الكتاب المقدس

Expositor's Bible Commentary 2 Kings 14:1 In the second year of Joash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel reigned Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah. AMAZIAH OF JUDAH B.C. 796-783 (?) 2 Kings 14:1-22 "All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Matthew 26:52 THE fate of Amaziah ("Jehovah is strong"), son of Joash of Judah, resembles in some respects that of his father. Both began to reign prosperously: the happiness of both ended in disaster. Amaziah at his accession was twenty-five years old. He was the son of a lady of Jerusalem named Jehoaddin. He reigned twenty-nine years, of which the later ones were passed in misery, peril, and degradation, and, like the unhappy Joash, and at about the same age, he fell the victim of domestic conspiracy. The hereditary principle was too strongly established to enable the murderers of Joash to set it aside, but Amaziah was not at first strong enough to make any head against them. In time he became established in his kingdom, and then his earliest act was to bring the head conspirators, Jozacar and Jehozabad, to justice. It was noted as a most remarkable circumstance that he did not put to death their children, and extirpate their houses. In acting thus, if he were influenced by a spirit of mercy, he showed himself before his time; but such mercy was completely contrary to the universal custom, and was also regarded as most impolitic. Even the comparatively merciful Greeks had the proverb, "Fool, who has murdered the sire, and left his sons to avenge him!" In epochs of the wild justice of revenge, when blood-feuds are an established and approved institution, the policy of letting vengeance only fall on the actual offender was regarded as fatal. Perhaps Amaziah felt it beyond his power to do more than bring the actual murderers to justice, and it is possible that their children may have been among the conspirators who, in his hour of shame, ultimately destroyed him. The historian, it is true, attributes his conduct to magnanimity, or rather to his obedience to the law, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children for the fathers; but every man shall die for his own sin." This is a reference to Deuteronomy 24:16 , and is probably the independent comment of the writer who recorded the event two centuries later. In the gradual growth of a milder civilization, and the more common dominance of legal justice, such a law may have come into force, as expressive of that voice of conscience which is to sincere nations the voice of God. That the Book of Deuteronomy, as a book, was not in existence in its present form till four reigns later we shall hereafter see strong reasons to believe. But even if any part of that book was in existence, it is not easy to understand how Amaziah would have been able to decide that the law which forbade the punishment of the children with the offending parents was the law which he was bound to follow, when Moses and Joshua and other heroes of his race had acted on the olden principle. The innocent families of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram were represented as having been swallowed up with the ambitious heads of their houses. Joshua and all Israel had not only stoned Achan, but with him all his unoffending house. What, too, was the meaning of the law which established the five Cities of Refuge as the best way to protect the accidental homicide from the recognized and unrebuked actions of the God- the avenger of blood? The vengeance of a Goel was regarded, as it is in the East and South to this day, not as an implacable fierceness, but as a sacred duty, the neglect of which would cover him with infamy. Judging of our documents by the impartial light of honest criticism, it seems impossible to deny that the law of Deuteronomy was the law of an advancing civilization, which became more mild as justice became firmer and more available. If Deuteronomy represents the legislation of Moses, we can only say that in this respect Amaziah was the first person who paid the slightest attention to it. Such exceptional obedience may well excite the notice of the historian, in whose pages we see that prophets like Ahijah, Elijah, and Elisha had, again and again, in accordance with the spirit of their times, contemplated the total excision, not only of erring kings, but even of their little children and their most distant kinsfolk. Further:-We are told that Amaziah "did that which was right in the sight of Jehovah: he did according to all things as Joash his father did." The Chronicler also bestows his eulogy on Amaziah; but having told such dark stories of the apostasy of Joash to Asherah-worship and his murder of the prophets, he could hardly add "as Joash his father did"; so he omits those words. The reservation that Amaziah did right, "yet not like David his father," {2Ki 14:3} "but not with a perfect heart," {2Ch 25:2} is followed by the stock abatement about the bamoth , and the sacrifices and incense burnt in them. This was a crime in the eyes of writers in B.C. 540, but certainly not in the eyes of any king before the discovery of the "Book of the Law" in the reign of Josiah, B.C. 621. We are compelled, therefore, by simple truth, to ask, How came it that Amaziah should be so scrupulous as to observe the Deuteronomic law by not slaying the sons of his father’s murderers, while he does not seem to be aware, any more than the best of his predecessors, that while he obeyed one precept he was violating the essence and spirit of the entire code in which the precept occurs? The one main object, the constantly repeated law of, Deuteronomy, is the centralization of all worship, and the rigid prohibition of every local place of sacrifice. Strange that Amaziah should have selected for attention a single precept, while he is profoundly unconscious of, or indifferent to, the fact that he is setting aside the regulation with which the law, as Deuteronomy represents it, begins and ends, and on which it incessantly insists! Joash had been something of a weakling, as though the gloom of his early concealment in the Temple and the shadow of priestly dominance had paralyzed his independence. Amaziah, on the other hand, born in the purple, was vigorous and restless. When he was secure upon the throne, and had done his duty to his father’s memory, he bent his efforts to recover Edom. The Edomites had revolted in the days of his great-grandfather Jehoram, {2Ki 8:20-22} and since then "did tear perpetually," {Amo 1:11} harassing with incessant raids the miserable fellahin of Southern Judah. They reaped the crops of the settled inhabitants, cut down their fruit-trees, burnt their farmsteads, and carried their children into cruel and hopeless slavery. One verse tells us all that the historian knew, or cared to relate, of Amaziah’s campaign. He only says that it was eminently successful: Amaziah confronted the Edomites in the Valley of Salt, on the border of Edom, to the south of the Dead Sea, and inflicted upon them a signal defeat. He not only slaughtered ten thousand of them, but, advancing southwards, he stormed and captured Selah or Petra, their rocky capital, two days’ journey north of Ezion-Geber, on the gulf of Akabah. Considering the natural strength of Petra, amid its mountain-fastnesses, this was a victory of which he might well be proud, and be marked his prowess by changing the name of the city to Joktheel, "subdued by God." The historian, copying the ancient record before him, says that Selah continued to be so-called "to this day." This is a curious instance of close transcription, for it is certain that Selah can only have retained the name of Joktheel for a very short period, and had lost it long before ‘the days of the Exile. Even in the reign of Ahaz (B.C. 735-715) the Edomites had so completely recovered lost ground that they were able to make predatory excursions into Judah, and to threaten Hebron, which would have been obviciously impossible if they were not