Judenth. p. 405. On Edom generally, comp. Lengerke, Kenaan, i. pp. 296 -302. Josephus (Ant.

15:7, 9) speaks of a god Koze, worshipped by the Idumaeans. This 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 s ignificant 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] ma de 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 p rediction 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 destructio n 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 o f 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 to him the counsel of God to his destruction.* It would now

appear how the king's own chosen counselors would themselves bring about this "counsel" of

* See the previous note.

As we have suggested, it is not unlikely that the war between Judah and Israel really grew out of

the dismissal of the Israelitish auxiliaries from the host of Judah. This would be the more probable

if the account of Josephus is trustworthy, that Amaziah had hired these soldiers directly from the

king of Israel, and that on their return to their homes they had laid waste Judaean territory. And

this would also better account for the challenge to fight* which Amaziah, with advic e of his

council, addressed to Jehoash, king of Israel, than to view it as a demand for submission and

return to obedience to the Davidic rule, which, according to Josephus, formed the burden of this