hostages of whom Amaziah was probably one, necessitating the ascension to the throne of his young son Uzziah (Azariah) as his co-regent earlier than had been intended. 26.1 refers to this commencement of co-regency whilst Uzziah’s father was presumably a prisoner of Joash.
Note that in A Jehoash left Samaria and went up to Judah, and in the parallel he returned from Judah to Samaria laden with treasures and hostages. In B Judah were put to the worst and fled to their homes, and in the parallel Amaziah was borne by Joash to his home Jerusalem, the walls of which were broken down in front of his eyes
2.25.21 ‘So Joash king of Israel went up, and he and Amaziah king of Judah looked one another in the face at Beth-shemesh, which belongs to Judah.’
It will be noted that Joash was clearly all ready for battle and himself chose where the battle would take place. Had he really been wanting peace he would have waited for Amaziah’s next action, but instead he chose to take the battle to Amaziah on Judean territory. He went round to Beth-shemesh ‘which belongs to Judah’ (i.e. is in contrast with other cities named Beth-shemesh, for example in Naphtali) and ‘they looked each other in the face’. This clearly indicates that the latter phrase means that they prepared for battle. The fact that they met at Beth-shemesh in the north-west of Judah may suggest that there was a border quarrel taking place between the two countries in that area, which indeed may have been part of the reason for Amaziah’s challenge, but there can be little doubt that Amaziah also had in mind what the Israelite mercenaries had done to Judah. Being such a large force the mercenaries could hardly have done what they did without at least Joash’s tacit approval. In normal circumstances we would have expected the two armies to face up to each other on the route through Benjamin usually taken by Israelite invasion (16.1). The fact that they did not suggests preplanning by Joash. Beth-shemesh of Judah was important because it guarded the trade route between the Transjordan and the coastal plain via Jerusalem. Such cities were important means of wealth in those days for they could demand tolls of passing merchants.
Beth-shemesh (‘House of the Sun’) was in fact situated in a west-facing valley in the hill country, some 24 kilometres (fifteen miles) west of Jerusalem. It is probably to be identified with modern Tell er-Rumeileh situated on the saddle of a hill spur to the west of the later ‘Ain-Shema. Excavations have revealed that it was occupied from before 2000 BC. It was at one stage a strongly fortified Canaanite city, and presumably a centre for the worship of Shemesh (the Sun), and the discovery there of a clay tablet inscribed in the Ugaritic cuneiform alphabet demonstrates its wide connections. It was later occupied by the Philistines, but was presumably seized by the Israelites in the days of the Judges. It was certainly in Israelite hands in the days of Samuel (1 Samuel 6). Its fortifications were probably strengthened in the time of David in order to keep the Philistines at bay, for casemate walls from around that period have been discovered. It suffered destruction in 10th century BC, possibly at the hands of Pharaoh Shishak in the days of Rehoboam but was refortified, presumably either by Asa (14.6) or Jehoshaphat (17.12-13). It was an important part of Judah’s defences.
2.25.22 And Judah was put to the worse before Israel, and they fled every man to his tent.’
As a consequence of the battle that took place Judah were defeated and had to flee the battlefield. Fleeing suggests that they had been routed. It was made apparent that in spite of His dislike of Israel (verse 7), YHWH was no longer backing Amaziah. Fleeing to their tents might be literal (fleeing back to their camp) or more likely it indicates that they disbanded and made for their homes. The word tent was regularly used by the men of Judah to indicate home, on the basis of their wilderness experience when their homes had literally been tents.
2.25.23 ‘And Joash king of Israel took Amaziah king of Judah, the son of Joash the son of Jehoahaz, at Beth-shemesh, and brought him to Jerusalem, and broke down the wall of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim to the corner gate, four hundred cubits.’
YHWH’s punishment of Amaziah now reached its height. He was dragged off to a defenceless Jerusalem by the King of Israel who then proceeded, no doubt in his sight, to smash down the walls of Jerusalem over a distance of 400 cubits (roughly 600 feet/185 metres), from the gate of Ephraim (Nehemiah 8.16; 12.39) to the Corner Gate (26.9; Jeremiah 31.38; Zechariah 14.10). The Gate of Ephraim would be in the northern wall, the Corner Gate to the west of it.
It is probably not accidental that in verse 17 the Chronicler has stressed that the King of Israel was ‘Joash, the son of Jehoahaz’ (of Israel), who has now defeated Amaziah, ‘the son of Joash, the son of Jeoahaz (of Judah). It was as though he was saying that, thanks to YHWH’s wrath, Amaziah had met his nemesis.
2.25.24 ‘And he took all the gold and silver, and all the vessels which were found in the house of God with Obed-edom, and the treasures of the king’s house, the hostages also, and returned to Samaria.’
Joash (Jehoash), the King of Israel, having broken down the defences of Jerusalem, leaving it defenceless, now proceeded to strip Jerusalem of its treasures. He ransacked both the king’s house and the House of God, the latter treasure being under the control of the Levite Obed-edom. (The Chronicler had a particular interest in Levites as we have seen again and again. He had in mind the position of the Levites in his own day). he also gathered a number of important hostages who probably included Amaziah himself, and returned with them to Samaria. Amaziah’s idol worship had cost him dear. The mention of the hostages, who are usually not mentioned even though they were regularly taken, emphasises that in this case they were seen as important. They were a guarantee of Judah’s future co-operation.
This description of the denuding of Judah of its treasures is regularly the author’s way of expressing YHWH’s displeasure. There is in it also a warning against trusting in fleeting riches. See 12.18; 18.15; 1 Kings 15.18 where it happened to ‘good’ kings, and 16.8; 24.13; 1 Kings 14.6 where it happened to ‘bad kings’.
Neither Kings nor Chronicles were interested in the sequel to this defeat. The Young Uzziah began to reign as regent in his father’s absence and no doubt went quietly until the death of Joash, when Amaziah was seemingly released. Perhaps for a time he also had to pay tribute (we are not told). But the situation does not appear to have done Judah lasting harm for under Uzziah’s long rule Judah attained new heights. However, what the Chronicler was interested in doing was not to outline history, but to use history in order to demonstrate that when the son of David was obedient to YHWH all was successful, but that when he turned from YHWH to follow idols disaster followed. It was a salutary warning to the people of his own day, and a reminder that the final Coming King would be wholly true to YHWH.
Amaziah’s Final End (25.26-28).
The account of the life of Amaziah is completed by a brief description of his final years lived in ignominy and shame. His unacceptable lapse into idolatry had heaped up disaster on him. It was a lapse into which many in Judah were constantly prone, which was why the high places continued to flourish even when good kings sought to get rid of them. Thus what the people suffered was not simply due to the lapses of the king, but also to their own intransigence. However, the lapses of the king encouraged their behaviour which was why he especially came under God’s judgment.
What is described here is somewhat vague as insufficient information is given, and we are left to surmise the actual course of events. The Chronicler was not concerned with the historical detail but with what it demonstrated about God’s judgment on Amaziah. But what is clear is that he had by his behaviour and its consequences lost the confidence of the people which resulted in the end in his assassination. He suffered the same fate as his father.
Note that in A Amaziah lived on after the death of Joash, king of Israel for 15 years, and in the parallel he died. In B the rest of the acts of Amaziah are written in the books of the kings of Judah and Israel, and in the parallel certain of those acts are described.
2.25.25 ‘And Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah lived after the death of Joash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel fifteen years.’