masters of their own chief capital. The district which Amaziah seems to have conquered was mainly west of the Arabah. He wished to restore Elath, and perhaps to carry out the old commerce with the Red Sea which Solomon began, and which had fired the ambition of Jehoshaphat. The conquest of Selah secured the road for his commercial caravans. So far the older and better authorities. The Chronicler expands the story in his usual fashion, in which historical and critical verity is so often compelled, if not to suspect the disease of exaggeration and the bias of Levitism, at least to feel uncertainty as to the details. He says that Amaziah collected an army of three hundred thousand men of Judah, trained them to a high state of discipline, and armed them with spear and shield. He hired in addition one hundred thousand Israelitish mercenaries, mighty men of valor, at the heavy cost of one hundred talents of silver. He was rebuked by a prophet for employing Israelites, "because the Lord was not with them," so that if he used their aid he would certainly be defeated. Amaziah asked what he was to do for the hundred talents, and the prophet told him that Jehovah could give him much more than this. {2Ch 25:5-10; 2Ch 25:13} So he dismissed his Ephraimites, who, returning home in great fury, "fell upon the cities of Judah," from Samaria even unto Beth-horon, killed three thousand of their inhabitants, and took much spoil. Amaziah, however, defeated the Edomites without their aid, and not only slew ten thousand, but took captive ten thousand more, all of whom he dashed to pieces by hurling them from the top of the rock of Petra. Then, by an apostasy much more astounding than even that of his father Joash, he took home with him the idols of Mount Seir, worshipped them, and burnt incense before them. Jehovah sends a prophet to rebuke him for his senseless infatuation in worshipping the gods of the Edomites whom he had just so utterly defeated; but Amaziah returns him the insolent answer, "Who made thee of the king’s council? Be silent, or I will put thee to death." The prophet met his ironical sneer with words of deeper meaning: "If I am not on your council, I am on God’s. Because thou hast not hearkened to my counsel, I know that God has counseled to destroy thee." The later writer thus accounts for the folly and overthrow of this valorous and hitherto eminently pious king. Certain it is, as we shall narrate in the next chapter, that, in spite of warning, he had the temerity to challenge to battle the warlike Joash ben-Jehoahaz of Israel, grandson of Jehu. The kings met at Beth-Shemesh, and Amaziah was utterly routed, with consequences so shameful to himself and to Jerusalem that he was never able to hold up his head again. He could but eat away his own heart in despair, a ruined man. After this he "lived" rather than reigned fifteen years longer. The wall of Jerusalem, broken down near the Damascus Gate, on the side towards Israel, for a space of four hundred cubits, was a standing witness of the king’s infatuated folly. His people were ashamed of him, and weary of him; and at last, seeing that nothing more could be expected of one whose spirit had evidently been broken from impetuosity into abjectness, they formed a conspiracy against him. To save his life he fled to the strong fort of Lachish, a royal Canaanite city, in the hills to the southwest of Judah. {Jos 10:6; Jos 10:31; Jos 15:39 2Ki 18:17 2Ch 11:9} But they pursued him thither, and even Lachish would not protect him; He was murdered. They threw the corpse upon a chariot, conveyed it to Jerusalem, and buried it in the sepulchers of his fathers. The people quietly elevated to the throne his son Azariah, then sixteen years old, who had been born the year before his father’s crowning disgrace. What became of the conspirators we do not know. They were probably too strong to be brought to justice, and we are not told that Azariah even attempted to visit their crime upon their heads. 2 Kings 14:8 Then Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz son of Jehu, king of Israel, saying, Come, let us look one another in the face. THE DYNASTY OF JEHU Jehoahaz 814-797 {2Ki 13:1-9} Joash 797-781 {2Ki 13:10-21; 2Ki 14:8-16} Jeroboam II 781-740 {2Ki 14:23-29} Zechariah 740 {2Ki 15:8-12} "Them that honor Me I will honor, and they that despise Me shall be lightly esteemed." - 1 Samuel 2:30 ISRAEL had scarcely ever sunk to so low a nadir of degradation as she did in the reign of the son of Jehu. We have already mentioned that some assign to his reign the ghastly story which we have narrated in our sketch of the work of Elisha. It is told in the sixth chapter of the Second Book of Kings, and seems to belong to the reign of Jehoram ben-Ahab; but it may have got displaced from this epoch of yet deeper wretchedness. The accounts of Jehoahaz in 2 Kings 13:1-25 are evidently fragmentary and abrupt. Jehoahaz reigned seventeen years. Naturally, he did not disturb the calf-worship, which, like all his predecessors and successors, he regarded as a perfectly innocent symbolic adoration of Jehovah, whose name he bore and whose service he professed. Why should he do so? It had been established now for more than two centuries. His father, in spite of his passionate and ruthless zeal for Jehovah, had never attempted to disturb it. No prophet-not even Elijah nor Elisha, the practical establishers of his dynasty-had said one word to condemn it. It in no way rested on his conscience as an offence; and the formal condemnation of it by the historian only reflects the more enlightened judgment of the Southern Kingdom and of a later age. But according to the parenthesis which breaks the thread of this king’s story, {2Ki 13:5-6} he was guilty of a far more culpable defection from orthodox worship; for in his reign, the Asherah -the tree or pillar of the Tyrian nature-goddess-still remained in Samaria, and therefore must have had its worshippers. How it came there we cannot tell. Jezebel had set it up, {1Ki 16:33} with the connivance of Ahab. Jehu apparently had "put it away" with the great stele of Baal, {2Ki 3:2} but, for some reason or other, he had not destroyed it. It now apparently occupied some public place, a symbol of decadence, and provocative of the wrath of Heaven. Jehoahaz sank very low. Hazael’s savage sword, not content with the devastation of Bashan and Gilead, wasted the west of Israel also in all its borders. The king became a mere vassal of his brutal neighbor at Damascus. So little of the barest semblance of power was left him, that whereas, in the reign of David, Israel could muster an army of eight hundred thousand, and in the reign of Joash, the son and successor of Jehoahaz, Amaziah could hire from Israel one hundred thousand mighty men of valor as mercenaries, Jehoahaz was only allowed to maintain an army of ten chariots, fifty horsemen, and ten thousand infantry! In the picturesque phrase of the historian, "the King of Syria had threshed down Israel to the dust," in spite of all that Jehoahaz did, or tried to do, and "all his might." How completely helpless the Israelites were is shown by the fact that their armies could offer no opposition to the free passage of the Syrian troops through their land. Hazael did not regard them as threatening his rear; for, in the reign of Jehoahaz, he marched southwards, took the Philistine city of Gath, and threatened Jerusalem. Joash of Judah could only buy them off with the bribe of all his treasures, and according to the Chronicler they "destroyed all the princes of the people," and took great spoil to Damascus. {2Ch 24:23} Where was Elisha? After the anointing of Jehu he vanishes from the scene. Unless the narrative of the siege of Samaria has been displaced, we do not so much as once hear of him for nearly half a century. The fearful depth of humiliation to which the king was reduced drove him to repentance. Wearied to death of the Syrian oppression of which he was the daily witness, and of the utter misery caused by prowling bands