2 Kings · Chapter 14

Verse 1. In the second year of Joash] This second year should be understood as referring to the time when his father Jehoahaz associated him with himself in the kingdom: for he reigned two years with his father; so this second year of Joash is the first of his absolute and independent government.-See Calmet.

Verses 1, 2. In the second year of Joash, king of Israel — After he began to reign alone: for he reigned two or three years with his father, of which see the note on 2 Kings 13:10. This, as Dr. Lightfoot observes, was the thirty-eighth year of his father Joash, king of Judah, three years before his death. For Joash had thrown himself into such a miserable condition by his apostacy, and the murder of Zechariah, (2 Kings 12:17; 2 Chronicles 24:25,) that he was become unfit to govern the kingdom. He reigned twenty and nine years — Fourteen of which he was contemporary with Joash, king of Israel, and fifteen with Jeroboam, the son of Joash, verse 17.

REIGN OF AMAZIAH, KING OF JUDAH, 1-22.

1. In the second year of Joash — Amaziah’s father reigned in Jerusalem forty years. 2 Kings 12:1. In his thirty-seventh year Joash the son of Jehoahaz began to reign in Samaria. 2 Kings 13:10. Hence it would seem that Amaziah’s accession must have taken place in (not the second, but) the third or fourth year of Joash the son of Jehoahaz. To account for this difficulty some adopt the hypothesis of a co-regency, as stated in note on 2 Kings 13:1. But this is unnecessary, as the apparent discrepancy may be more easily accounted for by supposing that the first and last years of the forty years’ reign of Joash king of Judah were only parts of two years. Thus Keil: “These forty years may have amounted only to thirty-eight and a half or thirty-eight and three quarters, in case that Joash attained to the sovereignty a couple of months before Nisan, and his death occurred a few months after Nisan.”

Verses 1, 2. In the second year of Joash, king of Israel — After he began to reign alone: for he reigned two or three years with his father, of which see the note on 2 Kings 13:10. This, as Dr. Lightfoot observes, was the thirty-eighth year of his father Joash, king of Judah, three years before his death. For Joash had thrown himself into such a miserable condition by his apostacy, and the murder of Zechariah, (2 Kings 12:17; 2 Chronicles 24:25,) that he was become unfit to govern the kingdom. He reigned twenty and nine years — Fourteen of which he was contemporary with Joash, king of Israel, and fifteen with Jeroboam, the son of Joash, verse 17.

Verse 2. His mother’s name was Jehoaddan. The mothers of the kings of Judah are mostly mentioned by name, but those of the kings of Israel are seldom named so expressly; for the kings of Israel were not regarded as equal in honour to the kings of Judah.

REIGN OF AMAZIAH, KING OF JUDAH, 1-22.

1. In the second year of Joash — Amaziah’s father reigned in Jerusalem forty years. 2 Kings 12:1. In his thirty-seventh year Joash the son of Jehoahaz began to reign in Samaria. 2 Kings 13:10. Hence it would seem that Amaziah’s accession must have taken place in (not the second, but) the third or fourth year of Joash the son of Jehoahaz. To account for this difficulty some adopt the hypothesis of a co-regency, as stated in note on 2 Kings 13:1. But this is unnecessary, as the apparent discrepancy may be more easily accounted for by supposing that the first and last years of the forty years’ reign of Joash king of Judah were only parts of two years. Thus Keil: “These forty years may have amounted only to thirty-eight and a half or thirty-eight and three quarters, in case that Joash attained to the sovereignty a couple of months before Nisan, and his death occurred a few months after Nisan.”

Verses 3, 4. He did right in the sight of the Lord — In many respects, attending on God’s altars, and attending to his word: yet not like David his father — Or progenitor: not obeying in the same spirit of faith and devotion, and with the same sincerity, resolution, and perseverance. As Joash his father did — Who, for a time, served God aright; but afterward fell away to idolatry. Thus did Amaziah, 2 Chronicles 25:14. Howbeit, the high places, &c. — Though he did what was right, yet the high places were not taken away — For it is difficult to get clear of those corruptions which by long usage have gained prescription.

3. He did according to all things as Joash — That is, says Wordsworth, “he began well, and ended ill.” He had the true theocratic spirit, but not a perfect heart. Not only did he fail to remove the high places, but, according to 2 Chronicles 25:14, he worshipped and burned incense to the gods of Edom.

V. 4. High places-It is hard to get clear of those corruptions, which by long usage have gained prescription.

Verses 3, 4. He did right in the sight of the Lord — In many respects, attending on God’s altars, and attending to his word: yet not like David his father — Or progenitor: not obeying in the same spirit of faith and devotion, and with the same sincerity, resolution, and perseverance. As Joash his father did — Who, for a time, served God aright; but afterward fell away to idolatry. Thus did Amaziah, 2 Chronicles 25:14. Howbeit, the high places, &c. — Though he did what was right, yet the high places were not taken away — For it is difficult to get clear of those corruptions which by long usage have gained prescription.

REIGN OF AMAZIAH, KING OF JUDAH, 1-22.

1. In the second year of Joash — Amaziah’s father reigned in Jerusalem forty years. 2 Kings 12:1. In his thirty-seventh year Joash the son of Jehoahaz began to reign in Samaria. 2 Kings 13:10. Hence it would seem that Amaziah’s accession must have taken place in (not the second, but) the third or fourth year of Joash the son of Jehoahaz. To account for this difficulty some adopt the hypothesis of a co-regency, as stated in note on 2 Kings 13:1. But this is unnecessary, as the apparent discrepancy may be more easily accounted for by supposing that the first and last years of the forty years’ reign of Joash king of Judah were only parts of two years. Thus Keil: “These forty years may have amounted only to thirty-eight and a half or thirty-eight and three quarters, in case that Joash attained to the sovereignty a couple of months before Nisan, and his death occurred a few months after Nisan.”

Verse 5. As soon as the kingdom was confirmed in his hand] No doubt those wicked men, Jozachar and Jehozabad, who murdered his father, had considerable power and influence; and therefore he found it dangerous to bring them to justice, till he was assured of the loyalty of his other officers: when this was clear, he called them to account, and put them to death.

