2 Chronicles 25:1–28

25:5–13 The forces Amaziah mustered were significantly smaller (300,000) than those of Asa (14:8: 580,000) or Jehoshaphat (17:14–19: 1,160,000), which likely explains why he hired mercenaries from northern Israel.⁴ An unnamed prophet, however, brought a word against the mercenaries: “The Lord is not with Israel.” This was not a permanent rejection of Israel but a reflection of their present situation, an outworking of the general truth that “The Lord is with you while you are with him. . . . But if you forsake him, he will forsake you” (15:2; cf. 28:9–11). Amaziah was relying on alliances rather than on the Lord. Verse 8 is probably to be read ironically: “If you go, fight valiantly—but the Lord will overthrow you” (cf. Micaiah’s words in 18:14).⁵ The prophet reminded Amaziah that the result of the battle would depend on God, not on the might of an army (a common biblical motif; cf. 13:8–12; 14:11; 20:6, 12; 32:7–8).

Amaziah still wavered as he thought of the expense already involved, but he was promised more. He sent home the mercenaries, “took courage,” and was victorious against the Edomites. (“The Valley of Salt” is south of the Dead Sea [cf. 1 Chron. 18:12]; “Sela” in 2 Kings 14:7 is the same Hb. as “rock, cliff”; “Seir” and “Edom” are alternative names.) However, his earlier lack of reliance on God had ramifications; the mercenaries were “very angry,” to the degree of displaying “fierce anger.” They had been paid the base wage (2 Chron. 25:6: 1 talent per 1,000 = 3 shekels per person) but would miss the share of the spoil. So, while Amaziah was fighting the Edomites, they gained their “much spoil” by raiding the cities between Samaria and Beth-horon. (Beth-horon was on the border between Benjamin and Ephraim [cf. comment on 8:3–6]; the “cities of Judah” were likely those in the north that Asa had captured [17:2; 19:5].)

25:14–16 The situation then changed dramatically. The severity and intentionality of Amaziah’s actions are clear as the Chronicler piles up verbs to tell what Amaziah did to the “gods of the men of Seir”: he “brought [them] . . . and set them up as his gods and worshiped them, making offerings to them.” Now it was the Lord’s turn to be “angry,” as the prophet asked why Amaziah had “sought” such gods (another instance of darash; cf. comment on 1 Chron. 10:13–14). While this situation is unique in the OT (contrast David; 1 Chron. 14:12), elsewhere in the ancient Near East conquerors sometimes worshiped the gods of defeated nations, regarding them as having abandoned their opponents to fight on the victor’s side (cf. the Lord’s abandoning his people; e.g., Isa. 10:5–6).⁶

Amaziah’s “Stop!” was heeded—perhaps the prophet remembered the fate of Zechariah (2 Chron. 24:21). The interaction of God, king, and prophet is highlighted by fourfold use of forms of yaʻats, “counsel”: Amaziah rejected the prophet because he was not “a royal counselor,” but now “God has determined [“counseled”] to destroy you, because you . . . have not listened to my counsel.” The “destroying” (cf. comment on 24:23–24) would be brought about as the king took other “counsel” and decided to confront Joash of Israel (25:17), the result of which would be defeat and capture.

25:17–24 The foolhardy arrogance of Amaziah continued as he sought confrontation with Joash of Israel. While “look one another in the face” may refer to an ordinary meeting, it becomes clear that he had “in battle” in view (v. 21). Joash sought to dissuade him with a parable (cf. Judg. 9:7–15), but just as Amaziah “did not listen” to God’s counsel through the prophet (2 Chron. 25:16), so now he “would not listen” to Joash (v. 20). The Chronicler makes explicit that behind this was God’s judgment for having “sought the gods of Edom.” Judgment was not only on the king but on those of Judah who had joined with him (“they”).

Battle ensued southwest of Jerusalem, at Beth-shemesh, with Joash likely seeking control of lucrative trade routes. The defeat was so complete that Joash was able to break down parts of the northwest corner of the Jerusalem city wall and seize temple goods. The Chronicler adds the name of “Obed-edom” (the family was in charge of the storehouse; 1 Chron. 26:15), his name (meaning “servant of Edom”) perhaps inserted here as a reminder of Amaziah’s serving the gods of Edom.⁷ When Joash “returned to Samaria,” his capital, among his hostages was Amaziah (2 Chron. 25:23; 2 Kings 14:14). Because of his worship of foreign gods, Amaziah had been “destroyed” (2 Chron. 25:16).

25:25–28 It is unusual for Chronicles to include any correlation with the kings of Israel, so the note here that Amaziah “lived [not “reigned”] fifteen years after the death of Joash” is likely inserted to reflect the continuing effective rule by his son Uzziah as regent. This period was not without its opposition—for the Chronicler it began with Amaziah’s apostasy. Amaziah fled to Lachish, a major royal center southwest of Jerusalem, but “a conspiracy” led to his death (cf. his father; 24:25–26). He was nevertheless buried in Jerusalem (the ESV, like many, follows 2 Kings 14:20, “city of David”; the MT’s “city of Judah” was a common name for Jerusalem in extrabiblical sources from exilic times). A reign that began well ended in burial without honor.