of Ammonites and Moabites-jackals who waited on the Syrian lion-Jehoahaz "besought the Lord, and the Lord hearkened unto him, and gave Israel a savior, so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime." If this indeed refers to events which come out of place in the memoirs of Elisha; and if Jehoahaz ben-Jehu, not Jehoram ben-Ahab, was the king in whose reign the siege of Samaria was so marvellously raised, then Elisha may possibly be the temporary deliverer who is here alluded to. On this supposition we may see a sign of the repentance of Jehoahaz in the shirt of sackcloth which he wore under his robes, as it became visible to his starving people when he rent his clothes on hearing the cannibal instincts which had driven mothers to devour their own children. But the respite must have been brief, since Hazael ( 2 Kings 13:22 ) oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz. If this rearrangement of events be untenable, we must suppose that the repentance of Jehoahaz was only so far accepted, and his prayer so far heard, that the deliverance, which did not come in his own days, came in those of his son and of his grandson. Of him and of his wretched reign we hear no more; but a very different epoch dawned with the accession of his son Joash, named after the contemporary King of Judah, Joash ben-Ahaziah. In the Books of Kings and Chronicles Joash of Israel is condemned with the usual refrains about the sins of Jeroboam. No other sin is laid to his charge; and breaking the monotony of reprobation which tells us of every king of Israel without exception that "he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord," Josephus boldly ventures to call him "a good man; and the antithesis to his father." He reigned sixteen years. At the beginning of his reign he found his country the despised prey, not only of Syria, but of the paltry neighboring bandit-sheykhs who infested the east of the Jordan; he left it comparatively strong, prosperous, and independent. In his reign we hear again of Elisha, now a very old man of past eighty years. Nearly half a century had elapsed since the grandfather of Joash had destroyed the house of Ahab at the prophet’s command. News came to the king that Elisha was sick of a mortal sickness, and he naturally went to visit the death-bed of one who had called his dynasty to the throne, and had in earlier years played so memorable a part in the history of his country. He found the old man dying, and he wept over him, crying, "My father; my father! the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof." {Comp. 2Ki 2:12} The address strikes us with some surprise. Elisha had indeed delivered Samaria more than once when the city had been reduced to direst extremity; but in spite of his prayers and of his presence, the sins of Israel and her kings had rendered this chariot of Israel of very small avail. The names of Ahab, Jehu, Jehoahaz, call up memories of a series of miseries and humiliations which had reduced Israel to the very verge of extinction. For sixty-three years Elisha had been the prophet of Israel; and though his public interpositions had been signal on several occasions, they had not been availing to prevent Ahab from becoming the vassal of Assyria, nor Israel from becoming the appendage of the dominion of that Hazael whom Elisha himself had anointed King of Syria, and who had become of all the enemies of his country the most persistent and the most implacable. The narrative which follows is very singular. We must give it-as it occurs, with but little apprehension of its exact significance. Elisha, though Joash "did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord," seems to have regarded him with affection. He bade the youth take his bow, and laid his feeble, trembling hands on the strong hands of the king. Then he ordered an attendant to fling open the lattice, and told the king to shoot eastward towards Gilead, the region whence the bands of Syria made their way over the Jordan. The king shot, and the fire came back into the old prophet’s eye as he heard the arrow whistle eastward. He cried, "The arrow of Jehovah’s deliverance, even the arrow of victory over Syria: for thou shalt smite the Syrians in Aphek, till thou have consumed them." Then he bade the young king to take the sheaf of arrows, and smite towards the ground, as if he was striking down an enemy. Not understanding the significance of the act, the king made the sign of thrice striking the arrows downwards, and then naturally stopped. But Elisha was angry-or at any rate grieved. "You should have smitten five or six times," he said, "and then you would have smitten Syria to destruction. Now you shall only smite Syria thrice." The king’s fault seems to have been lack of energy and faith. There are in this story some peculiar elements which it is impossible to explain, but it has one beautiful and striking feature. It tells us of the death - bed of a prophet. Most of God’s greatest prophets have perished amid the hatred of priests and worldlings. The progress of the truth they taught has been "from scaffold to scaffold, and from stake to stake." "Careless seems the Great Avenger. History’s pages but record One death-grapple in the darkness ‘twixt old systems and the Word- Truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne; Yet that scaffold sways the Future, and behind the dim unknown Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above His own!" Now and then, however, as an exception, a great prophetic teacher or reformer escapes the hatred of the priests and of the world, and dies in peace. Savonarola is burnt, Huss is burnt, but Wicliff dies in his bed at Lutterworth, and Luther died in peace at Eisleben. Elijah passed away in storm, and was seen no more. A king comes to weep by the death-bed of the aged Elisha. "For us," it has been said, "the scene at his bedside contains a lesson of comfort and even encouragement. Let us try to realize it. A man with no material power is dying in the capital of Israel. He is not rich: he holds no office which gives him any immediate control over the actions of men; he has but one weapon-the power of his word. Yet Israel’s king stands weeping at his bedside-weeping because this inspired messenger of Jehovah is to be taken from him. In him both king and people will lose a mighty support, for this man is a greater strength to Israel than chariots and horsemen are. Joash does well to mourn for him, for he has had courage to wake the nation’s conscience; the might of his personality has sufficed to turn them in the true direction, and rouse their moral and religious life. Such men as Elisha everywhere and always give a strength to their people above the strength of armies, for the true blessings of a nation are reared on the foundations of its moral force." The annals are here interrupted to introduce a posthumous miracle-unlike any other in the whole Bible-wrought by the bones of Elisha. He died, and they buried him, "giving him," as Josephus says, "a magnificent burial." As usual, the spring brought with it the marauding bands of Moabites. Some Israelites who were burying a man caught sight of them, and, anxious to escape, thrust the man into the sepulcher of Elisha, which happened to be nearest at hand. But when he was placed in the rocky tomb, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet. Doubtless the story rests on some real circumstance. There is, however, something singular in the turn of the original, which says (literally) that the man went and touched the bones of Elisha; and there is proof that the story was told in varying forms, for Josephus says that it was the Moabite plunderers who had killed the man, and that he was thrown by them into Elisha’s tomb. It is easy to invent moral and spiritual lessons out of this incident, but not so easy to see what lesson is intended by it. Certainly there is not throughout Scripture any other passage which even seems to sanction any suspicions of magic potency in the relics of the