Verse 5. As soon as the kingdom was confirmed, he slew his servants, &c. — It is implied in this, that his father’s murderers continued to be men of weight and interest at court, even after they had perpetrated that crime; for Amaziah retained them in his service for some time, nor durst venture to execute justice upon them till he was well settled in his authority. Probably the act they had done was in some sort approved by the generality of the people, to whom Joash had made himself hateful by his apostacy to idolatry, and his ingratitude to the house of Jehoiada.

5. Slew his servants — Jozachar and Jehozabad. See 2 Kings 12:21. Amaziah was wise to wait till the kingdom was confirmed in his hand, and he had all its forces at control. Rawlinson conjectures that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were, after the days of Jehu, dependencies of the king of Assyria, and when one after another of the Israelitish or Jewish kings came to the throne, he formally applied to the Assyrian monarch to be confirmed in his kingdom. This he infers from an Assyrian obelisk which represents Jehu as bringing tribute to the king of Assyria. See note on 2 Kings 10:32.

V. 6. Slew not-Wherein he shewed faith and courage, that he would obey this command of God, though it was hazardous to himself, such persons being likely to seek revenge for their father’s death.

Verse 6. But the children of the murderers he slew not] Here he showed his conscientious regard for the law of Moses; for God had positively said, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin, Deuteronomy 24:16.

Verse 6. But the children of the murderers he slew not — In this he acted like a good man, and showed both faith and courage, in that he would obey the command of God, though it might be attended with great hazard to himself, and was not moved to cut off the children, through fear lest they should raise a faction against him, and take revenge for their fathers’ death. Very different is the custom pursued in many kingdoms, in which, if any one be guilty of high treason, not only he, but his children likewise, who neither partake nor are conscious of his traitorous practices, are equally devoted to destruction.

Ver. 6. The children of the regicides he slew not. This is mentioned as a virtue in his character, for in that age, and even in the old Spanish histories, vengeance was often extended to the children. The history of these events being more copiously related in 2 Chronicles 26. 27. 28., the reader is referred to those records.

6. The children of the murderers he slew not — In this he evidenced his desire to do right in the sight of God. He allowed judgment and reason to triumph over the passion for vengeance, at the same time that he showed respect for the law of God. Book of the law of Moses — The passage referred to is found in Deuteronomy 24:16, and this reference and quotation conclusively prove the existence and authority of the Pentateuch in the time of Amaziah. Put to death for his own sin — Personal guilt is neither transmissive nor transferable. Compare marginal references.

V. 7. Joktheel-Which signifies, the obedience of God, that is, given him by God as a reward of his obedience to God’s message by the prophet, 2 Chronicles 25:8,9.

Verse 7. He slew of Edom to the valley of salt] This war is more circumstantially related in 2 Chronicles 25:5, &c. The Idumeans had arisen in the reign of Joram king of Judah, and shaken off the yoke of the house of David. Amaziah determined to reduce them to obedience; he therefore levied an army of three hundred thousand men in his own kingdom, and hired a hundred thousand Israelites, at the price of one hundred talents. When he was about to depart at the head of this numerous army, a prophet came to him and ordered him to dismiss the Israelitish army, for God was not with them: and on the king of Judah expressing regret for the loss of his hundred talents, he was answered, that the Lord could give him much more than that. He obeyed, sent back the Israelites, and at the head of his own men attacked the Edomites in the valley of salt, slew ten thousand on the spot, and took ten thousand prisoners, all of whom he precipitated from the rock, or Selah, which was afterwards called Joktheel, a place or city supposed to be the same with Petra, which gave name to Arabia Petræa, where there must have been a great precipice, from which the place took its name of Selah or Petra.

Verse 7. He slew of Edom — That is, of the Edomites, or the children of Seir, as they are called 2 Chronicles 25:1. The Edomites, after having been subject to Judah from the time of David, who subdued them, revolted in the days of Jehoram, (2 Kings 8:10,) and now Amaziah endeavoured to reduce them: and having, at the command of God, abandoned the help of the Israelites, although he had purchased it with a large sum, (2 Chronicles 25:7-10,) he and the men of Judah gained a great victory over them, and made the following slaughter. In the valley of Salt — Which was in the land of Edom. And took Selah — Or, the rock, as the word signifies. This city, called by other authors Petra, which also means a rock, was the metropolis of all that part of Arabia, termed from hence Arabia Petræa, or Arabia the rocky. And called the name of it Joktheel — Which word signifies, the obedience of God; so he named it, either, because, having taken it, he established in it, as some think, the laws and statutes of Moses; or rather, because he considered it as given him by God, as a reward of his obedience to God’s message by the prophet, requiring him to dismiss all the forces which he had hired of the Israelites.

