northern frontier cities of Judah as far as Bethhoron, plundering as they went, and only after this plundering did they return home. As to Bethhoron, now Beit-Ur, see on 1Ch 7:24.
Verses 14-15
2Ch 25:14-15Amaziah's idolatry. - 2Ch 25:14. On his return from smiting the Edomites, i.e., from the war in which he had smitten the Edomites, Amaziah brought the gods (images) of the sons of Seir (the inhabitants of Mount Seir) with him, and set them up as gods, giving them religious adoration.[1]
In order to turn him away from this sin, which would certainly kindle Jahve's wrath, a prophet said to Amaziah, “Why dost thou seek the gods of the people, who have not delivered their people out of your hand?” The prophet keeps in view the motive which had induced the king to set up and worship the Edomite idols, viz., the belief of all polytheists, that in order to make a people subject, one must seek to win over their gods (cf. on this belief that remarks on Num 22:17), and exposes the folly of this belief by pointing out the impotence of the Edomite idols, which Amaziah himself had learnt to know.
Verse 16
The king, however, in his blindness puts aside this earnest warning with proud words: “Have we made thee a counsellor of the king? Forbear, why should they smite thee?” נתנּוּך is spoken collectively: We, the king, and the members of the council. And the prophet ceased, only answering the king thus: “I know that God hath determined to destroy thee, because thou hast done this (introduced Edomite idols), and hast not hearkened unto my counsel.” The prophet calls his warning “counsel,” referring to the king's word, that he was not appointed a counsellor to the king.
Verses 17-24
- ↑ This statement, which is not found in 2 Kings 14, may, in the opinion of Berth., perhaps not rest upon a definite tradition, but be merely the application of a principle which generally was found to act in the history of Israel to a particular case; i.e., it may be a clothing in historical garments of the principle that divine punishment came upon the idolatrous king, because it does not agree with the statement of 2Ki 14:3. In that passage it is said of Amaziah: He did what was right in the eyes of Jahve, only not as David; altogether as his father Joash had done, did he. But Joash allowed his princes, after Jehoiada's death, to worship idols and Asheras, and had caused the prophet Zechariah, who reproved this idolatry, to be stoned. These are facts which, it is true, are narrated only in the Chronicle, but which are admitted by Bertheau himself to be historical. Now if Amaziah did altogether the same as his father Joash, who allowed idolatry, etc., it is hard indeed to see wherein the inconsistency of our account of Amaziah's idolatry with the character assigned to this king in 2Ki 14:3 consists. Bertheau has omitted to give us any more definite information on this point.