It was not usual for the Chronicler to tie up the reigns of the kings of Judah with those of the kings of Israel, and we are therefore justified in asking why he did so in this case. An obvious reason would be that he knew that Amaziah was released from captivity in Israel on the death of Joash, king of Israel, and was thus able to return to his kingship in Judah for a further fifteen years This would explain why Uzziah took the throne at so young an age. It was because he was forced into it by Amaziah’s captivity. But as verse 27 makes clear, he found that all was not well for him. He now had to face a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem, presumably by the men who had supported Uzziah’s kingship (26.1).
2.25.26 ‘Now the rest of the acts of Amaziah, first and last, behold, are they not written in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel?’
What happened to Amaziah on his release was seemingly recorded in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel, which was probably the official court record, along no doubt with previous information concerning his reign. It would appear that this information had been preserved and was available to the Chronicler, but that he did not consider much of it to be suitable for his purpose.
2.25.27 ‘Now from the time that Amaziah turned away from following YHWH they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem, and he fled to Lachish. But they sent after him to Lachish, and slew him there.’
The time that Amaziah turned away from following YHWH was presumably when he began to worship the gods of Edom. It was thus early on in his reign. But it apparently turned a party in Jerusalem against him, possibly because they saw it as a betrayal of YHWH. They had not forgotten the lessons learned from the behaviour of previous kings. They thus began to conspire against him. His captivity in Israel would have enabled them to appoint Uzziah in his place, and it may well be that they rested content with that and made little effort to obtain Amaziah’s release. It was only when he finally returned that the conspiracy against him once more raised its head, and the murmurings were sufficient to make him recognise that life would be more healthy elsewhere, and caused him to think of changing his residence to Lachiah, Judah’s second largest city, and reigning from there, leaving Uzziah in charge in Jerusalem.
How long he continued in Jerusalem before finally taking refuge in Lachish we are not told, but it is quite clear that he at some stage began to realise that in Jerusalem he was in danger of his life. However, his residence in Lachish did not save him. It would appear that they too were disaffected by him. Thus the conspirators in Jerusalem were able to send men to Lachish to have him put to death there, seemingly without interference. He had totally lost the loyalty of his people.
2.25.28 ‘And they brought him on horses, and buried him with his fathers in the city of Judah.’
His body was then returned to Jerusalem ‘on horses’. There is probably in this statement an indication of disapproval. The Chronicler usually blatantly avoids mentioning horses in relation to Judah. Remarkably his last mention in relation to Judah was when Solomon traded in horses with Egypt in direct disobedience to the Law of Moses in terms of Deuteronomy 17.16. The statement may well therefore be derogatory. Horses had foreign connections
This is confirmed by the reference to him as being buried with his fathers in ‘the city of Judah’. 2 Kings 14.20, and a few MS here together with versions read ‘the city of David’. But ‘city of Judah’ is probably the correct text. It suggests an unwillingness on the part of the Chronicler to mention Jerusalem in connection with him. He was an outcast from Jerusalem. In external texts Jerusalem is also spoken of as ‘the city of Judah’, so it is not unprecedented.
The Reign Of King Uzziah (26.1-23).
As we have seen King Uzziah (also named Azariah) came to the throne when he was sixteen years old, probably because Amaziah his father had been taken captive to Israel. Like his father he began his reign well, doing what was right in the eyes of YHWH and being successful in all his ventures. As a consequence he was able to restore Judah’s fortunes, only for his reign to end up badly when he tried to usurp the Priest’s office by offering incense on the incense altar in the Holy Place. As a consequence he died skin diseased.
Uzziah’s reign was a high point in the history of Judah. In his days the power of Syria was broken by the Assyrians, who then, however, withdrew due to troubles elsewhere. This left both Israel under Jeroboam II and Judah under Uzziah to prosper and spread, an opportunity they took with both hands.
The account of his reign divides up as follows:
Note that in A we have the opening account of his reign, and in the parallel we have the closing account of his reign. These form an inclusio for the whole. In B because he did what was right in the eyes of YHWH he was able to build in both Edom and Philistia, whilst in the parallel because he did what was wrong in the eyes of YHWH he was struck with a virulent skin disease. Central in C was his continuing activity.
Opening Account Of His Reign (26.1).
Together with verses 22-23 this forms an inclusio for the whole passage.
2.26.1 ‘And all the people of Judah took Uzziah, who was sixteen years old, and made him king in the place of his father Amaziah.’
Notice the emphasis on a special action required by the people of Judah. This was probably because Amaziah had been taken captive to Israel, leaving the throne of Judah unoccupied. The people thus called on his son to take the throne as co-regent when he was only sixteen. This was within five years of the accession of Amaziah.
Uzziah Is Able To Build In Edom And Philistia, Having Defeated The Philistines, Because He Did What Was Right In The Eyes Of YHWH And Sought Him Fully (26.2-6).
As with his father Amaziah the first years of Uzziah were years in which he did right in the eyes of YHWH. This phrase is regularly used in order to indicate that a reign began well. As a consequence Uzziah either reconquered Edom, or took over an Edom conquered by his father, and was thus able to redevelop the port of Elath (Eloth). And because he sought YHWH with all his heart he was also able to defeat the Philistines, breaking down the walls of their cities, and himself establishing cities in their territory, a demonstration of his rule over them.
Analysis.
Note that in A he built Eloth in Edom and restored it to Judah, and in the parallel he built cities in Philistia. In B he did what was right in the eyes of YHWH, and in the parallel he sought YHWH and prospered.
2.26.2 ‘He built Eloth, and restored it to Judah, after that the king slept with his fathers.’
It should be noted that this work did not commence until after his father was dead, by which time Uzziah would be forty years old. His father had defeated Edom, but we do not know whether that supremacy was maintained. If it was then presumably Elath had not formed part of the conquest, for after Amaziah’s death Uzziah ‘restored it to Judah’. He then rebuilt it. Elath was connected with Ezion-geber. It was a valuable possession. It gave access to the Red Sea, and therefore to maritime trade with Arabia and East Africa
Eloth (compare 8.17; 1 Kings 9.26) is a variant spelling for Elath (Deuteronomy 2.8; 2 Kings 14.22). The two are found together in 2 Kings 16.6.
2.26.3 Uzziah was sixteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned fifty two years in Jerusalem: and his mother’s name was Jechiliah, of Jerusalem.’
We are now given the usual details of the reign of a king of Judah. He began his reign (as co-regent) when he was sixteen years old, and reigned for fifty two years in Jerusalem. He reigned as co-regent for twenty four years and his sole reign thus began when he was forty. He subsequently reigned for twenty eight years, although in his latter years confined to a royal house because he was a leper, with Jotham acting as co-regent for ten years (verse 23). As usual we are given the name of the queen mother, a sign of her special status. In this case it was Jechiliah, who was a Jerusalemite.
2.26.4 ‘And he did what was right in the eyes of YHWH, in accordance with all that his father Amaziah had done.’
This comment is made in the light of how the reigns began. To begin with Uzziah ‘did what was right in the eyes of YHWH’, as had his father before him until he began to worship the gods of Edom. Uzziah, however, continued to do right in the eyes of YHWH until his final lapse.
2.26.5 ‘And he set himself to seek God in the days of Zechariah, who had understanding in the vision of God, and as long as he sought YHWH, God made him prosper.’
Uzziah was heavily influenced by the prophet Zechariah (otherwise unknown) who seemingly acted as his mentor. Zechariah was a man who ‘had understanding in the vision of God’. He knew God’s ways and was illuminated by Him. As a consequence Uzziah ‘sought YHWH’, and as long as he did so thing went well for him. The fact that he sought God ‘in the days of Zechariah’ suggests that by the time of his final lapse Zechariah was dead. This rules out identification of Zechariah with the one mentioned in Isaiah 8.2. Zechariah was a very common name.