7. Slew of Edom — The Edomites had cast off the yoke of Judah in the days of Jehoram, (2 Kings 8:20,) and had so strengthened themselves that, according to 2 Chronicles 25:5, 6, Amaziah considered it necessary to lead an army of four hundred thousand men against them. See the parallel passage in Chronicles for a fuller record of this Edomite war. Valley of salt — The broad, open plain at the lower end of the Dead Sea, which virtually forms the southern termination of the Ghor, or great Jordan valley. It is appropriately called the Salt Valley from the salt mountain at its northwestern extremity, and the brackish springs and streams that are found in it. In this same valley David once smote the Edomites. See note on 2 Samuel 8:13. Selah — More properly written, as in Isaiah 16:1, Sela; Hebrew, [lc, or [lch, the rock. The capital city of the Edomites, situated in Mount Seir, two days’ journey south of the Valley of Salt, at the eastern base of Mount Hor. By the Greek writers it is called Petra. Strabo and Pliny describe it as a narrow valley, shut in by precipitous rocks and inaccessible mountains, but having a stream running through it fed by copious fountains and supplying water for the irrigation of gardens. After the Mohammedan conquest its site was long unknown, but, discovered A.D. 1812 by Burckhardt, it has since been many times visited and described by travellers. Its site and ruins are represented as among the most wonderful things of the Orient. It is a city whose most imposing remains consist of tombs and temples sculptured in the solid rock. And not the least remarkable thing, according to Robinson, is the colour of the rocks. “They present an endless variety of bright and living hues, from the deepest crimson to the softest pink, verging also sometimes to orange and yellow.” The principal entrance to the city is from the east, through a wild, deep chasm, called the Sik, varying in width from twelve to fifty feet. At a point where this chasm takes a sharp turn stands the celebrated structure called the Khazneh, which, says Palmer, “in beauty of form and colouring surpasses all the other tombs and temples. The facade is of a deep but delicate rose colour, and that of the uncut rock around it varies from every shade of red to chocolate.” This writer plausibly conjectures that it represents “the museum of Petra, the philharmonic institution of the place.” The other principal remains are the theatre, the tomb with three rows of columns, the ruined bridges, and the triumphal arch. “In looking at the wonders of this ancient city,” writes Robinson, “one is at a loss whether most to admire the wildness of the position and natural scenery, or the taste and skill with which it was fashioned into a secure retreat, and adorned with splendid structures, chiefly for the dead.” Called the name of it Joktheel — The name signifies subdued by God, but does not seem to have been commonly applied to the place for any considerable length of time, for it does not again occur, and Isaiah calls the place by its old name, Sela. 2 Kings 16:1. The phrase unto this day, indicates, therefore, that this record of Amaziah’s conquest was written during the Jewish rule over Edom, and before the time of Ahaz, when the Edomites had again thrown off the Hebrew yoke. 2 Chronicles 28:17.

V. 8. Sent-This challenge he sent, from self-confidence, and a desire of advancing his glory. But he that is fond either of fighting or going to law, will probably be the first that repents it.

Verse 8. Come, let us look one another in the face.] This was a real declaration of war; and the ground of it is most evident from this circumstance: that the one hundred thousand men of Israel that had been dismissed, though they had the stipulated money, taking the advantage of Amaziah’s absence, fell upon the cities of Judah, from Samaria to Beth-horon, and smote three thousand men, and took much spoil, 2 Chronicles 25:10-13. Amaziah no doubt remonstrated with Jehoash, but to no purpose; and therefore he declared war against him.

Verse 8. Let us look one another in the face — Let us try our valour and strength in battle. Being flushed with his late great victory over the Edomites, and incensed by the injury which the dismissed, disgusted Israelites had lately done to his country in their return, (2 Chronicles 25:13,) he sent this challenge to the king of Israel. Perhaps he had the vanity to think he could subdue his kingdom, and reunite it to Judah. Had he challenged him merely to a personal duel, the error had remained with himself: but each of them must bring all his forces into the field, and thousands of lives must be sacrificed on both sides to his capricious humour! Hereby he showed himself proud, presumptuous, and prodigal of blood. They that challenge are chargeable with that beginning of strife which is as the letting out of water. And they that are fond either of fighting or going to law, may perhaps have enough of it quickly, and will probably be the first that repent it.

8. Let us look one another in the face — An idiomatic expression used in a hostile sense. Equivalent to, Let us see each other’s face by coming into close conflict on a field of battle. The Germans have a similar idiom, To view heads, and to view the whites in the eye.

In Chronicles we learn the occasion of this war of Amaziah against the kingdom of Israel. The Israelitish soldiers whom Amaziah hired and soon after dismissed were greatly offended at such treatment, and “fell upon the cities of Judah, from Samaria even unto Beth-heron, and smote three thousand of them, and took much spoil.” This was too great an injury for the king of Judah to pass by without notice, and his elation over his Edomite victory, and the native pride of his heart, urged him on.

V. 9. Saying, &c.-By the thistle, a low and contemptible, yet troublesome shrub, he understands Amaziah; and by the cedar, himself, whom he intimates to be far stronger than he, and out of his reach. Trod down-And with no less ease shall my soldiers tread down thee and thy forces.

Verse 9. Jehoash-sent to Amaziah-saying] The meaning of this parable is plain. The thistle that was in Lebanon-Amaziah, king of Judah, sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon-Jehoash, king of Israel, saying, Give thy daughter-a part of thy kingdom, to my son to wife-to be united to, and possessed by the kings of Judah. And there passed by a wild beast-Jehoash and his enraged army, and trode down the thistle-utterly discomfited Amaziah and his troops, pillaged the temple, and broke down the walls of Jerusalem: see 2 Kings 14:12-14. Probably Amaziah had required certain cities of Israel to be given up to Judah; if so, this accounts for that part of the parable, Give thy daughter to my son to wife.

Verse 9. Jehoash sent to Amaziah, saying, The thistle, &c. — By the thistle, a mean, despicable, and yet troublesome weed, he understands Amaziah, and by the cedar, himself, whom he intimates to be far stronger than he, and out of his reach. Considering the circumstances of the person addressed, who was a petty prince, flushed with a little good success, and thereupon impatient to enlarge his kingdom, no similitude could be better adapted than that of a thistle, a low, contemptible shrub, but, upon its having drawn blood of some traveller, grown proud and affecting an equality with the cedar, a tall stately tree, the pride and ornament of the wood, till, in the midst of all its arrogance and presumption, it is unhappily trodden down by the beasts of the forest, which Jehoash intimates would be Amaziah’s fate, if he continued to provoke a prince of his superior power and strength. See Calmet and Scheuchzer. Saying, Give me thy daughter to wife — Let us make a match, that is, let us fight; only he expresses his bloody and destructive work in a civil manner, as Amaziah had done, (verse 8,) and as Abner did, 2 Samuel 2:14: or, Let thy kingdom and mine be united under one king, as formerly they were; and let us decide, by a pitched battle, whether thou or I shall be that king. A wild beast trode down the thistle — And so put an end to his treaty with the cedar: and with no less ease shall my soldiers tread down thee and thy forces.

