2 Chronicles Chapter 25

The Reign of Amaziah
A. His victory over Edom

1. (2 Chronicles 25:1–2) The limited good of the reign of Amaziah

“Amaziah was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem. And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, but not with a perfect heart.”

a. He did that which was right in the sight of the LORD.
Amaziah began his reign with a measurable commitment to righteousness. Scripture affirms that his actions, at least outwardly and administratively, aligned with the law of the LORD. Coming after the disastrous end of Joash, this represented a stabilizing transition for Judah. Amaziah maintained order, upheld justice in key areas, and avoided the gross apostasy that had marked the latter part of his father’s reign.

i. Knapp’s observation is fitting. Amaziah’s beginning was sound, orderly, and law conscious. The tragedy of his reign is not found in how he started, but in how he failed to finish. Scripture repeatedly warns that endurance matters as much as initiation. “Better is the end of a thing than the beginning thereof” (Ecclesiastes 7:8).

b. But not with a perfect heart.
This qualifying phrase is decisive. The word translated “perfect” refers to wholeness, completeness, and undivided loyalty. Amaziah obeyed God selectively. His righteousness lacked depth and permanence. He did not abandon the LORD, but neither did he fully surrender to Him.

i. Morgan’s analysis exposes the spiritual defect. Amaziah’s heart was compartmentalized. Outward obedience masked inward reservation. Some portion of his will remained unyielded. Scripture consistently presents wholehearted devotion as the standard. “And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart” (Deuteronomy 6:5). Partial obedience is unstable obedience.

ii. This assessment aligns with the parallel account. “He did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, yet not like David his father” (2 Kings 14:3). Amaziah met a minimum standard of righteousness, but fell short of Davidic devotion. He was correct without being consumed, faithful without being fervent.

2. (2 Chronicles 25:3–4) An example of Amaziah’s obedience

“Now it came to pass, when the kingdom was established to him, that he slew his servants that had killed the king his father. But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers; but every man shall die for his own sin.”

a. He slew his servants that had killed the king his father.
Amaziah acted decisively and justly once his rule was secure. Executing the assassins of his father was both morally right and politically necessary. Allowing regicides to live would have undermined the rule of law and invited future rebellion. Scripture first established this principle after the flood. “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6). Amaziah’s action aligned with divine justice, not personal vengeance.

i. This act also demonstrated that Amaziah did not condone the lawlessness that ended Joash’s life. Though Joash had failed spiritually, he was still the anointed king. Amaziah upheld the sanctity of God ordained authority.

b. But he slew not their children.
Here Amaziah distinguished himself from the brutal customs of the ancient Near East. It was common for families of offenders to be executed to prevent retaliation. Amaziah rejected this practice and obeyed the Law of God instead.

c. But did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses.
This is explicit covenant obedience. “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deuteronomy 24:16). Amaziah submitted royal authority to Scripture, a mark of genuine, though incomplete, godliness.

i. Poole rightly notes the courage required for such obedience. By sparing the children of the conspirators, Amaziah exposed himself to potential vengeance. He chose obedience over fear, at least at this stage of his reign. This illustrates the paradox of Amaziah’s character. He could act with faith in specific moments, yet still lacked a fully loyal heart.

ii. This episode shows that Amaziah knew the Law, respected it, and was willing to apply it even when inconvenient. His later failures would not stem from ignorance of God’s Word, but from selective submission to it.

3. (2 Chronicles 25:5–8) Preparations for battle against Edom

“Moreover Amaziah gathered Judah together, and made them captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, according to the houses of their fathers, throughout all Judah and Benjamin: and he numbered them from twenty years old and above, and found them three hundred thousand choice men, able to go forth to war, that could handle spear and shield. He hired also an hundred thousand mighty men of valour out of Israel for an hundred talents of silver. But there came a man of God to him, saying, O king, let not the army of Israel go with thee; for the LORD is not with Israel, to wit, with all the children of Ephraim. But if thou wilt go, do it, be strong for the battle: God shall make thee fall before the enemy: for God hath power to help, and to cast down.”

a. Amaziah gathered Judah together, and made them captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds.
Amaziah’s preparations were orderly and methodical. He organized Judah and Benjamin according to ancestral divisions, establishing a clear chain of command. This reflects competence and seriousness in leadership. The number, three hundred thousand trained men, indicates Judah’s substantial military strength at this time. From a purely human standpoint, Amaziah was well prepared for conflict.

