- 41-
divinity is probably the Qaziu of the Nabathean and Hauranitic inscriptions, and the
Kassios of the Phoenicians. Comp. Herzog, Real-Enc. 4. p. 41.
Be this as it may, on his return from Edom King Amaziah brought with him its idols, and
did worship to them, although the notice of it in 2 Chronicles (25:14) seems to imply
personal rather than national or public idolatry. None the less was Divine anger kindled
against such a Jewish and Davidic king. In vain was Divine warning sent to him by "a
prophet." The king replied by coarse sneers and threats, which, needless to say, so far
from silencing the Divine messenger, only led to the announcement of near judgment.*
And the sacred narrative expressly marks the connection between this and the later
conspiracy which cost the king his life (2 Chronicles 25:27).
- We mark as significant of the state of Amaziah, that the prophet appeals in his first
message not to higher duty, but to the common sense and experience of the king (2
Chronicles 25:15). The first part of the king's reply, "Have we [viz., the king and his
advisers] made thee counselor of the king?" is taken up in the reply of the prophet: "I
know that God has counseled [so lit., using the same word as the king - the meaning
being "determined"], because thou hast done this, and not hearkened unto my counsel"
[again the same word]. To the threat of the king, "Forbear - why shouldest be smitten?"
the prophet replies by announcing the king's destruction. We note, first, that the prophet
does not appear to have had any previous commission to that effect; secondly, that his
prediction seems an inferential prophecy, based on his knowledge of the Divine dealings;
thirdly, that it was necessary, not only for the vindication of the prophet's mission, but for
that of the authority of Jehovah; and, lastly, that the king's destruction was dependent on
his disobedience. All these inferences embody permanent principles.
Two characteristics which have so often impressed us in the course of this Divine history
appear in this narrative also. For, first, the Divine decree, in this instance of judgment,
was not immediately carried out, and to some it might seem to tarry. And, further, the
execution of this decreed destruction came not in sudden or miraculous manner, but in
what might be regarded as the natural course of events, through popular dissatisfaction at
gratuitously provoked national disaster. Thus, however real the connection between the
Divine agency and Amaziah's destruction, it would, on both the grounds above
mentioned, require the eye of faith to perceive it. And this also is of permanent meaning:
that the teaching of God is only to those who are capable of learning it.
It might almost seem as if the victory over Edom had infatuated the king and his council,
filling them with unbounded self-confidence and overweening self-esteem. For, since
they discarded God, was it not the prowess and might of Judah which had wrought the
victory over Edom? Very significantly, the account of Judah's defeat by Israel in the
Book of Chronicles is introduced by the notice, "And the king took counsel." He had
taunted the prophet as not being a counselor to the king, and the prophet had announced
(^)