9. The thistle… the cedar — This answer of Jehoash reminds us of the fable of Jotham. Judges 9:8. The thistle here, like the bramble there, represents a low, worthless, and offensive thing, and is a stinging reflection on Amaziah and his kingdom. By the cedar the king of Israel pompously suggests to his foe his own magnificence and power, and afterwards plainly says that a war between them must needs result in Judah’s downfall. Both the thistle and the cedar are represented as in Lebanon, which may have been designed to suggest that a worthless king may sometimes be found in a lofty position, and thence through pride aspire to things beyond his sphere. Give thy daughter to my son — We need not suppose that Amaziah had asked Jehoash to give a daughter in marriage to his son, but it is possible that he had demanded satisfaction for the cities and spoil which the Israelitish soldiers had taken from Judah, or that he had pompously threatened to subdue the kingdom of Israel and unite it again with Judah. There passed by a wild beast — Image of an unexpected dispensation of judgment moving forth to the sudden destruction of the haughty schemer. The destroyer is represented as passing by, not as sent out by the cedar. So Jehoash might wish to suggest to Amaziah that in case he meddled with things beyond his province he would be suddenly smitten by some judgment of the Almighty. He does not proudly boast and presume to tread down Amaziah and Judah by his own warriors and martial prowess.

V. 10. Glory-Content thyself with that glory, and let not thine ambition betray thee to ruin.

Verse 10. Glory of this, and tarry at home] There is a vast deal of insolent dignity in this remonstrance of Jehoash: but it has nothing conciliatory; no proposal of making amends for the injury his army had done to the unoffending inhabitants of Judah. The ravages committed by the army of Jehoash were totally unprovoked, and they were base and cowardly; they fell upon women, old men, and children, and butchered them in cold blood, for all the effective men were gone off with their king against the Edomites. The quarrel of Amaziah was certainly just, yet he was put to the rout; he did meddle to his hurt; he fell, and Judah fell with him, as Jehoash had said: but why was this? Why it came of God; for he had brought the gods of Seir, and set them up to be his gods, and bowed down himself before them, and burnt incense to them; therefore God delivered them into the hands of their enemies, because they sought after the gods of Edom, 2 Chronicles 25:14, 20. This was the reason why the Israelites triumphed.

Verse 10. Thou hast indeed smitten Edom — A weak, unarmed, undisciplined body of men; and therefore thou thinkest thou canst carry all before thee, and subdue the regular forces of Israel with as much ease. Thy heart hath lifted thee up — Here lies the root of all sin; it is in the heart; thence it proceeds, and that must bear the blame. It is not providence, the event, the occasion, whatever it is, that makes men proud, or secure, or discontented, or the like; but it is their own heart that doth it. Thou art proud of the blow thou hast given to Edom, as if that had made thee formidable to all mankind. Glory of this, and tarry at home — Content thyself with that glory and success, and let not thy ambition betray thee to thy ruin. For why shouldest thou meddle to thy hurt? — As fools often do. Many would have wealth and honour enough, if they did but know when they have enough. That thou shouldest fall, and Judah with thee — He warns him of the consequence; that it would be fatal, not to himself only, but to his kingdom, which he ought to protect.

10. Thine heart hath lifted thee up — The king of Israel, with keen insight, discerned the real ground of Amaziah’s pride and insolence. His recent victory had lifted him up — filled him with pride, and he thought himself unconquerable. Why shouldest thou meddle to thy hurt — Gesenius renders: Wherefore shouldest thou contend with calamity. h[r, here rendered hurt, is represented as the foe with whom he meddles, or contends. Why, he asks, shouldest thou engage in strife with misfortune?

Verses 11, 12. Amaziah would not hear — Being blinded and hardened by God to his destruction, as a punishment of his abominable and ridiculous idolatry, 2 Chronicles 25:10. Therefore Jehoash went up — Namely, into the kingdom of Judah, carrying the war into his enemies’ country. At Beth-shemesh, which belongeth to Judah — Which is added to distinguish it from Beth-shemesh in Issachar, and another in Naphtali. And Judah was put to the worse — Their army being routed and dispersed. Josephus says that, when they were to engage, they were struck with such a terror that they did not strike a stroke, but every one made the best of his way home. Probably they were not satisfied as to the ground and manner of the quarrel, were discouraged by the king’s idolatry, and smitten by God with a spirit of fear.

11. Amaziah would not hear — He listened neither to the counsel of Jehoash nor to the prophet whom the Lord sent to advise him, but, according to Chronicles, he took the advice of evil-minded persons, who counselled war. Beth-shemesh — The modern Ain Shems, fifteen miles southwest of Jerusalem. See notes on Joshua 15:10 and 1 Samuel 6:9.

V. 12. Tents-Josephus says, when they were to engage, they were struck with such a terror, that they did not strike a stroke, but every man made the best of his way.

Verses 11, 12. Amaziah would not hear — Being blinded and hardened by God to his destruction, as a punishment of his abominable and ridiculous idolatry, 2 Chronicles 25:10. Therefore Jehoash went up — Namely, into the kingdom of Judah, carrying the war into his enemies’ country. At Beth-shemesh, which belongeth to Judah — Which is added to distinguish it from Beth-shemesh in Issachar, and another in Naphtali. And Judah was put to the worse — Their army being routed and dispersed. Josephus says that, when they were to engage, they were struck with such a terror that they did not strike a stroke, but every one made the best of his way home. Probably they were not satisfied as to the ground and manner of the quarrel, were discouraged by the king’s idolatry, and smitten by God with a spirit of fear.

12. Judah was put to the worse — ãgny is better rendered by, was smitten, as in the margin. Judah was utterly defeated.

V. 13. Ahaziah-Amaziah’s pedigree comes in somewhat abruptly, the son of Joash, the son of Ahaziah: Probably because he now smarted, for the iniquity of his ancestors.

Verse 13. Took Amaziah king of Judah] It is plain that Amaziah afterwards had his liberty; but how or on what terms he got it, is not known. See on the following verse.