dead. But Elisha’s symbolic prophecy of deliverance from Syria was amply fulfilled. About this time Hazael had died, and had left his power in the feebler hands of his son Benhadad III. Jehoahaz had not been able to make any way against him, {2Ki 13:3} but Joash his son thrice met and thrice defeated him at Aphek. As a consequence of these victories, he won back all the cities which Hazael had taken from his father on the west of Jordan. The east of Jordan was never recovered. It fell under the shadow of Assyria, and was practically lost forever to the tribes of Israel. Whether Assyria lent her help to Joash under certain conditions we do not know. Certain it is that from this time the terror of Syria vanishes. The Assyrian king Rammanirari III about this time subjugated all Syria and its king, whom the tablets call Mari, perhaps the same as Benhadad III. In the next reign Damascus itself fell into the power of Jeroboam II, the son of Joash. One more event, to which we have already alluded, is narrated in the reign of this prosperous and valiant king. Amity had reigned for a century between Judah and Israel, the result of the politic-impolitic alliance which Jehoshaphat had sanctioned between his son Jehoram and the daughter of Jezebel. It was obviously most desirable that the two small kingdoms should be united as closely as possible by an offensive and defensive alliance. But the bond between them was broken by the overweening vanity of Amaziah ben-Joash of Judah. His victory over the Edomites, and his conquest of Petra, had puffed him up with the mistaken notion that he was a very great man and an invincible warrior. He had the wicked infatuation to kindle an unprovoked war against the Northern Tribes. It was the most wanton of the many instances in which, if Ephraim did not envy Judah, at least Judah vexed Ephraim. Amaziah challenged Joash to come out to battle, that they might look one another in the face. He had not recognized the difference between fighting with and without the sanction of the God of battles. Joash had on his hands enough of necessary and internecine war to make him more than indifferent to that bloody game. Moreover, as the superior of Amaziah in every way, he saw through his inflated emptiness. He knew that it was the worst possible policy for Judah and Israel to weaken each other in fratricidal war, while Syria threatened their northern and. eastern frontiers, and while the tread of the mighty march of Assyria was echoing ominously in the ears of the nations from afar. Better and kinder feelings may have mingled with these wise convictions. He had no wish to destroy the poor fool who so vaingloriously provoked his superior might. His answer was one of the most crushingly contemptuous pieces of irony which history records, and yet it was eminently kindly and good-humoured: It was meant to save the King of Judah from advancing any further on the path of certain ruin. "The thistle that was in Lebanon" (such was the apologue which he addressed to his would-be rival) "sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying: Give thy daughter to my son to wife. The cedar took no sort of notice of the thistle’s ludicrous presumption, but a wild beast that was in Lebanon passed by, and trod down the thistle." It was the answer of a giant to a dwarf; and to make it quite clear to the humblest comprehension, Joash good-naturedly added: "You are puffed up with your victory over Edom: glory in this, and stay at home. Why by your vain meddling should you ruin yourself and Judah with you? Keep quiet: I have something else to do than to attend to you." Happy had it been for Amaziah if he had taken warning! But vanity is a bad counselor, and folly and self-deception-ill-matched pair-were whirling him to his doom. Seeing that he was bent on his own perdition, Joash took the initiative and marched to Beth-Shemesh, in the territory of Judah. There the kings met, and there Amaziah was hopelessly defeated. His troops fled to their scattered homes, and he fell into the hands of his conqueror. Joash did not care to take any sanguinary revenge; but much as he despised his enemy, he thought it necessary to teach him and Judah the permanent lesson of not again meddling to their own hurt. He took the captive king with him to Jerusalem, which opened its gates without a blow. We do not know whether, like a Roman conqueror, he entered it through the breach of four hundred cubits which he ordered them to make in the walls, but otherwise he contented himself with spoil which would swell his treasure, and amply compensate for the expenses of the expedition which had been forced upon him. He ransacked Jerusalem for silver and gold; he made Obed-Edom, the treasurer, give up to him all the sacred vessels of the Temple, and all that was worth taking from the palace. He also took hostages-probably from among the number of the king’s sons-to secure immunity from further intrusions. It is the first time in Scripture that hostages are mentioned. It is to his credit that he shed no blood, and was even content to leave his defeated challenger with the disgraced phantom of his kingly power, till, fifteen years later, he followed his father to the grave through the red path of murder at the hand of his own subjects. After this we hear no further records of this vigorous and able king, in whom the characteristics of his grandfather Jehu are reflected in softer outline. He left his son Jeroboam II to continue his career of prosperity, and to advance Israel to a pitch of greatness which she had never yet attained, in which she rivaled the grandeur of the united kingdom in the earlier days of Solomon’s dominion. 2 Kings 14:23 In the fifteenth year of Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel began to reign in Samaria, and reigned forty and one years. elete_me 2 Kings 13:10-21 THE DYNASTY OF JEHU Jehoahaz 814-797 {2Ki 13:1-9} Joash 797-781 {2Ki 13:10-21; 2Ki 14:8-16} Jeroboam II 781-740 {2Ki 14:23-29} Zechariah 740 {2Ki 15:8-12} "Them that honor Me I will honor, and they that despise Me shall be lightly esteemed." - 1 Samuel 2:30 ISRAEL had scarcely ever sunk to so low a nadir of degradation as she did in the reign of the son of Jehu. We have already mentioned that some assign to his reign the ghastly story which we have narrated in our sketch of the work of Elisha. It is told in the sixth chapter of the Second Book of Kings, and seems to belong to the reign of Jehoram ben-Ahab; but it may have got displaced from this epoch of yet deeper wretchedness. The accounts of Jehoahaz in 2 Kings 13:1-25 are evidently fragmentary and abrupt. Jehoahaz reigned seventeen years. Naturally, he did not disturb the calf-worship, which, like all his predecessors and successors, he regarded as a perfectly innocent symbolic adoration of Jehovah, whose name he bore and whose service he professed. Why should he do so? It had been established now for more than two centuries. His father, in spite of his passionate and ruthless zeal for Jehovah, had never attempted to disturb it. No prophet-not even Elijah nor Elisha, the practical establishers of his dynasty-had said one word to condemn it. It in no way rested on his conscience as an offence; and the formal condemnation of it by the historian only reflects the more enlightened judgment of the Southern Kingdom and of a later age. But according to the parenthesis which breaks the thread of this king’s story, {2Ki 13:5-6} he was guilty of a far more culpable defection from orthodox worship; for in his reign, the Asherah -the tree or pillar of the Tyrian nature-goddess-still remained in Samaria, and therefore must have had its worshippers. How it came there we cannot tell. Jezebel had set it up, {1Ki 16:33} with the connivance of Ahab. Jehu apparently had "put it away" with the great stele of Baal, {2Ki 3:2} but, for some reason or other, he had not destroyed it. It now apparently occupied some public place, a symbol of decadence, and provocative of the wrath of Heaven. Jehoahaz sank very low. Hazael’s savage sword, not content with the devastation of Bashan and Gilead, wasted the west of Israel also in all its borders. The king became a mere vassal of his brutal neighbor at Damascus. So little of the barest semblance of power was left him, that whereas, in the reign of David, Israel could muster an army of eight hundred thousand, and in the reign of Joash, the son and successor of Jehoahaz, Amaziah could hire from Israel one hundred thousand mighty men of valor as mercenaries, Jehoahaz was only allowed to maintain an army of ten