2.26.6 ‘And he went forth and warred against the Philistines, and broke down the wall of Gath, and the wall of Jabneh, and the wall of Ashdod, and he built cities in the country of Ashdod, and among the Philistines.’
This was not an attack against a peace loving nation. The Philistines were ever ready to attack Judah when it was weak (21.16; 28.18). But now under Uzziah Judah had grown strong, and he invaded Philistine territory, broke down the walls of the two great cities Gath and Ashdod, and himself built cities in the country around Ashdod, and in other parts of Philistia. He was there to stay. He also broke down the walls of Jabneh. This was probably another name for Jabneel (Joshua 15.11), a city on the south west boundary of Judah, which had seemingly been taken over by the Philistines. By this means he gained control of the trade routes along the Coastal Plain, as he had the maritime trade though Elath.
Continuing Activity. Uzziah Continues To Build Up The Strength Of The Nation And Makes Himself Strong With The Help Of God (26.7-15).
This subsection deals with the middle part of Uzziah’s reign subsequent to the death of his father and prior to his major lapse. During it he expanded the power and authority of Judah to the west and to the south, and possibly also to the east. He also re-established the walls of Jerusalem, and built fortified towers in the countryside to protect his cattle in the lowlands, and expanded agriculture and husbandry widely. He also established a powerful army, which he armed fully, and invented new kinds of weapons for the protection of Jerusalem.
Analysis.
Note that in A he grew exceedingly strong, and in the parallel he was marvellously helped until he was strong. In B he built towers in Jerusalem and elsewhere and hewed cisterns so as to afford protection from the enemy, and in the parallel he fully armed his troops and made instruments with which he could fire from the towers. Centrally in C his army of fighting men were numbered, and in the parallel we are given their numbers.
2.26.7 ‘And God helped him against the Philistines, and against the Arabians who dwelt in Gur-baal, and the Meunim.’
Uzziah had ruled over Judah as co-regent when Judah was at its lowest point after the devastation wrought on it by Israel. He had no doubt constantly seen his territory raided by predators from Philistia in the west, and by Arabs and related tribesmen from the south. A weakened Judah would have been seen as an easy target, and fair game.
But now God enabled Uzziah to turn the tables on them. He humiliated the Philistines and occupied their territory (see verse 6), and dealt with the Arabs and related tribes who marauded from the south, making Judah’s borders safe. These had previously been involved in the devastation of Judah under Jehoram (21.16). As a consequence of this they all probably had to pay him tribute. Gur-baal is unidentified but has been linked with Jebel Neby Harun, near Petra, which has always been crowned by a sanctuary. However, a Gur is also mentioned in the Amarna letters as east of Beersheba. The Meunim were possibly connected with the city Maan in the neighbourhood of Petra, to the east of Wady Musa. They were also possibly connected with the Maonites (Ma‘on) who had previously oppressed Israel in conjunction with the Amalekites (Judges 10.12). An alternative is to connect them with the inhabitants of a region near Kadesh-barnea mentioned in Assyrian texts.
2.26.8 ‘And the Ammonites gave tribute to Uzziah, and his name spread abroad even to the entrance of Egypt, for he grew exceedingly strong.’
These may have been the Ammonites mentioned in 20.1 who had possibly settled in the wilderness area south of Judah and were separate from their fellow tribesmen in Ammon. This would tie in with his name ‘spreading abroad even to the entrance to Egypt’. But the Ammonites, along with the Moabites, had invaded Judah in 20.1, so it is possible that the Ammonites had later made a similar attempt and had been defeated by Uzziah who then exacted tribute from them. This would tie in with the fact that his son Jotham would also later defeat them and again exact tribute from them in a verse where there can be no doubt that the Ammonite kingdom was in mind (27.5). It may be that the Moabites were already subdued.
‘His name spread abroad even to the entrance of Egypt.’ He was renowned and feared in all the areas south and south west of Judah, and this was because he had militarily become so strong. Egypt itself would not be afraid of him. It could look after itself. One advantage of this was complete control of trade routes from which tolls could be gathered.
2.26.9 ‘Moreover Uzziah built towers in Jerusalem at the corner gate, and at the valley gate, and at the turning of the wall, and fortified them.’
Furthermore Uzziah rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem and erected fortified towers at the Corner Gate, and the Valley Gate, and at ‘the turning of the wall’, so as to ensure the safety of Jerusalem.
2.26.10 ‘And he built towers in the wilderness, and hewed out many cisterns, for he had a great deal of cattle, in the lowland also, and in the plain, and he had husbandmen and vinedressers in the mountains and in the fruitful fields, for he loved husbandry.’
Uzziah also developed the whole country. We know that the Negeb was intensively settled and heavily cultivated at this time by means of irrigation systems, and we see here that in the lowlands and the coastal plain and the wilderness and in the mountains he encouraged agriculture, cattle breeding and husbandry, building towers as a means of protection and shelter, and cisterns to enable a good supply of water. Archaeological evidence has demonstrated that around this time towers and cisterns were built in such places as Qumran, Gibeah, and Beersheba, among others, whilst a seal bearing Uzziah’s name was found in a cistern at Tell Beit Mirsim. Much of this would have been on crown lands (see 1 Samuel 8.12-14; 22.7; 2 Kings 8.3-6; 1 Chronicles 27.25-31). Indeed, we are told that Uzziah ‘loved husbandry’. Many other trades developed at the same time such as the weaving and dyeing industry. It was a time of great prosperity and total security.
2.26.11 ‘Moreover Uzziah had an army of fighting men, who went out to war by regiments (bands), according to the number of their reckoning made by Jeiel the scribe and Maaseiah the officer, under the hand of Hananiah, one of the king’s commanders.’
But all this was only possible because of Uzziah’s military strength. They were well organised in regiments and were numbered by Hananiah, one of the king’s commanders using the services of Jeiel the scribe and Maaseiah the officer.
2.26.12 ‘The whole number of the heads of fathers’ houses, even the mighty men of valour, was two thousand and six hundred.’
Their commanders, who were heads of fathers’ houses (leaders of sub-clans), and bold warriors, were ‘two thousand and six hundred’. This may have represented two larger groups made up of commanders of contingents from Judah and Benjamin respectively, and six smaller groups made up of commanders of contingents from the other tribes who had settled in Judah.
2.26.13 ‘And under their hand was an army, three hundred and seven large military units (thousands) and five smaller units (hundreds), which made war with mighty power, to help the king against the enemy.’
These commanders were over an army consisting of three hundred and seven large military units (‘thousands’) and five smaller units (‘hundreds’). In war they were an efficient fighting force, helping the king against the enemy. If the units were of the same size this is only slightly more than the three hundred large military units gathered by Amaziah for the taking of Edom (25.5). But those were mainly conscripts, these were efficiently trained men.
2.26.14 ‘And Uzziah prepared for them, even for all the host, shields, and spears, and helmets, and coats of mail, and bows, and stones for slinging.’
And they were not only well trained, but also well armed. He provided them with helmets and coats of mail, as well as shields and spears, together with bows and ample stones for slinging. It made them into a formidable force. Gone were the days when a warrior had to provide his own weaponry.
2.26.15 ‘And he made in Jerusalem inventions, invented by skilful men, to be on the towers and on the battlements, with which to shoot arrows and great stones. And his name spread far abroad; for he was marvellously helped, until he was strong.’