Verses 13, 14. Jehoash took Amaziah king of Judah, &c. — Amaziah’s pedigree comes in here somewhat abruptly. The son of Jehoash, the son of Ahaziah — Because perhaps he had gloried in the dignity of his ancestors, or now smarted for their iniquity. And came to Jerusalem — Which tamely opened to him; probably because he demanded entrance in Amaziah’s name, and with his consent. And brake down the wall of Jerusalem — In reproach to them; and that he might, when he pleased, take possession of the royal city. Josephus says, that he drove his chariot in triumph through the breach. And he took all the gold and silver, &c. — He plundered Jerusalem, and took away all that was valuable, spoiling both the house of the Lord, and the king’s house, of all their treasures. And hostages — To ensure their peaceable conduct. And returned to Samaria — He did not keep Jerusalem, nor seek to gain the possession and dominion of that kingdom; partly, because he thought he could not keep it, considering the difficulty he found in defending his own from such potent and near enemies as the Syrians were, and the great affection which all Judah bore to David’s house; and partly, because God so inclined his heart, that he might make good his promise to David and his family.

13. Brake down the wall of Jerusalem — The northern wall. Gate of Ephraim — The same, doubtless, as the gate of Benjamin, (Jeremiah 37:13; Zechariah 14:10,) and so called from being the principal entrance to the city in the direction of these tribes. Its location was probably not far from the modern Damascus gate. Compare Nehemiah 8:16; 12:39. Corner gate — Situated probably at the northwestern corner of the same wall. Compare Jeremiah 31:38; Zechariah 14:10. Four hundred cubits — About seven hundred feet.

Verse 14. And he took-hostages] התערבות hattaaruboth, pledges; from br[ arab, to pledge, give security, &c., for the performance of some promise. See the meaning of this word interpreted in Clarke’s note on “Genesis 38:17”. It is likely that Amaziah gave some of the nobles or some of his own family as hostages, that he might regain his liberty; and they were to get their liberty when he had fulfilled his engagements; but of what kind these were we cannot tell, nor, indeed, how he got his liberty.

Verses 13, 14. Jehoash took Amaziah king of Judah, &c. — Amaziah’s pedigree comes in here somewhat abruptly. The son of Jehoash, the son of Ahaziah — Because perhaps he had gloried in the dignity of his ancestors, or now smarted for their iniquity. And came to Jerusalem — Which tamely opened to him; probably because he demanded entrance in Amaziah’s name, and with his consent. And brake down the wall of Jerusalem — In reproach to them; and that he might, when he pleased, take possession of the royal city. Josephus says, that he drove his chariot in triumph through the breach. And he took all the gold and silver, &c. — He plundered Jerusalem, and took away all that was valuable, spoiling both the house of the Lord, and the king’s house, of all their treasures. And hostages — To ensure their peaceable conduct. And returned to Samaria — He did not keep Jerusalem, nor seek to gain the possession and dominion of that kingdom; partly, because he thought he could not keep it, considering the difficulty he found in defending his own from such potent and near enemies as the Syrians were, and the great affection which all Judah bore to David’s house; and partly, because God so inclined his heart, that he might make good his promise to David and his family.

14. Hostages — Literally, sons of security. These were doubtless prominent men of Judah whom Jehoash demanded for the liberation of Amaziah. Having taken these to secure himself against further trouble with Amaziah he allowed the latter to remain in Jerusalem, where he continued to wear the title of king for fifteen years after the death of his conqueror. Some have thought that on account of humiliation and repentance Amaziah was specially favoured by God, and spared so long after his defeat, but that Jehoash was suddenly cut off for his sacrilegious spoliation of the temple.

Verse 15. How he fought with Amaziah] The only fighting between them was the battle already mentioned; and this is minutely related in 2 Chronicles 25:21-24.

REIGN OF AMAZIAH, KING OF JUDAH, 1-22.

1. In the second year of Joash — Amaziah’s father reigned in Jerusalem forty years. 2 Kings 12:1. In his thirty-seventh year Joash the son of Jehoahaz began to reign in Samaria. 2 Kings 13:10. Hence it would seem that Amaziah’s accession must have taken place in (not the second, but) the third or fourth year of Joash the son of Jehoahaz. To account for this difficulty some adopt the hypothesis of a co-regency, as stated in note on 2 Kings 13:1. But this is unnecessary, as the apparent discrepancy may be more easily accounted for by supposing that the first and last years of the forty years’ reign of Joash king of Judah were only parts of two years. Thus Keil: “These forty years may have amounted only to thirty-eight and a half or thirty-eight and three quarters, in case that Joash attained to the sovereignty a couple of months before Nisan, and his death occurred a few months after Nisan.”

REIGN OF AMAZIAH, KING OF JUDAH, 1-22.

1. In the second year of Joash — Amaziah’s father reigned in Jerusalem forty years. 2 Kings 12:1. In his thirty-seventh year Joash the son of Jehoahaz began to reign in Samaria. 2 Kings 13:10. Hence it would seem that Amaziah’s accession must have taken place in (not the second, but) the third or fourth year of Joash the son of Jehoahaz. To account for this difficulty some adopt the hypothesis of a co-regency, as stated in note on 2 Kings 13:1. But this is unnecessary, as the apparent discrepancy may be more easily accounted for by supposing that the first and last years of the forty years’ reign of Joash king of Judah were only parts of two years. Thus Keil: “These forty years may have amounted only to thirty-eight and a half or thirty-eight and three quarters, in case that Joash attained to the sovereignty a couple of months before Nisan, and his death occurred a few months after Nisan.”

REIGN OF AMAZIAH, KING OF JUDAH, 1-22.

1. In the second year of Joash — Amaziah’s father reigned in Jerusalem forty years. 2 Kings 12:1. In his thirty-seventh year Joash the son of Jehoahaz began to reign in Samaria. 2 Kings 13:10. Hence it would seem that Amaziah’s accession must have taken place in (not the second, but) the third or fourth year of Joash the son of Jehoahaz. To account for this difficulty some adopt the hypothesis of a co-regency, as stated in note on 2 Kings 13:1. But this is unnecessary, as the apparent discrepancy may be more easily accounted for by supposing that the first and last years of the forty years’ reign of Joash king of Judah were only parts of two years. Thus Keil: “These forty years may have amounted only to thirty-eight and a half or thirty-eight and three quarters, in case that Joash attained to the sovereignty a couple of months before Nisan, and his death occurred a few months after Nisan.”