In the second year of Joash... And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord. 2 Kings 14:1, 2 Amaziah Christian Observer. This is, in few but comprehensive words, the character of Amaziah, king of Judah. The commendatory part of it is with the sacred chroniclers a sort of general expression for the obedience of Jewish princes, to the laws of God by Moses, especially to the preservation of the Jewish worship, and the proscription of idolatry in their dominions; and governing their kingdom by these laws, was doing right in His sight. Some monarchs have this commendation, qualified, or with a notice added, that it must be in their case understood with some considerable limitation or restriction. Thus it is said of King Jehoash, that he did that which was right before the Lord, while he remained under the direction of Jehoiada. Thus again, of Amaziah in our text, that he did that which was right, yet not like David his progenitor; or not with a perfect heart, with true sincerity and unreservedness of purpose. He was, at the best, of a mixed character; unsound in principle, and thus unstable in well-doing. It was the exhortation of Jehovah to the Jewish patriarch, that he should walk before Him and be perfect; or, as the word means, unfeigned and upright, in obedience to His commandments. Hezekiah pleads it in the extremity of his affliction, that he walked before Him with a perfect heart. And Asa's heart is said to have been perfect with Him, or devoted to Him, while he sat upon the throne of Judah. A deficiency, therefore, in soundness of religious principle and feeling is denoted by a heart not perfect with Him. It is so denoted m the case of Solomon, upon his falling off to idol worship; as, in this place, of that unfaithfulness of Amaziah which was manifest by his inconstancy of life. 1. The first thing which requires notice in the history of Amaziah, is his conduct in the punishment of those who slew his father, Joash. Amaziah's conduct in this instance received unqualified approval. He discharged with fortitude the duty of a prince, in bringing the criminals to justice; and as they were men of power and credit in the realm, it was attended with some danger; hut he avoided all indulgence of revenge, and was content with punishing the murderers alone, although, according to the practice of those times, he might have sacrificed their children also to his vengeance; and in this he had respect, we are informed, to the provision of that law of God, a law in those days greatly disregarded, which forbids that children should be punished for the crimes of their parents. It may always be considered a hopeful sign, when a regard is felt and manifested for the precepts of the word of God as opposed to common practice; and it is still more hopeful, if, in such a case, the influence of strong passions is on the side of custom, and prompts to the breach of God's commandments. The moderation of this young prince, on religious grounds, was a presumptive evidence that he was partly sincere, although but partly, as appeared soon after. And thus many who prove afterwards unsound, have, in early years and in important instances, perhaps given proof of some hopeful principles, and promises of a life of piety and true obedience to God. And the conclusion to be drawn from this fact is, that the promise thus held out by favourable beginnings, or on some particular occasion, is not to be too confidently trusted. The more mixed and chequered any character is found to be, the more doubtful the evidence of its Christian integrity. 2. The next incident on record of the conduct of this prince is one in which we have a glimpse of a wrong disposition even while he in act obeyed the command of God, and this is a point of some importance. Being engaged in a war against the Edomites, and having raised three hundred thousand men of his own kingdom for this purpose, he proceeded further to augment his force by hiring a large army of Israelites. That people, being at this time idolators, lay under the displeasure of God; and on this ground, when the expedition was about to march, a command was sent from Jehovah by a prophet to the king, enjoining him, as he expected the Divine protection, to dismiss these hired legions; for the Lord, said the messenger, is not among them. "But, if thou wilt go, do it, and be strong for battle. God shall make thee fall before the enemy." And here it was that feelings were betrayed which indicated Amaziah's weakness. A considerable sum was given in part of payment of these hired troops; and the first thought in his mind upon receiving such a message was the great loss to which his obedience would expose him. A mind truly devoted to the service of God would not have harboured such a thought; and much less would it have dared to urge such an objection in reply to the Divine command. This showed that worldly motives were of weight with him against religious principle: a disposition was evinced to weigh the loss or inconvenience with the clear duty of obeying. There was not that prompt decisive resolution which a heart upright before God would have conceived and taken on these circumstances. And although he did at length comply on being promised compensation, yet his hesitation in complying was at least an unfavourable symptom. He thus manifested that defect as well of soundness as of firmness of religious principle which led afterward to fatal errors. It will happen frequently that men who are but half sincere, give certain indications of this state of mind before they yield to temptation. There is inclination shewn, as in the instance now before us, to raise difficulties and to make objections; to indulge complaints and murmurings perhaps, rather than yield at once, and with the singleness of a devoted and an upright heart, to the authority of God in His commandments. "What will the consequences then be if I obey? Am I to lose the pains and cost I have been at in forming such a project; or some plan, suppose for profit, pleasure, or ambition, which must not be carried further? How is such and such a detriment to be repaired: or such and such an inconvenience to be avoided. How am I to be set free from the connections, or get rid of the engagements, I unhappily have formed for purposes which I am called on to abandon? On what plea, or with what credit, can I now recede, being committed as I am, in such a matter? How, in short, shall I escape embarrassing vexation, if I yield to God and to my conscience?" Such are frequently the feelings with which His precepts are obeyed by persons of the character before us. Nay, at last, perhaps, it is fear only which inclines the scale upon the side of duty. Amaziah, we are told, was threatened with defeat if he persisted in his project. Fear of the wrath of God will, indeed, very commonly remain when every trace of apparent love and obedience to Him has long ceased to be visible. They may, indeed, in a sense, do what is right as to the outward action; but not doing it from a real desire to conform to the will of God, their doing wrong may be expected speedily, nay, is but one step further in declension. 