Furthermore Uzziah encouraged research and development, and produced inventions which ensured that arrows and great stones could be despatched in safety, and which could be put on the towers and battlements for that purpose These were developed by skilful men no doubt groomed for the purpose. Murals of the siege of Lachish, some time after Uzziah, show wooden frames containing shields which protected archers and throwers on the battlements, and may well have been these inventions. They were not seen on earlier depictions of sieges. (Torsion operated weapons did not appear before 500 BC).
As a consequence of his achievements his name was spread far and wide, because he was ‘marvellously helped’ by YHWH until he became strong. In verse 8 he had been exceedingly strong, but now he was that much stronger.
Although it is not mentioned in Scripture he would need to be, for around 742 BC Tiglath Pileser III launched an invasion from Assyria, but was driven back by a coalition which included ‘Azriyau of Yaudi’ whom many scholars believe was Uzziah (Azariah) of Judah. If this were so it indicated that he could send a considerable fighting force to fight some good distance away, whilst still retaining sufficient to defend the land from marauders.
Uzziah Does What Is Wrong In The Eyes Of YHWH By Usurping The Priest’s Office In That He Seeks To Offer Up Incense Within The Holy Place And Is Consequently Struck With A Virulent Skin Disease ( 26.16-21).
Unfortunately Uzziah’s power went to his head for he began to think that he could do whatever he liked, even ignoring the prohibitions of YHWH. Thus he went into the sacred Holy Place in the Temple, forbidden to all but sons of Aaron, and sought to offer incense on the altar of incense before the veil, as a consequence of which he was struck with a virulent skin disease, and was skin diseased for the final years of his reign, isolated in his own house and forbidden access to the Temple because he was ‘unclean’.
Analysis.
Note that in A Uzziah went into the Temple of YHWH to burn incense on the altar of incense, and in the parallel, because of what he had done he was excluded from the house of YHWH and lived alone as a skin diseased person. In B Azariah and the priests withstood Uzziah and told him to leave the Sanctuary and in the parallel Azariah and the priests thrust him out quickly from the house of YHWH. In C Uzziah was furious as he stood by the altar of incense with a censer in his hand ready to burn incense, and in the parallel, while he was furious he was smitten with leprosy beside the altar of incense.
2.26.16 ‘But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up, so that he did wrongly, and he trespassed against YHWH his God; for he went into the temple of YHWH to burn incense on the altar of incense.’
Great power can result in great arrogance, and this was what happened to Uzziah. His great power caused his heart to be ‘lifted up’, not in worship but in arrogance. And to the horror of the priests he went into the Holy Place in the Temple, accessible only to the priests, to burn incense on the altar of incense, something forbidden to all but sons of Aaron. It was a sad illustration of a man whose greatness caused him to think that he could take a prerogative to himself which God had reserved for others. Perhaps he had kept company with other kings who acted as priest kings in their pagan temples, and felt that he had the right to do the same. After all, as a son of David, was he not a priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110.4)? Why should he not do as other kings did? But he would have known in his heart that such had never been done in Judah before.
The offering of incense was a key part of Near-Eastern worship, and numerous incense altars have been discovered, whilst many ancient texts bear witness to the procurement of incense for temples. Ancient kings, who often also acted as priests, would regularly offer incense at their festivities, something which Jeroboam I contrived to do in Israel (1 Kings 12.23), only then to receive a prophetic warning (1 Kings 13.1 ff.). It was seen as an act of great intimacy between man and God/the gods.
To perform such an act illegally could only be compared with the strange fire offered by the two sons of Aaron in the Sanctuary which caused them to be struck down (Leviticus 10.1-2), and the deliberate touching of the Ark by Uzza which had the same result for him (1 Chronicles 13.9-10). It was an act of sheer blasphemy which trespassed against the holiness of YHWH. We could say that Uzziah got off lightly in that he was only struck with a severe skin disease. We can compare here the plague that came on those who illicitly offered incense to YHWH in the wilderness (Numbers 16.1-50). It is significant there that Moses saw the offering of incense as the key factor that separated priest from laity (Numbers 16.7).
2.26.17 ‘And Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him eighty priests of YHWH, who were brave men,’
The High Priest Azariah, and the other priests on duty, must have watched in horror as they saw the king stride forward and enter the Holy Place. But such was their awe of the king that the High Priest sought support before he went in after the king. This was forthcoming from eighty brave priests who were prepared to face the king’s wrath in order to defend the holiness of the Sanctuary. And these brave men followed the king into the Sanctuary.
2.26.18 ‘And they withstood Uzziah the king, and said to him, “It is not your right, Uzziah, to burn incense to YHWH, but it is (the right) of the priests the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense. Go out of the sanctuary, for you have trespassed; nor will it be for your honour from YHWH God.’
And there in the Sanctuary they ‘withstood him’. Even as he stood there with the censor in his hand they informed him that he was not within his rights to burn incense to YHWH. They pointed out to him that in accordance with God’s Law only the sons of Aaron had that right. They alone had been consecrated to burn incense to YHWH (Exodus 30.1-10; Numbers 16.40; 18.1-7. 29.11 is not an exception as it can simply refer to the priests among the Levites ). Then they advised him to leave the Sanctuary immediately because he had trespassed in even entering the Sanctuary, and pointed out to him that it would bring him no honour from God, indeed the opposite.
We must not underestimate their bravery. They would be able to see as soon as they began to rebuke him how angry he was getting, and they knew that he could order their wholesale execution. Outwardly their only safety lay in their numbers, and the reaction their summary execution might have on the people. But it was not something that could be counted on too strongly. Uzziah was all-powerful in Judah and few would resist him.
2.26.19 ‘Then Uzziah was furious, and he had a censer in his hand to burn incense, and while he was furious with the priests, the skin disease broke out on his forehead before the priests in the house of YHWH, beside the altar of incense.’
They could see by looking at him how furious he was with them. As he stood there with the censor in his hand, he could hardly contain himself at their effrontery. And they must have feared the worst. And then it happened. As the priests watched him in the house of YHWH, stood beside the altar of incense, they saw a virulent skin disease break out on his forehead. They had no doubt that God had smitten him.
2.26.20 ‘And Azariah the chief priest, and all the priests, looked at him, and, behold, he was skin diseased in his forehead, and they thrust him out quickly from there, yes, he himself hurried also to go out, because YHWH had smitten him.’
For as Azariah the chief priest, and all the priests who were with him, looked at Uzziah, they saw the virulent skin disease on his forehead. In their eyes, and indeed in his own eyes, this rendered him unclean and unfit to be in the Temple area. So now he was no longer angry and resistant, but deeply aware that God had smitten him, and he needed no encouragement from them to leave the Temple. He was only too pleased to get out, whilst they, as speedily as they dared, hurried him out of the Temple.
It is easy to try to explain what happened in terms of great emotional stress which can sometimes cause the symptoms of skin disease to appear. But we must take note of the fact that the skin disease did not leave him for the rest of his life. It was something more than a passing phenomenon. Certainly none who knew of it saw in it any other than the hand of YHWH. In their view it was YHWH Who had smitten him.
Uzziah’s Isolation And Death (26.21-23).
As a consequence of his folly Uzziah took his place among the living dead. He had been struck by a permanent skin disease which never left him, and no one of any importance in Judah would want to come near him. For the consequence of a continuing skin disease was that the diseased person was isolated ‘outside the camp’ (Leviticus 13.46), in other words was cut off and avoided. Being king he was not cast out of Jerusalem to exist as best he could, but was supplied with his own house, and no doubt arrangements were made for people to look after him, possibly foreign slaves. But he could not enter into court life (all who came in contact with him would be unclean) and his visitors would be few. Nor could he take part in Temple worship. He was still king, but his was the lonely life of the outcast. Compare the skin diseased men in 2 Kings 7.3.