REIGN OF AMAZIAH, KING OF JUDAH, 1-22.

1. In the second year of Joash — Amaziah’s father reigned in Jerusalem forty years. 2 Kings 12:1. In his thirty-seventh year Joash the son of Jehoahaz began to reign in Samaria. 2 Kings 13:10. Hence it would seem that Amaziah’s accession must have taken place in (not the second, but) the third or fourth year of Joash the son of Jehoahaz. To account for this difficulty some adopt the hypothesis of a co-regency, as stated in note on 2 Kings 13:1. But this is unnecessary, as the apparent discrepancy may be more easily accounted for by supposing that the first and last years of the forty years’ reign of Joash king of Judah were only parts of two years. Thus Keil: “These forty years may have amounted only to thirty-eight and a half or thirty-eight and three quarters, in case that Joash attained to the sovereignty a couple of months before Nisan, and his death occurred a few months after Nisan.”

Verse 19. They made a conspiracy against him] His defeat by Jehoash, and the consequent pillaging of the temple, and emptying the royal exchequer, and the dismantling of Jerusalem, had made him exceedingly unpopular; so that probably the whole of the last fifteen years of his life were a series of troubles and distresses.

Verses 19, 20. They made a conspiracy against him — That is, the people, and princes, and chief men among them did this; possibly those whose sons he had delivered up as hostages to Jehoash. It is likely this conspiracy was formed with the connivance, if not approbation, of the people, because the design was carried on openly, steadily, and irresistibly, as the following words show. “What provoked the people of Jerusalem, more than any other part of the nation, against their king, was the seeing their city spoiled of its best ornaments, exposed to reproach on account of the great breach made in their wall, and several of their children carried away as hostages for their good behaviour; all which they imputed to their king’s mal-administrations,” and hence they entered into this conspiracy against him. And he fled to Lachish — A strong city in Judah, toward the country of the Philistines. How long he continued concealed or sheltered there we are not told. Some commentators have conjectured, “that he lived in a state of exile in that city for twelve years, not bearing to continue in Jerusalem after the defeat which Jehoash had given him. But our learned Usher has placed this conspiracy in the last year of Amaziah’s reign; and Capellus supposes that it was set on foot by the great men of Jerusalem, on the specious pretence of being guardians to the young prince, and taking better care of him than his father was likely to do.” — Dodd. They — His rebellious subjects; sent after him to Lachish — Sent, some think, secret murderers, but, more probably, bands of soldiers, for this rebellion was carried on with a strong hand and open force. And they brought him on horses — Or, with horses, namely, in a chariot; and he was buried at Jerusalem — For the rage of the rebels was not extended beyond his death, nor did they deny him a burial with his ancestors.

19. A conspiracy against him — His turning after the gods of Edom, (see 2 Chronicles 25:27,) his defeat by Jehoash, the hostages taken of him, and the spoliation of the temple, all served to make the last half of his reign unpopular. The discontent of the kingdom culminated in conspiracy. So he perished like his father. 2 Kings 12:20. Lachish — Probably the modern Um Lakis, about thirty-five miles southwest of Jerusalem. See on Joshua 10:3. It is chiefly noted in connexion with the siege of Sennacherib. See on 2 Kings 18:14; 19:8.

V. 20. On horses-Or, with horses, in a chariot.

Verses 19, 20. They made a conspiracy against him — That is, the people, and princes, and chief men among them did this; possibly those whose sons he had delivered up as hostages to Jehoash. It is likely this conspiracy was formed with the connivance, if not approbation, of the people, because the design was carried on openly, steadily, and irresistibly, as the following words show. “What provoked the people of Jerusalem, more than any other part of the nation, against their king, was the seeing their city spoiled of its best ornaments, exposed to reproach on account of the great breach made in their wall, and several of their children carried away as hostages for their good behaviour; all which they imputed to their king’s mal-administrations,” and hence they entered into this conspiracy against him. And he fled to Lachish — A strong city in Judah, toward the country of the Philistines. How long he continued concealed or sheltered there we are not told. Some commentators have conjectured, “that he lived in a state of exile in that city for twelve years, not bearing to continue in Jerusalem after the defeat which Jehoash had given him. But our learned Usher has placed this conspiracy in the last year of Amaziah’s reign; and Capellus supposes that it was set on foot by the great men of Jerusalem, on the specious pretence of being guardians to the young prince, and taking better care of him than his father was likely to do.” — Dodd. They — His rebellious subjects; sent after him to Lachish — Sent, some think, secret murderers, but, more probably, bands of soldiers, for this rebellion was carried on with a strong hand and open force. And they brought him on horses — Or, with horses, namely, in a chariot; and he was buried at Jerusalem — For the rage of the rebels was not extended beyond his death, nor did they deny him a burial with his ancestors.

20. Brought him on horses — Hebrew, on the horses; that is, probably, on a chariot drawn by the same horses with which he had fled to Lachish.

V. 21. Azariah-This Azariah is called Uzziah, 2 Kings 15:30, both names signifying the same thing for substance; that, God’s help; and this, God’s strength. But this was not done till twelve years after his father’s death: so long the government was in the hands of protectors.

Verse 21. Took Azariah] He is also called Uzziah, 2 Chronicles 26:1. The former signifies, The help of the Lord; the latter, The strength of the Lord.

Verse 21. The people of Judah took Azariah — Called Uzziah, chap. 15:30, and 2 Chronicles 26:1. The two names signify nearly the same thing, the former meaning the help of God, and the latter, the strength of God. And made him king — Either in opposition to the conspirators, or to show their affection to the house of David, and signify that their quarrel was only personal against Amaziah, whom they considered as the author of all their late calamities. But, it must be observed, the people did not do this till twelve years after Amaziah’s death. For Amaziah died in the fifteenth year of Jeroboam, (compare verse 23 with verse 1,) but Azariah did not begin his reign till the twenty-seventh of Jeroboam, (2 Kings 15:1,) for he was but four years old at the death of his father: so that, for twelve years, till he came to be sixteen, the government was in the hands of protectors.