3. The next thing, accordingly, which stands on record of this prince is, that he sinned wantonly and greatly against God, by the introduction of idolatry among his subjects. It had pleased God to give him great success in an expedition into Edom. He had ample compensation for his hundred talents by his acquisition both of honour and of treasure in the contest. But instead of feeling so much the more obliged to serve and honour the great Power who gave him victory on this occasion, and pouring contempt upon those idols which were unable to protect their votaries, he adopted them for his gods, and put contempt upon Jehovah. For he brought the gods of Seir, says the inspired historian, and set them up as his gods; he bowed down before them and burnt incense to them, and built altars for them in his realms, as though it were to them, and not to the Almighty, that he owed his splendid triumphs. The offence was also the more daring on his part, because the king his father had fallen into this very transgression, and was punished for it. But his heart was by these circumstances "lifted up within him." He was now set free from all restraint. He felt himself above religious fears, and was resolved to do not that which was right in the sight of God, but that which was so in his own eyes. It is here to be observed how very easily a fatal turn of character takes place, when minds are in that doubtful undecided state which we have seen was that of Amaziah. But a little increase in the strength of his temptations; or a little more excitement of his passions; or a little wider opening of the door to sin; or but a little more encouragement from bad example; or a little stronger feeling of security, or ground for a presumption of impunity in sinning; and then those who had at the least till now been cautious; who had shewn some reverence for religion and for God, and been unwilling utterly to disregard his word, or to expose themselves to the certainty of his displeasure, may soon become the open violators of the laws; nay, the contemners both of His authority and honour. It Is thus that some, on entering the world, are found to break at once through the restraining influences of a moral and religious education. It is thus that others, having set out decently, and for a time maintained some appearance of godliness, are observed upon some prosperous change of circumstances, or it may be in the course of an advancing fortune, to reverse their life and habits, to neglect religions duties which they were once careful in discharging, to forsake the sanctuary and profane the Sabbath; to break off the intercourse with pious men, and to make light of sacred things; to indulge openly in sinful pleasures, to adopt without scruple the view and maxims of the world, which are subversive of religion; and to show in these and many other ways, that they have utterly cast off their fear of God and their regard to His commandments. Cases like these are very different from those in which good men are, by the violence, or the surprise, or importunity of a temptation, seen to fall occasionally into open sin against their honest and decided resolutions. There the cause is inadvertence, or supineness, or an infirmity, as St. Paul calls it, of the flesh; or a defeat, perhaps, such as the best men have sustained, after long struggling with temptation. Then, moreover, we see speedy recollection and repentance, and no settled change of life and habits such as this under consideration. But in this the heart is secretly disposed to all the sin which follows. There is no strong feeling or resolve against it. 4. There was one step more, and only one, which could aggravate the offences of this monarch. He had not yet openly defied the power of God, when by His prophet He remonstrated against false gods. But the next thing which we find in his unhappy history is, that he at length became so daring in impiety, as to insult and even threaten one of the prophets who was sent to him upon this very errand. "Why hast thou sought after the gods of Seir?" was the awakening demand on this occasion. And it might have been conceived that recollection of the past, and a consciousness of his extreme offence, would have produced some feelings of compunction in a mind which once appeared open to the influences of religion. But the answer was, "Art thou of the king's council?" Are affairs of state any concern of thine? or wilt thou prescribe what gods the king shall adore, or shall set up for worship in his realms? Be prudent and forbear. Why shouldest thou be smitten? which thou wilt be certainly, as he evidently designed to imply, if thou persistest to speak further of the matter. We see here how thoroughly all fear of God was conquered in the mind of Amaziah, and what hardness and insensibility may be induced by habits of sin, even where there were once hopeful appearances of piety. And was this the man who, in his early life, had been so scrupulous in the observance of God's statutes? To despise the message and insult the messengers of Heaven is an excess, on which many who still are great offenders might not venture. Many retain even in their worst wickedness such a degree of at least servile awe for religion as restrains them from such direct and positive affronts to it and its great Author. Though they are not conscientious in obeying His commands, they do not choose to brave His anger. Yet to such a fearful length may sinners go, even though once fearful of offending; nay, disposed to suffer loss rather than wilfully disobey Him. Let us then learn the danger of a heart "not perfect," not truly subdued to the faith of Christ and obedience to God. ( Christian Observer. ) Significant facts in God's government David Thomas, D. D. In this chapter we have a sketch of a succession of kings both of Judah and Israel. Here are two kings of Judah, Amaziah and Azariah, and Joash, Jeroboam, and his son Zachariah, kings of Israel. The whole chapter suggests certain significant facts in God's government of mankind. The first fact which strikes us is — I. THE ENORMOUS FREEDOM OF ACTION WHICH HE ALLOWS WICKED MEN. Here we learn — 1. That God allows wicked men to form wrong conceptions of Himself. All these kings, although descendants of Abraham, who was a monotheist, became idolaters. "The high places were not taken away, as yet the people did sacrifice, and burnt incense on the high places." Golden calves, symbols of Egyptian.. worship, were erected at Dan and Bethuel, at the extremities of the dominions. Terribly strange it seems to us that the Almighty Author of the human mind should permit it to think of Him as some material object in nature, or as some production of the human hand. What human father, had he the power, would permit his children to form not only wrong but wicked impressions of himself? For what reason this is permitted, I know not. Albeit it shows His practical respect for that freedom of action with which He has endowed us. Here we learn — 2. That God allows wicked men to obtain despotic dominion over others. All these kings were wicked, Amaziah, Joash, Jeroboam, and Zachariah, and yet they obtained an autocratic dominion over the rights possession, and lives of millions. It is said of Jeroboam, who reigned forty-one years, that he "did evil in the sight of the Lord, and departed not from the sins of his father." Antecedently one might have concluded that if a wicked man was allowed to live amongst his fellows, he should be doomed to obscurity and to social and political impotence, but it is not so, Why? Who shall answer? Another fact is — II. GOD PUNISHES WICKED MEN BY THEIR OWN WICKEDNESS. 1. A wicked man is punished by his own wickedness. Amaziah's conduct is an example. Elated with his triumph over the Edomites, he sought occasion of war with the King of Israel. He sent messengers to Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz, son of Jehu, King of Israel, saying, "Come, let us look one another in the face," etc. (vers. 8-14). About fifteen years after his defeat he fled from Jerusalem to Lachish to escape assassination, but the assassin pursued him and struck him dead. It is ever so. Wickedness is its own punishment. The wicked passions of a corrupt man are his tormenting devils. Sin is suicidal. 