2.26.21 ‘And Uzziah the king was skin diseased to the day of his death, and dwelt in a separate house, being skin diseased, for he was cut off from the house of YHWH, and Jotham his son was over the king’s house, judging the people of the land.’
It is made clear here that from this point on Jotham his son dwelt as ruler in the king’s house, judging the people of the land. Meanwhile Uzziah was skin diseased to the date of his death, and dwelt in a separate house, which itself as a consequence would be unclean and would render unclean any who entered. Worst of all he was cut off from the house of YHWH. It would be the responsibility of the gatekeepers not to allow him entry. It was a sad end to a magnificent reign caused by arrogance and blasphemy.
2.26.22 ‘Now the rest of the acts of Uzziah, first and last, Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, wrote.’
For other events in the life of Uzziah the Chronicler refers us to the book of Isaiah the son of Amoz, who also prophesied what is in our Book of Isaiah. It would appear from this that Isaiah also wrote an historical record concerning kings he knew even though he probably did not prophesy during Uzziah’s reign. In a parallel verse 2 Kings 15.6 refers us to the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah. Whilst the Chronicler does not refer to the book of Isaiah mentioned here in respect of Jotham and Ahaz (both kings concerning whom we would have expected Isaiah to write) that may simply be because having drawn the attention of his readers to the book he assumed that they would also use it as a source book for those two kings. In their case he goes back to the Books of the Kings of Judah and Israel ( 27.7; 28.26) which may have incorporated within it the book of Isaiah mentioned.
2.26.23 ‘So Uzziah slept with his fathers, and they buried him with his fathers in the field of burial which belonged to the kings, for they said, “He is skin diseased,” and Jotham his son reigned instead of him.’
The life of Uzziah ends with the usual reference to his death and burial. Like previous kings he ‘slept with his fathers’, but in his case he was not buried in the sepulchres of the Kings of Judah, but in a field of burial which belonged to them. This was because he was skin diseased. And his son Jotham, who had been his co-regent for ten years, reigned in his place.
Interestingly a Hasmonean ossuary has been discovered bearing the inscription, ‘Herein are the bones of Uzziah, King of Judah. Do not open.’ It may be testimony to his separate burial with his bones having been discovered in his tomb during digging. On the other hand it may simply have been wishful thinking.
The Reign Of Jotham (27.1-9).
Jotham’s reign is presented in summary form in both 2 Chronicles and 2 Kings. The Chronicler presents him as mainly without fault apart from the fact that in Jotham’s day some of the people ‘behaved corruptly’. The fault, however, was not with Jotham. Here, as regularly, but not always, the Chronicler tones down any reference to idolatry and false worship, as mentioned in 2 Kings. His aim is constantly to present the sons of David in the best possible light, especially in the first part of their reigns, apart from those who were linked to the house of Ahab. In the case of Jotham, whose reign is depicted as untroubled, he excludes any reference to the threatenings of Israel and Aram (Syria) against Judah caused by them wanting to force Judah into an alliance with them against Assyria. He did not see it as being retribution for anything that Jotham had done. It will, however, come to the fore in the reign of Ahaz.
Analysis.
Note that in A we have the commencement details and summary of his reign and in the parallel we have a source for the summary details of his reign. In B he did what was right in the eyes of YHWH, and in the parallel this resulted in his becoming mighty because he ordered his ways before YHWH. In C he fortified Jerusalem and Judah, and in the parallel he brought the Ammonites into subjection.
2.27.1 ‘Jotham was twenty five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem, and his mother’s name was Jerushah the daughter of Zadok.’
Jotham commenced reigning at the age of twenty five. If we take this as the age at which he commenced his co-regency with Uzziah he was around thirty five when he became sole ruler. His sixteen year reign would therefore include ten years co-regency with Uzziah, and six years as prime ruler. But 2 Kings 15.30 speaks of the twentieth year of Jotham which in 2 Kings 17.1 equates with the twelfth year of Ahaz. This could have arisen because Jotham became indisposed so that Ahaz at some stage became prime ruler, a period not included in the above verse. This would mean that at least four years of Ahaz’s twelve year co-regency were as prime ruler, and more if Jotham’s reign continued beyond the twentieth year. Ahaz would then at the most have commenced his co-regency in the final two years of Uzziah’s reign due to Uzziah being indisposed with skin disease. With regard to all this we must remember that the Biblical writers took their statistics from their sources, which used different methods of calculation, without trying to reconcile them.
As usual we are given the name of the Queen Mother, although in this case not her place of birth. That may have been because her family was so well known.
2.27.2 ‘And he did what was right in the eyes of YHWH, in accordance with all that his father Uzziah had done, however he did not enter into the temple of YHWH. And the people yet behaved corruptly.’
As so often with the kings the praise has a sharp edge to it. He did what was right in the eyes of YHWH in the same way as his father Uzziah had done for most of his reign, and even possibly after he had sinned so grievously. In other words he encouraged the worship of YHWH and obedience to the covenant. But there is a proviso in that ‘the people yet behaved corruptly. This is not so much a blemish on Jotham as a reminder that with all the kings’ efforts it was not possible to stop the false worship at the high places, and the corruption that went with it, for which see Isaiah 1-5 and Micah. All was not perfect in the kingdom. It would require the future David to bring that about.
‘However he did not enter into the temple of YHWH.’ This is probably a commendation indicating that he did not sin as his father had done by forcing his way into the Sanctuary. Through Uzziah’s skin disease the lesson had been learned once for all.
2.27.3-4 ‘He built the upper gate of the house of YHWH, and on the wall of Ophel he built a great deal. And he built (fortified) cities in the hill-country of Judah, and in the forests he built castles and towers.’
As with most of the good kings, and some of the not so good ones, he engaged in extensive building works. But in none of these cases except for Solomon is it said that he used ‘strangers’ as slave labour, The building of fortifications was quite probably the work of soldiers.
So he built, or repaired, the Upper Gate of the House of YHWH, and did building work on the wall of Ophel. Ophel probably indicated the spur of land on which the City of David was located. He thus fortified its wall. As well as this he fortified cities in the hill-country of Judah, and built castles and towers in the forests. Large parts of the land were covered by forests. These castles and towers would be for defensive purposes. He was continuing the work of his father.
2.27.5 ‘He fought also with the king of the children of Ammon, and prevailed against them. And the children of Ammon gave him the same year a hundred talents of silver, and ten thousand measures of wheat, and ten thousand of barley. So much the children of Ammon rendered to him, in the second year also, and in the third.’
The Ammonites had been brought under tribute by Uzziah (26.8), and Jotham now continued that situation by force of arms. Possibly the death or retirement of Uzziah had caused them to rebel. Moab appears to have been quiescent at this time. But it would appear that the situation only continued for three years. It may well have been the resurgence of Israel and Aram (Syria) that brought it to an end, for 2 Kings 15.37 tells us that ‘in those days YHWH began to send against Judah Rezin the king of Aram (Syria) and Pekah the son of Remaliah’, who was king of Israel. But there is no suggestion that they actually invaded Judah itself at this stage.
2.27.6 ‘So Jotham became mighty, because he ordered his ways before YHWH his God.’
We are now told why Jotham became mighty. It was because he ordered his ways before YHWH His God. In other words he lived and reigned by the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 17.18-20), keeping it in his heart because of his personal love for YHWH. As the chiastic parallel says, he did what was right in the eyes of YHWH (verse 2).
2.27.7 ‘Now the rest of the acts of Jotham, and all his wars, and his ways, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah.’