21. Azariah — Called also Uzziah. See note on 2 Kings 15:1.

Verse 22. He built Elath] This city belonged to the Edomites; and was situated on the eastern branch of the Red Sea, thence called the Elanitic Gulf. It had probably suffered much in the late war; and was now rebuilt by Uzziah, and brought entirely under the dominion of Judah.

Verse 22. He built Elath — Repaired and fortified it; for it was built before, Deuteronomy 2:8. And restored it to Judah — From whom it had revolted with the rest of Edom, in which land it lay, upon the Red sea. After that the king — Namely, his father Amaziah; slept with his fathers — The meaning is, that Amaziah did not perfect his conquest of Edom, but left some work there for his son to do.

22. Built Elath, and restored it to Judah — This fragmentary notice of the chief triumph of Judah during Azariah’s reign seems to have been thrown in here to show that the son of Amaziah was chiefly distinguished, like his father, for his work in the territories of Edom. Elath, which Azariah is here said to have built — that is, repaired and fortified — is first mentioned in connexion with the journey of Israel through the desert, (Deuteronomy 2:8,) and again at 1 Kings 9:26, where see note. It was situated at the head of the eastern arm of the Red Sea, and the ancient site is now marked by extensive mounds of rubbish.

REIGN OF JEROBOAM, THE SON OF JOASH, 23-29.

23. Forty and one years — This is probably an error, and should be fifty-two years. See note on 2 Kings 15:8.

24. Departed not from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat — Fit successor of that first king of Israel, whose name he bore; he was like him both in wickedness and enterprise.

V. 25. The sea-Unto the dead sea, once a goodly plain, Genesis 13:10, which was their southern border.

Verse 25. He restored the coast of Israel] From the description that is here given, it appears that Jeroboam reconquered all the territory that had been taken from the kings of Israel; so that Jeroboam the second left the kingdom as ample as it was when the ten tribes separated under Jeroboam the first.

Verse 25. He restored the coast, &c., from Hamath — Which was the northern border of the kingdom of Israel; unto the sea of the plain — The Dead sea, which was once a goodly plain, and was their southern border. Which he spake by his servant Jonah — Or Jonas; one of the lesser prophets. The only mention that we have of this prophet is in this passage, and in the account of his famous mission to Nineveh, in considering which we shall say more concerning him. What the prophecies were by which he encouraged Jeroboam to proclaim war against the king of Syria, is nowhere recorded. But as we have not every thing which the prophets did write, so several prophets did not commit any of their predictions to writing. From this place, however, we learn, that God was so gracious to the Israelites, wicked as they were, as to continue a race of prophets among them, even after Elijah and Elisha were dead. See Patrick and Dodd. Happy that land which is thus favoured! which has a succession of prophets running parallel with a succession of princes; that the word of the Lord may endure for ever!

25. Restored the coast — Reconquered the territory that had been taken at different times from his predecessors, and made the kingdom as extensive as it was in the days of Jeroboam the son of Nebat. Entering of Hamath — The northern border of the kingdom of Solomon, (1 Kings 8:65,) commonly identified with the southern opening into the great valley of Coele-Syria. See on Joshua 13:5. Sea of the plain — The Salt or Dead Sea. Compare Deuteronomy 3:17. Word of the Lord God — A communication or oracle granted, notwithstanding the king’s wickedness, for the comfort of Israel. By the hand of… Jonah — That is, through his agency or instrumentality. There can be no reasonable doubt that this Jonah, the son of Amittai, is the same prophet whose ministry to the Ninevites is recorded in the prophetical book that bears his name. Josephus says: “Jonah, a prophet, foretold to Jeroboam that he should make war with the Syrians, and conquer their army, and enlarge the bounds of his kingdom on the northern parts to the city of Hamath, and on the southern to the lake Asphaltitis; for the bounds of the Canaanites were originally these, according as Joshua, the general, determined. So Jeroboam organized an expedition against the Syrians, and overran all their country, as Jonah had foretold.” Gath-hepher — The same as Gittah-hepher, in the tribe of Zebulon. See on Joshua 19:13.

V. 26. Was bitter-Whereby he was moved to pity and help them, though they were an unworthy people. Nor any left-Both towns and country were utterly laid waste.

Verse 26. The Lord saw the affliction of Israel] It appears that about this time Israel had been greatly reduced; and great calamities had fallen upon all indiscriminately; even the diseased and captives in the dungeon had the hand of God heavy upon them, and there was no helper; and then God sent Jonah to encourage them, and to assure them of better days. He was the first of the prophets, after Samuel, whose writings are preserved; yet the prophecy delivered on this occasion is not extant; for what is now in the prophecies of Jonah, relates wholly to Nineveh.

Verses 26, 27. The Lord saw the affliction of Israel, that it was very bitter — Whereby he was moved to pity and help them, though they were an unworthy people. They that lived in those parts of their country, of which their enemies were masters, were miserably oppressed and enslaved, and could call nothing their own: the rest, we may suppose, were much empoverished by the frequent incursions which their enemies made upon them, to plunder them; and were continually frightened with their alarms; so that there was none shut up or left, but both towns and country were laid waste and stripped of their wealth, and no helper appeared. To this extremity they were reduced in many parts of the country in the beginning of Jeroboam’s reign, when God, in mere pity to them, heard the cry of their affliction, (for no mention is here made of the cry of their prayers,) and wrought this deliverance for them by the hand of Jeroboam. Reader, is thy case piteous? Then take comfort from the divine pity. He has bowels of mercy, and is full of compassion! For the Lord said not that he would blot out the name, &c. — That is, not yet: he had not yet declared this, as afterward he did by the succeeding prophets, though not in these very words, Hosea 1:5-9. The decree was not yet gone forth for their utter destruction. If it be understood of the dispersion of the ten tribes, he did both say it and do it not long after: reprieves are not pardons. If of the utter extirpation of the name of Israel, he never said it, nor will ever do it: for that name still remains under heaven in the spiritual Israel, and will to the end of time.