2. A wicked man is punished by the wickedness of others. The thousands of these despotic kings reduced to anguish, destitution, and death, were idolators and rebels against Heaven, and by the hand of wicked men they were punished. Thus it ever is: devils are their own tormentors. Sin converts a community of men into tormenting fiends, man becomes the Satan of man. ( David Thomas, D. D. ) Come, let us look one another in the face. 2 Kings 14:8 Looking in the face T. R. Stevenson. Let us look one another in the face." Such was the message of a king to a king. The whole transaction was hypocritical, and we cannot read of it without loathing. Separate the words from the original surroundings, however, and they contain most excellent advice. We may give them a practical and seasonable turn. I. LOOK GOD IN THE FACE. Behold Him as He is. It is, alas, so easy to get wrong conceptions of the Most High, and much enmity to Him has its beginning thus. "They hated me without a cause." If men knew God better, they would dread Him less and trust Him more. "Come now, let us reason together, saith the Lord." Concerning what? why, the very point of which we have been speaking: false notions of the Lord. "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." You fancy Me to be harsh and hard: get rid of that thought; I delight in mercy. To look God in the face is no difficult matter now that Christ has come. He is "the image of the invisible God." See the one, and you see the other. The tenderness which said to a desolate widow in Nain, "Don't cry; I will raise your son"; the power which subdued the crested waves and-hushed the roaring winds by a single word; the holiness which took no taint from contact with publicans and sinners — reveal the attributes of Jehovah. Agnosticism erect again the ancient Athenian altar, and writes on it, "to the Unknown God."; but Paul still cries, "Whom ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you." II. LOOK YOURSELF IN THE FACE. "If any be a hearer of the word, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass." by the light of Scripture we may see our own characters; and this self-scrutiny is eminently important. Socrates said: "We should not live a life which is not subject to examination." for lack of this, some are astoundingly ignorant of their true condition. What they say to others might well be spoken of and by themselves, "I have not the pleasure of knowing you." Nathan proved this in respect of David, and the very church which thought that it had need of nothing was pronounced by Christ "poor and miserable, and blind, and naked." As it is in the literary, so it is in the moral world: authors are often bad judges of their own productions. John Foster wished that he could write like Johnson or Young, hut the fact is that he wrote better than either. Sir Walter Scott published the "Waverley Novels anonymously, lest they should injure his fame as a poet; but posterity thinks more of his stories than his verses. Something like this holds good of us: we may be ludicrously mistaken regarding ourselves. To avoid such blunders, let us use "the balances of the sanctuary." We should employ the scales and weights which God has provided. Paul told the Corinthians that they were "not wise," because they measured themselves by themselves, and compared themselves with themselves. III. LOOK MAN IN THE FACE. A needless counsel, some may complain. Don't we do it? Nothing is so common as the wish to see people's faces. We all believe in the vis-a-vis position. The pen is not enough; we want the countenance also. If you hear of a great writer or preacher, you at once want to see him. When we visit friends we call it "going to see them" Nevertheless there is need of the advice: see men. We are much too isolated. English folk are what Matthew Arnold calls insular. If the various classes of society had more intercourse with each other, it would be better for us all round. Were the cultured and intellectual to mingle with Philistines rather oftener, the latter would get a little of their refinement. Communion between the rich and the poor would hardly fail in producing sympathy on the part of the one. and confidence on the part of the other. Christians might learn a lesson here. They keep too much apart. Only lately it was asked at a metropolitan meeting of our denomination — Where now is the continuing in the apostle's doctrine and fellowship of which we read in the early Church? One other thought. How many misunderstandings in social life might be prevented or removed, if we looked each other in the face! You think that a friend is cooler in his manner than of yore, or he has done something which you interpret as hostile to you. Don't brood over it. If you do, your suspicions and imagination will blow the spark into a flame which will consume your comfort. Visit him. Be candid. "Have it out," as we say, and the probability is that a few minutes' plain dealing on both sides will put the whole business right. ( T. R. Stevenson. ) Challenge to combat couched in terms of peace J. Parker, D. D. These are sweet words. What can they mean? Surely but one thing only. Giving them transliteration and broadest meaning, they will sound thus: We have been a long time estranged; let us burn down the barriers of separation: we have hidden ourselves from one another when we ought to have stood face to face, each beaming-with complacency upon the other; come, let us make an end of this alienation, and fraternally and trustfully look one another in the face. Was that the real meaning of the message? Not a whir! These beautiful words were the velvet which hid the sword. These terms of supposed approach and trustfulness are really a challenge. The right reading would be: "Come, let us fight; let us see which is the stronger man." Here again we keep upon the same line as in the former instance — the line which points to the right use of language. There is a morality of words. Men arc not at liberty to put words into any shape they please; they must consider whether in putting words together they are building a pillar, plumbed by the Eternal Righteousness, and going, so far as they do go, straight up to heaven. But if this were the rule, society would be dissolved. Who can speak truth with his neighbour — except in some broad and general sense? Who can let his Yea be yea, and his Nay, nay? When the Saviour delivered that injunction we thought it was elementary; in reality it is ultimate; there is nothing beyond it. When Yea means yea, and Nay nay, the millennium has come: men will not tell lies, nor will they act them; they will not allow wrong impressions to be made upon the mind; there will be no grammatical torture, no mental reservation, no putting out of words in the sense of putting out a "feeler"; every heart transparent, every motive pure and generous, human speech a human religion, and the human religion sanctified and cleansed by the blood of Christ. But we live in lies; we tell them, we act them, we look them, we suggest them. When David is reported in English to say. "All men are liars," he is misreported; the right reading is, "all men are a lie," — a grander speech; not a stone thrown at individuals, but an impeachment made upon human nature. ( J. Parker, D. D. ) thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar. 2 Kings 14:9-10 The parable of Jehoash Outlines from Sermons by a London Minister. I. THREE THINGS LED TO THE UTTERANCE OF THIS SHORT PARABLE. 1. A relative success. 2. An under-estimate of a superior. 3. An insolent challenge.