The subsection ends with a note as too where more information could be obtained. It was obtainable from the book of the kings of Israel and Judah, a regular source for such information. This was probably the official court record which was constantly maintained. Note the reference to his wars. This would include his war with Ammon described above, but it also includes his response to the activities of both Israel under Pekah, and Aram (Syria) under Rezin, as they sought to bring Judah into alliance with them against the Assyrian menace (2 Kings 15.37).
Final Brief Summary Of Jotham’s Reign (27.8-9).
The information about Jotham’s reign is now concluded with the usual summary.
Analysis.
Note that in A Jotham reigned, and in the parallel his son reigned instead of him. In B he reigned in Jerusalem, and in the parallel he was buried in the City of David.
2.27.8 ‘He was twenty five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem.’
This is a repeat of the information in verse 1, which see. He probably commenced acting as co-regent at around the age of sixteen when his father, Uzziah, was smitten with skin disease, and commenced his sole reign at the age of twenty five. Whilst this kind of repetition of exact information is unusual it fits in with the chiastic construction, and there is no good reason for denying it to the Chronicler. Perhaps it is repeated in order to underline the Chronicler’s approval of Jotham.
2.27.9 ‘And Jotham slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the city of David: and Ahaz his son reigned instead of him.’
Jotham died, and was buried in the city of David, although surprisingly there is no mention of him as being buried in the sepulchres of the kings. It may be that he chose to be buried near his father. We have in this an indication that the Chronicler was following genuine sources. Had he been inventing he would almost certainly have described him as buried in the sepulchres of the kings. Jotham the almost model exemplar was followed on the throne by his son Ahaz, who, as we shall see, was the very opposite.
The Reign of Ahaz (28.1-27).
In composing his narrative it was possibly the intention of the Chronicler to contrast the righteousness and goodness of Jotham (who as we have seen was presented as almost without blemish), with the nefarious and idolatrous behaviour of Ahaz, who was painted as black as can be. And this was enhanced by the fact that the righteous King Hezekiah, who removed all idolatry from Israel, immediately followed after Ahaz. The life of Ahaz was thus painted against the background of two righteous kings.
And the contrast is startling, for as will soon be apparent, Ahaz sank into every level of idolatry, and this included the passing through the fire of his children in the Valley of Hinnom. He thus sank to the very depths of evil in a way in which not even the worst of his forefather had done. He revelled in idolatry of every kind.
We are probably intended to see in this the depths to which Judah itself had fallen. We have constantly learned of the continued prevalence of the high places in Judah because of the intransigence of the people (14.3; 21.11), even in the face of the attempts by righteous kings to reform (15.17; 20.33). And we have learned that during the reign of Jehoshaphat the people had not set their hearts to the God of their fathers (20.33), so that even during the reign of righteous Jotham ‘the people still dealt corruptly’ (27.2). There was thus clearly a continual undercurrent of idolatrous behaviour in Judah. But now the depths to which they had fallen comes out in the way in which Ahaz behaved, for he could not have incited them as he did without many of them being willing. It must at least partly have been as a consequence of subversive activity among the people. Furthermore some influential parties must have been influencing him in his behaviour, for it was not his father, nor presumably, his father’s close advisers, who incited him in this way. Ahaz should, of course have risen above it, and God gave him every opportunity to do so, but instead he appears to have entered enthusiastically into the ideas of corrupt people, and this in the face of the prophesying of Isaiah.
Furthermore Isaiah makes clear that he was without excuse. For through Isaiah YHWH offered him deliverance from his enemies, and even offered to give him a supernatural sign of the certainty of that deliverance (see Isaiah 7.1-11), but Ahaz refused both, preferring to look to the king of Assyria who would prove his downfall. YHWH therefore did give him a supernatural sign, but this time it was a sign of his rejection, for it asserted that the coming expected David who would establish the everlasting kingdom would not be born of his house, but would be supernaturally born of a virgin (Isaiah 7.14), a sign remarkably fulfilled in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, great David’s greater Son.
Thus during the reign of Ahaz two history changing events took place. Firstly that Israel were exiled from their land for most of them never to return (they would be absorbed among the nations), and secondly that the coming son of David was no longer to be born of David’s seed but was to be supernaturally born. The Chronicler, however, ignores both of these remarkable events.
Analysis.
Note that in A Ahaz commenced his reign and in the parallel he ceased it. In B he indulged in all kinds of idolatry and in the parallel he did the same. In C he was delivered into the hands of the king of Aram (Syria), and in the parallel he worshipped the gods of the kings of Aram (Syria) because those gods had helped them. In D he was smitten by Israel with great slaughter, and in the parallel he was distressed, first by the Philistines, and then by the king of Assyria. In E the children of Israel carried away captives from Judah, and in the parallel the Edomites carried away captives from Judah. In F Israel are rebuked by a prophet of YHWH for seeking to keep the children of Judah in bondage, and in the parallel they send them back to Judah. In G they are called on to send back the captives, and in the parallel the armed men leave the captives with the princes of Israel for the purpose of sending them back. Centrally in H pious leaders in Israel refuse to allow the captives to be retained in Israel, because it will bring the wrath of YHWH on Israel.
2.28.1 ‘Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem, but he did not do what was right in the eyes of YHWH like David his father.’
Whereas previous kings, other than those affected by the house of Ahab, have been depicted as at least partially doing what was right in the eyes of YHWH using David as a pattern. Ahaz is here described as an exception. From the commencement of his reign he ‘did not do what was right in the eyes of YHWH like David his father.’ This very much reminds us that the Chronicler wanted his readers to see most of the kings as being at least partially like David. It held out hope that one day there would come a king who would be a second David (not, be it noted, a second Solomon). It was David whose heart was fully devoted to God.
We have already seen in respect of Jotham that Ahaz was co-regent for at least twelve years of Jotham’s reign, for four of which he was prime ruler. Thus his total prime rulership appears to have lasted for around eight years (16 - 12 + 4), which with his eight years of co-regency makes sixteen years.
The full name of Ahaz was Jeho-ahaz. It may be that his behaviour was seen as so abominable that the name of YHWH was dropped from his name. In an Assyrian list of kings who paid tribute to Assyria he was named as Ya-u-ha-zi of Ya-u-da-aia. But it may even be that Ahaz chose to drop the name of YHWH from his name himself when he became an apostate. The discovery of a seal bearing the inscription, ‘Ashan, official of Ahaz’ would appear to confirm the use of the shorter name officially.
2.28.2-4 ‘But he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, and made also molten images for the Baalim. He burnt incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and burnt his children in the fire, according to the abominations of the nations whom YHWH cast out before the children of Israel, and he sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree.’
It is quite clear that Ahaz must have come under bad influences from an early age. Not for him a period of Yahwism which sadly declined. He went wrong from the beginning. The Chronicler has no redeeming thing to say about him. Of Jehoshaphat it had been said that he ‘walked in the ways of his father David’ (17.3). It was Jehoram who had previously ‘walked in the ways of the kings of Israel’ (21.6, 13), but he at least had the excuse that he was heavily under the influence of servants of Ahab who acted as his advisers, whilst his wife also led him astray. For Ahaz there was no such excuse. He openly and deliberately abdicated his responsibility as a son of David.
And he did it to excess. He:
It is clear that he was totally obsessed with every form of idolatrous abomination that he could find. The extent of his obsession was revealed in that he would not even consider receiving a sign from YHWH, hiding his unwillingness under a cloak of piety (Isaiah 7.11-12).
2.28.5a ‘For which reason YHWH his God delivered him into the hand of the king of Syria, and they smote him, and carried away of what was his a great multitude of captives, and brought them to Damascus.’