26. Not any shut up, nor any left — On this idiomatic phrase, see 1 Kings 14:10, note. Israel had become reduced to great extremities; the prisoner and the free seemed gone, and thus was fulfilled in them a prophecy of Moses. Compare Deuteronomy 32:36. Nor any helper — No God-sent deliverer, or “saviour,” (comp. 2 Kings 13:5; 19:25,) to effectually deliver them from the oppression of the Syrians. Joash had thrice smitten Syria, but as the dying Elisha prophesied, he secured no permanent victory.

V. 27. Said not-Not yet; he had not yet declared this, as afterwards he did by the succeeding prophets.

Verses 26, 27. The Lord saw the affliction of Israel, that it was very bitter — Whereby he was moved to pity and help them, though they were an unworthy people. They that lived in those parts of their country, of which their enemies were masters, were miserably oppressed and enslaved, and could call nothing their own: the rest, we may suppose, were much empoverished by the frequent incursions which their enemies made upon them, to plunder them; and were continually frightened with their alarms; so that there was none shut up or left, but both towns and country were laid waste and stripped of their wealth, and no helper appeared. To this extremity they were reduced in many parts of the country in the beginning of Jeroboam’s reign, when God, in mere pity to them, heard the cry of their affliction, (for no mention is here made of the cry of their prayers,) and wrought this deliverance for them by the hand of Jeroboam. Reader, is thy case piteous? Then take comfort from the divine pity. He has bowels of mercy, and is full of compassion! For the Lord said not that he would blot out the name, &c. — That is, not yet: he had not yet declared this, as afterward he did by the succeeding prophets, though not in these very words, Hosea 1:5-9. The decree was not yet gone forth for their utter destruction. If it be understood of the dispersion of the ten tribes, he did both say it and do it not long after: reprieves are not pardons. If of the utter extirpation of the name of Israel, he never said it, nor will ever do it: for that name still remains under heaven in the spiritual Israel, and will to the end of time.

27. The Lord said not — Not yet had gone forth the oracle of judgment, for still he cared for them in mercy because of his covenant with the ancient fathers. Compare 2 Kings 13:23. But there soon came a time when the Divine compassion ceased, and the prophets Hosea, Amos, Micah, and others, foretold the ruin of Israel. Saved them by the hand of Jeroboam — Notwithstanding his wickedness and devotion to the calf-worship at Beth-el and Dan, God used him as an instrument to smite the Syrian power.

Verse 28. How he warred, and-recovered Damascus] We learn from 1 Chronicles 18:3-11, that David had conquered all Syria, and put garrisons in Damascus and other places, and laid all the Syrians under tribute; but this yoke they had not only shaken off, but they had conquered a considerable portion of the Israelitish territory, and added it to Syria. These latter Jeroboam now recovered; and thus the places which anciently belonged to Judah by David’s conquests, and were repossessed by Syria, he now conquered, and added to Israel.

Verse 28. And how he recovered Damascus and Hamath — These were cities of Syria, but were taken from the Syrians by David and Solomon, and probably by them incorporated with, and added to, the possessions of their own tribe, to which, from that time, they belonged: but afterward they were retaken by the Syrians, and were now recovered by this Jeroboam.

28. He recovered Damascus — David smote the Syrians of Damascus and made them tributary; (2 Samuel 8:6;) but in Solomon’s day Rezon established himself in Damascus and acted the part of an adversary to Israel, (1 Kings 11:23,) after which time Damascus was not recovered for Israel until the time of this Jeroboam. He brought the kingdom of Damascus, which had so long distressed both Judah and Israel, into subjection, and made it tributary to himself. Afterwards we find Syria and Israel in league against Judah. 2 Kings 15:37; 16:5. Hamath, which belonged to Judah — That is, it belonged to the united kingdom under David and Solomon when the seat of empire was in Judah and Jerusalem. David’s conquests, according to 1 Chronicles 18:3, extended to Hamath, and Solomon completed the conquest of this district and built store cities there. 2 Chronicles 8:3, 4. But soon afterwards it seems to have recovered its independence. Hamath was one of the oldest cities of Palestine, and is often mentioned in connexion with its northern border. See on Joshua 13:5.

V. 29. Jeroboam-It was in the reign of this Jeroboam, that Hosea began to prophesy, and he was the first that wrote his prophecies. At the same time Amos prophesied, soon after Micah, and then Isaiah in the days of Ahaz and Hezekiah. Thus God never left himself without witness, but in the darkest ages of the church, raised up some to be burning and shining lights, to their own age, by their preaching and living; and a few by their writings to reflect light upon us, on whom the ends of the world are come.

Verse 29. Jeroboam slept with his fathers] He died a natural death; and was regularly succeeded by his son Zachariah, who, reigning badly, was, after six months, slain by Shallum, who succeeded him, and reigned but one month, being slain by Menahem, who succeeded him, and reigned ten years over Israel. Amos the prophet lived in the reign of Jeroboam; and was accused by Amaziah, one of the idolatrous priests of Beth-el, of having predicted the death of Jeroboam by the sword, but this was a slander: what he did predict, and which came afterwards to pass, may be seen Amos 7:10-17. The interregnum referred to in the margin cannot be accounted for in a satisfactory manner.

II KINGS

Verse 29. And Jeroboam slept with his fathers, &c. — It was in the reign of this Jeroboam, that Hosea (who continued very long a prophet) began to prophesy, and he was the first that wrote his prophecies. At the same time Amos prophesied, and wrote his prophecy, and soon after Micah, and then Isaiah, in the days of Ahaz and Hezekiah. Thus God never left himself without witness: but, in the darkest ages of the church, raised up some to be burning and shining lights to their own age by their preaching and living; and a few by their writings to reflect light upon us, on whom the ends of the world are come.

REIGN OF JEROBOAM, THE SON OF JOASH, 23-29.

23. Forty and one years — This is probably an error, and should be fifty-two years. See note on 2 Kings 15:8.