(1) Success is a relative term, and must be estimated with reference to the circumstances accompanying it. A man who guides his vessel safely across the English Channel achieves a certain success. But this is a short and comparatively easy voyage, and is not to be placed by the side of a successful crossing of the Atlantic Ocean, in rough and stormy weather. The captain who can bring his vessel safely through the dangers to be encountered in such a voyage, has fairly earned the right to be called successful. It by no means follows that the man who could execute the first would be equal to the second, nor does it follow that a military commander who could defeat the tribes of Africa in battle would be able to gain a victory over the armies of Europe. But this was the conclusion at which Amaziah, King of Judah, had arrived. He had subdued the Edomites and slain ten thousand men, and he therefore concluded that he should be equally successful against the king and armies of Israel, who were much more formidable foes. This conclusion arose from —(2) An under-estimate of his superiors in the art of war. The man who undertakes to swim a river ought to be well acquainted with the strength of the current in comparison with his own bodily .strength. A mistake on these points may be fatal. It is plain that Amaziah undervalued the military strength and capacity of his opponent; for when they did meet, "Judah was put to the worse before Israel, and they fled every man to their tents" (ver. 12). This undervalue of a man who was a greater warrior than himself led to(3) an insolent challenge. "Come, let us look one another in the face" (ver. 8). Success in an undertaking sometimes fills an ignorant man with such an insolent pride, that he thinks nothing can stand before him. Amaziah was such a man, because he had defeated the Edomites, he thought that the army of Israel would be but as chaff before him. Hence his invitation to Jehoash. II. THE PARABLE BY WHICH JEHOASH REPROVED HIM CONVEYS THAT KING'S SENSE OF HIS SUPERIORITY BY A SIMILITUDE DRAWN FROM NATURE. The contrast between the cedar standing in all its glory upon the mountain of Lebanon and the worthless thistle which has sprung up at its foot is very great, and conveys the King of Israel's contempt for his rival in forcible terms. The cedar of a thousand years could not be uprooted or removed by the strongest earthly power, while the thistle of yesterday was at the mercy of the first beast of the forest who passed by that way. There is also a reference to Oriental custom. The man who asked the daughter of another in marriage was expected to be his equal in rank, otherwise the request was regarded as an insult. Therefore the proposal of the thistle to the cedar is a declaration of supposed equality, and is placed by Jehoash on a level with Ahaziah's challenge to himself. The fate of the thistle sets forth what would be the result of the self-esteem of the King of Judah if he did not take the advice which is the application of the whole. "Tarry at home, for why shouldest thou meddle to thine hurt" (ver. 10). III. NOTE THE SUCCESS AND THE NON-SUCCESS OF THE PARABLE. It was a success inasmuch as it was a true picture of the character of the man whom it was intended to represent. If those who can give a correct outline of the face upon canvas are regarded as successful artists, those whose word-painting can show us the features of the soul are at least as successful. But it failed in producing a beneficial effect upon the person to whom it was addressed. Amaziah did not wish to see his own likeness. Those who are deformed do not derive pleasure from seeing themselves reflected in a faithful mirror. The parables of Christ often failed to gain the approbation of His hearers on this account. LESSONS: 1. One proud man may become, in the providence of God, the means of humiliation to another. There was much arrogance in the man who compared himself to a cedar, as well as in him whom he reproved. 2. Men who are prone to seek quarrels will find that, in so doing, they have sought their own ruin. Nations and rulers who enter into war from ambitious motives, will but hasten their own destruction. "With what measure ye meet, it shall be measured unto you again." 3. He that has achieved a fair measure of success by the exercise of a fair measure of ability may lose what he has gained by attempting a task beyond his capabilities. A gambler who has won a fortune in a contest with a man no more clever than himself, will most likely lose it all if he attempts to play with a much more skilful gamester. It would have been Amaziah's wisdom to have been content with his conquest of Edom; he would then have been spared the humiliation of a defeat at the hands of the King of Israel. 4. Those who become proud and insolent by prosperity turn a blessing into a curse, and thus defeat the Divine intention. Success in our undertakings is intended to produce gratitude and humility; the fault is in us if these effects are not produced. 5. The great lesson of the history is: that "Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall" ( Proverbs 16:18 ). ( Outlines from Sermons by a London Minister. ) Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam. 2 Kings 14:28 Life -- Re-lived F. W. Robertson. There is a moment when a man's life is re-lived on earth. It is in that hour in which the coffin lid is shut down, just before the funeral, when earth has seen the last of him for ever. Then the whole life is, as it were, lived over again in the conversation which turns upon the memory of the departed. The history of threescore years and ten is soon recapitulated; not, of course, the innumerable incidents and acts which they contained, but the central governing principle of the whole. ( F. W. Robertson. ) Record of sin It is said that the Bank of France has an invisible studio in a gallery behind the cashiers, so that at a signal from one of them a suspected customer can instantly have his picture taken without his own knowledge. So our sins and evil deeds may be registered against us, and we ourselves altogether unconscious of the fact.

14:1-7 Amaziah began well, but did not go on so. It is not enough to do that which our pious predecessors did, merely to keep up the common usage, but we must do it as they did, from the same principle of faith and devotion, and with the same sincerity and resolution. 14:8-14 For some time after the division of the kingdoms, Judah suffered much from the enmity of Israel. After Asa's time, it suffered more by the friendship of Israel, and by the alliance made with them. Now we meet with hostility between them again. How may a humble man smile to hear two proud and scornful men set their wits on work, to vilify and undervalue one another! Unholy success excites pride; pride excites contentions. The effects of pride in others, are insufferable to those who are proud themselves. These are the sources of trouble and sin in private life; but when they arise between princes, they become the misery of their whole kingdoms. Jehoash shows Amaziah the folly of his challenge; Thine heart has lifted thee up. The root of all sin is in the heart, thence it flows. It is not Providence, the event, the occasion, whatever it is, that makes men proud, secure, discontented, or the like, but their own hearts do it. 14:15-22 Amaziah survived his conqueror fifteen years. He was slain by his own subjects. Azariah, or Uzziah, seems to have been very young when his father was slain. Though the years of his reign are reckoned from that event, he was not fully made king till eleven years afterwards. 14:23-29 God raised up the prophet Jonah, and by him declared the purposes of his favour to Israel. It is a sign that God has not cast off his people, if he continues faithful ministers among them. Two reasons are given why God blessed them with those victories: 1. Because the distress was very great, which made them objects of his compassion. 2. Because the decree was not yet gone forth for their destruction. Many prophets there had been in Israel, but none left prophecies in writing till this age, and their prophecies are part of the Bible. Hosea began to prophesy in the reign of this Jeroboam. At the same time Amos prophesied; soon after Micah, then Isaiah, in the days of Ahaz and Hezekiah. Thus God, in the darkest and most degenerate ages of the church, raised up some to be burning and shining lights in it; to their own age, by their preaching and living, and a few by their writings, to reflect light upon us in the last times.