As a consequence of his attitude and behaviour (and the attitude and behaviour of those who followed his example) he was attacked on two fronts. The kings of Aram (Syria) and Israel both banded together against him. See Isaiah 7.1-2; 2 Kings 16.5. And whilst they were unable to take Jerusalem, they inflicted dreadful damage on Judah as a whole. The Chronicler here appears to emphasise that they attacked on two fronts, and he deals first with the attack of Aram (Syria). It resulted in Judah being smitten and a large number of captives being taken captive to Damascus, the capital of Aram (Syria). The taking of captives as hostages and slaves was a natural consequence of warfare in those days. They would also have taken away much booty. Judah, because of its blatant idolatry, was suffering its own taste of ‘exile’.
2.28.5b-6 ‘And he was also delivered into the hand of the king of Israel, who smote him with a great slaughter. For Pekah the son of Remaliah slew in Judah a hundred and twenty military units (thousand) in one day, all of them valiant men, because they had forsaken YHWH, the God of their fathers.’
Israel also invaded on another front and the forces of Ahaz were delivered into the hands of the king of Israel, Pekah, the son of Remaliah. One hundred and twenty military units were subjected to massive slaughter. This description appears to deliberately parallel that of Abijah’s defeat of Jeroboam, king of Israel, in 13.17. Now the tables were being turned because of Ahaz’ sins.
2.28.7 ‘And Zichri, a warrior of Ephraim, slew Maaseiah the king’s son, and Azrikam the ruler of the house, and Elkanah who was next to the king.’
Among those slain in this warfare were some who were close to King Ahaz, including his son Maaseiah, the ruler of his house Azrikam, and his closest adviser and official Elkanah. These were slain by a warrior named Zichri.
2.28.8 ‘And the children of Israel carried away captive of their brothers two hundred families (eleph), women, sons, and daughters, and took also away much spoil from them, and brought the spoil to Samaria.’
Here also captives were taken in great numbers consisting of two hundred families, including wives, sons and daughters. And along with them much spoil. And the spoil was delivered to Samaria. But YHWH was watching over these captives and wrought a great deliverance. It would be a reminder to the Chronicler’s readers as to how YHWH had also delivered them from exile.
2.28.9 ‘But a prophet of YHWH was there, whose name was Oded, and he went out to meet the host which came to Samaria, and said to them, “Look, because YHWH, the God of your fathers, was angry with Judah, he has delivered them into your hand, and you have slain them in a rage which has reached up to heaven.”
We have a salutary reminder here that whilst Israel as a whole was rejected by YHWH because of their sin and idolatry, there were still those in Israel who were faithful to YHWH. These faithful men are being held up as an example to Judah intended to put them to shame. What Judah should have been they were. Nevertheless it should be noted that their godliness would not prove sufficient to save Israel from their coming fate. Israel had sunk too far into sin.
The first to meet the hosts of Israel marching back in triumph with their captives was a prophet of YHWH whose name was Oded. He pointed out to them severely that their victory was due to the fact that YHWH was angry with Judah. But they had overlooked this and had been entirely merciless in their dealings with Judah, slaughtering them needlessly in battle rage, a rage that ‘reached up to heaven’. That may signify simply that it was very large. or it may suggest that the cry of their blood had reached up to heaven, thus focusing YHWH’s wrath back on Israel. This idea of an instrument appointed by YHWH taking matters too far is also found in Isaiah 10.15.
2.28.10 ‘And now you purpose to keep under the children of Judah and Jerusalem as bondmen and bondwomen for you. But are there not even with you trespasses of your own against YHWH your God?”
Then he pointed out to them that they had sinned even further in taking large numbers of captives from Judah in order to turn them into bondslaves. Let them take note of the fact that YHWH was equally aware of their guilt and saw them breaking His Law in many ways. Unless they were careful they would bring down on Israel the wrath of YHWH.
2.28.11 “Now, therefore, hear what I have to say (hear me) and send back the captives, whom you have taken captive of your brothers, for the fierce wrath of YHWH is on you.”
He pointed out that whilst YHWH was angry with Judah He was also fiercely angry with them for taking their brother Israelites into captivity and bondage (see Leviticus 25.39-55). Let them therefore hear what he had to say and send back the captives to Judah.
2.28.12-13 ‘ Then certain of the heads of the children of Ephraim, Azariah the son of Johanan, Berechiah the son of Meshillemoth, and Jehizkiah the son of Shallum, and Amasa the son of Hadlai, stood up against those who came from the war, and said to them, “You shall not bring the captives in here, for you purpose what will bring on us a trespass against YHWH, to add to our sins and to our trespass, for our trespass is great, and there is fierce wrath against Israel.”
His words appear to have convinced the leaders of the tribe of Ephraim, for certain of them, as named, stood up to those who had come back from the war, and told them not to bring the captives into Samaria. They pointed out that that would add to their sins and their breach of covenant with YHWH. Was there not already fierce wrath against YHWH on account of their breaches of covenant?
We learn from this that there were still men in Israel who would listen to the prophets of YHWH and take note of their words. But in the end there were not sufficient to turn YHWH from His purpose of destroying Israel. And, indeed, their end would soon come. Judah would only survive because of God’s covenant with David to preserve for His seed a kingdom.
The supplying of these names is strong evidence that the Chronicler was quoting from a written source. He was not in the habit of naming names. It is an interesting question where the king of Israel, who is not mentioned here, was. He may well have been involved with others in preparing for the Assyrian invasion.
2.28.14 ‘So the armed men left the captives and the spoil before the princes and all the assembly.’
In response to the demands of their leaders the armed men surrendered both their captives and their spoil into their charge. They probably had little alternative.
2.28.15 ‘And the men who have been mentioned by name rose up, and took the captives, and with the spoil they clothed all who were naked among them, and arrayed them, and shod them, and gave them to eat and to drink, and anointed them, and carried all the feeble of them on asses, and brought them to Jericho, the city of palm-trees, to their brothers. Then they returned to Samaria.’
Then the men named in verse 12 took the captives, and fed them and reclothed them and conveyed them to Jericho in Judah. And there they left them and returned to Samaria. The use of Jericho was probably in order to prevent a further clash between Israel and Judah, which might have resulted from a more direct approach.
This remarkable deliverance of the captives by Israel should have been an indication to Ahaz of what YHWH could do. But he was not prepared to listen. Dependence on YHWH would have required him to give up the idolatry which he loved.
2.28.16-18 ‘At that time king Ahaz sent to the kings of Assyria to help him, for again the Edomites had come and smitten Judah, and carried away captives. The Philistines also had invaded the cities of the lowland, and of the South of Judah, and had taken Beth-shemesh, and Aijalon, and Gederoth, and Soco with their towns, and Timnah with its towns, Gimzo also and its, and they dwelt there.’
With his kingdom having been ravaged by Aram (Syria) and Israel, and his army having been decimated by them, and with Edom and the Philistines successfully threatening his borders, Ahaz, having rejected YHWH’s offer to act on his behalf, could only see one place where he could turn, and that was to the one whom all his enemies saw as a threat, the King of Assyria. He knew, of course, that it would be costly, but it appeared to be his only hope.
The Edomite invasion had seemingly been with a view to obtaining spoil and carrying away valuable captives who would be sold into slavery, as well as achieving the consolidation of their hold on their own territory and with Aramean (Syrian) help they also seized Ezion-geber from Judah (2 Kings 16.6), something supported by archaeology. The Philistines, however, had had a more permanent aim in mind, that of taking and retaining land and cities which belonged to Judah and establishing themselves there permanently. Their aim was apparently to secure the valuable trade routes from the north and east to Egypt, and to expand their borders, by taking control of Judean border towns which guarded the passes to Jerusalem. Bethshemesh guarded the inland route from the Jordan to the Coastal Plain. Aijalon guarded the Aijalon Valley and the trade routes which went through it. Gederoth was near Lachish and was on the borders of Judah, as was Soco which was near Azekah and similarly placed. Both guarded vital roads. Timnah was another border town in the Sorek valley. Gimzo was north of Gezer. It will be noted that not only were these cities occupied by the Philistines, but also the towns scattered around them.
Had Ahaz but known it he need not have contacted the king of Assyria. Tiglath-pileser already had his own plans for the area. Firstly in c 734 BC he moved down through Philistia, conquering its cities and ensuring that Egypt did not come to the aid of Palestine. In c 733 BC he subjugated Galilee, turning it into the Assyrian provinces, of Gilead, Megiddo and Dor, and obtained tribute from what was left of Israel under their new king Hoshea who assassinated Pekah, and taken over the throne from him. In 732 BC he crushed Aram (Syria) and took Damascus, killing Rezin and turning Aram into Assyrian provinces. Thus most of Ahaz’s enemies were crushed by the Assyrian might regardless of any submission by Ahaz.
2.28.19 ‘For YHWH brought Judah low because of Ahaz king of Israel, for he had dealt wantonly in Judah, and trespassed grievously against YHWH.’
The Biblical reason for Ahaz’s dire situation is given here. It was because YHWH had brought Judah low because of the behaviour of Ahaz. Note again the title King of Israel applied to a king of Judah. The use of Israel for Judah occurs a number of times in Chronicles, so it is clearly deliberate. Judah had become the representative of Israel. Here the added irony many be intended that he behaved like a King of Israel.
Thus all that happened was because Ahaz had dealt wantonly in Judah, and had trespassed grievously against YHWH. But we must also add, as had the people, as we have seen previously.
2.28.20 ‘And Tilgath-pilneser king of Assyria came to him, and distressed him, but did not strengthen him.’
His attempt to get Tiglath-pilneser (a recognised alternative spelling found in inscriptions) on his side failed miserably. The king of Assyria certainly came to him, but it was not as a friend but as a suzerain making demands. And he gave Ahaz nothing in return. All he ‘gained’ was the destruction of enemies who would have been destroyed anyway. This occurred around 734 BC.
2.28.21 ‘For Ahaz took away a portion out of the house of YHWH, and out of the house of the king and of the princes, and gave it to the king of Assyria, but it did not help him.’
Furthermore it was at great cost, for he drew on the Temple treasures, his own treasures and the treasures of his princes in order to meet Tilgath-pilneser’s demands. But it brought him no help at all. Had he heeded Isaiah’s words from YHWH how different things might have been (Isaiah 7.1 ff).
2.28.22 ‘And in the time of his distress he trespassed yet more against YHWH, this same king Ahaz.’
Meanwhile, instead of the distress in which he found himself making him stop and think, it simply drove him on to even greater trespasses against YHWH. He appears to have had an insatiable appetite for foreign gods.
2.28.23 ‘For he sacrificed to the gods of Damascus, who smote him, and he said, “Because the gods of the kings of Syria helped them, therefore I will sacrifice to them, that they may help me.” But they were the ruin of him, and of all Israel.’
In his desperation all that he could think of was that he had been heavily defeated by Aram (Syria), and it made him assume that this could only be because their gods were stronger than YHWH. Thus when he was called to Damascus to submit to the king of Assyria he obtained a copy of the altar in Damascus and ordered that one be built in Judah so that he could sacrifice to the gods of Damascus (2 Kings 16.10-11). But, says the Chronicler, they were his ruin and the ruin of his people (again called ‘all Israel’).
2.28.24 ‘And Ahaz gathered together the vessels of the house of God, and cut in pieces the vessels of the house of God, and shut up the doors of the house of YHWH, and he made for himself altars in every corner of Jerusalem.’
Ahaz followed up his sacrilege by going even further. He was so incensed against YHWH (or possibly protesting Yahwists), that he deliberately sabotaged the worship of YHWH, for he gathered together the vessels of the house of God and cut them in pieces (this may partly have been in order to pay the tribute required of him) and he closed the doors of the Sanctuary, preventing the priestly activities. This may not have been with the purpose of preventing worship at the altar for it was there that he had erected an altar designed like the one he had seen in Damascus (2 Kings 16.15). Thus his action may have been in reaction to priestly protest. And as well as erecting this foreign altar in the Temple courtyard he also built altars for himself, and presumably the people, in every part of Jerusalem. YHWH worship had reached its lowest point. Judah appeared to be going the way of Israel.
2.28.25 ‘And in every city of Judah he made high places to burn incense to other gods, and provoked to anger YHWH, the God of his fathers.’
Furthermore in every city of Judah he erected ‘high places’ on which to burn incense to other gods. These were possibly artificial erections which were intended to represent mountains, on which were erected incense altars through which they could worship the gods. And this provoked YHWH, the God of his fathers, to anger. It appeared that Judah were well night doomed.
2.28.26 ‘Now the rest of his acts, and all his ways, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel.’
We are now referred for further details of his activities to what were probably the official court records, ‘the book of the kings of Judah and Israel’.
2.28.27 ‘And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the city, even in Jerusalem, for they did not bring him into the sepulchres of the kings of Israel, and Hezekiah his son reigned instead of him.’
When Ahaz died he was ‘buried in the city, even Jerusalem’. No mention is made of him being buried in the city of David, (although he might well have been), for he was the antithesis of all that David stood for. But it is stressed that they did not bury him in the sepulchres of the kings. He was disgraced in his death. And Hezekiah his son reigned instead of him.
Although it is not specifically mentioned his reign and his activities bring out how much a portion of the people were gripped by idolatry. Without them he would probably not have commenced on his course of action. He would certainly not have been able to maintain it. He built the idolatrous altars because there was a demand for them. It was clear that parts of Judah had almost sunk to the level of Israel, bringing Isaiah almost to the depths of despair (Isaiah 6.9-13). And, as we have seen, this has been deliberately contrasted with the fact that in Israel there were still men who truly heeded YHWH, and prophets who proclaimed His will (verses 9-13). But the difference lay in the fact that this was an aberration in Judah, whilst in Israel most of the people were still content with their idolatrous worship. Israel would thus shortly be destroyed and its people taken into captivity, whilst Judah would continue on for another hundred years, thanks to kings like Hezekiah, and later, Josiah.
If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our
best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus.
(But preferably not from aol.com, for some reason they do not deliver our messages).
FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.
THE PENTATEUCH ---
GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS --- NUMBERS ---
DEUTERONOMY --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- THE BOOK OF RUTH --- SAMUEL --- KINGS --- EZRA---NEHEMIAH---
ESTHER---
PSALMS 1-58--- PROVERBS---ECCLESIASTES--- SONG OF SOLOMON
--- ISAIAH --- JEREMIAH --- LAMENTATIONS ---
EZEKIEL --- DANIEL --- --- HOSEA --- --- JOEL ------ AMOS --- --- OBADIAH --- --- JONAH --- --- MICAH --- --- NAHUM --- --- HABAKKUK--- --- ZEPHANIAH --- --- HAGGAI --- ZECHARIAH --- --- MALACHI --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- READINGS IN ROMANS --- 1
CORINTHIANS --- 2 CORINTHIANS ---GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS--- PHILIPPIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- PHILEMON --- HEBREWS
--- JAMES --- 1 & 2 PETER --- JOHN'S
LETTERS --- JUDE --- REVELATION
--- THE GOSPELS & ACTS
IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?