b. He hired also an hundred thousand mighty men of valour out of Israel.
In addition to his own forces, Amaziah employed mercenaries from the northern kingdom of Israel. This was a common military practice in the ancient Near East, especially when preparing for a significant campaign such as an assault on Edom. Strategically, this decision made sense. Spiritually, it was disastrous. Israel, the northern kingdom, was in open apostasy, ruled by kings who rejected the LORD and led the people into idolatry.

c. But there came a man of God to him.
God intervened before the battle began. The prophet is unnamed, emphasizing that the authority of the message rested not in the messenger’s identity, but in the source of the message. God’s mercy is evident in that He warned Amaziah before judgment, giving him opportunity to choose obedience.

d. O king, let not the army of Israel go with thee, for the LORD is not with Israel.
The warning was unambiguous. The issue was not military skill, but divine presence. God was not with Israel, particularly with the tribe of Ephraim, which often represented the leadership and idolatry of the northern kingdom. To ally with them was to align with a people under judgment.

e. God shall make thee fall before the enemy, for God hath power to help, and to cast down.
This statement expresses a central theological truth. Victory and defeat are ultimately in God’s hands. Military strength cannot compensate for divine opposition. The prophet makes clear that God is not merely a helper of His people, but also the One who actively brings defeat when His people walk in rebellion. To fight without God is to fight against God.

i. This warning echoes the covenant realities given through Moses. Obedience brings divine assistance, disobedience brings divine resistance. “The LORD shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies” (Deuteronomy 28:25). Amaziah was being tested whether he would trust numbers or the LORD.

4. (2 Chronicles 25:9) Amaziah’s question and the answer from the prophet

“Then Amaziah said to the man of God, But what shall we do for the hundred talents which I have given to the army of Israel? And the man of God answered, The LORD is able to give thee much more than this.”

a. But what shall we do for the hundred talents which I have given to the army of Israel?
Amaziah’s response reveals both sincerity and weakness. He did not reject the word of God outright, but he hesitated at the cost of obedience. A hundred talents of silver represented a massive financial loss. His question exposes the tension between faith and pragmatism, between trusting God and fearing loss.

i. This is a familiar human question. How much will obedience cost. Scripture consistently teaches that obedience often requires surrender, sometimes of significant resources. Amaziah’s concern shows that his heart, though inclined toward righteousness, was not fully loyal.

b. The LORD is able to give thee much more than this.
The prophet’s answer is simple, firm, and deeply theological. God is not limited by what is lost in obedience. Whatever is surrendered for the sake of faithfulness, God is fully capable of restoring and surpassing. The issue was never the silver, but whether Amaziah trusted the LORD as his provider.

i. This principle runs throughout Scripture. “Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase: so shall thy barns be filled with plenty” (Proverbs 3:9–10). Obedience may appear costly in the moment, but disobedience is always more expensive in the end.

ii. As Meyer observed, forfeiting financial investment is preferable to forfeiting the favor of God. Amaziah was being called to choose between sunk cost and covenant faithfulness.

5. (2 Chronicles 25:10–13) Amaziah’s obedience and the victory over Edom

“Then Amaziah separated them, to wit, the army that was come to him out of Ephraim, to go home again: wherefore their anger was greatly kindled against Judah, and they returned home in great anger. And Amaziah strengthened himself, and led forth his people, and went to the valley of salt, and smote of the children of Seir ten thousand. And other ten thousand left alive did the children of Judah carry away captive, and brought them unto the top of the rock, and cast them down from the top of the rock, that they all were broken in pieces. But the soldiers of the army which Amaziah sent back, that they should not go with him to battle, fell upon the cities of Judah, from Samaria even unto Beth-horon, and smote three thousand of them, and took much spoil.”

a. Then Amaziah separated them, to wit, the army that was come to him out of Ephraim, to go home again.
Amaziah obeyed the word of the LORD despite the personal, political, and financial cost. He dismissed the mercenary troops from Ephraim, trusting God rather than numbers. This was a genuine act of obedience. He had already paid them and relinquished any claim to recover the expense. At this moment, Amaziah chose obedience over pragmatism and faith over fear.

i. Wherefore their anger was greatly kindled against Judah.
The northern soldiers expected not only wages but plunder. Being dismissed robbed them of anticipated gain and wounded their pride. Their rage reveals their true motive. They were not loyal allies, but opportunists. Selman correctly observes that this reaction itself demonstrates why the LORD was not with Israel. Their hearts were driven by greed, not covenant loyalty.

b. And Amaziah strengthened himself, and led forth his people.
This phrase signals resolve and confidence rooted in obedience. Amaziah did not hesitate or retreat after dismissing the mercenaries. He strengthened himself, not by alliances, but by trusting the LORD’s word. He personally led Judah into battle, an act of kingly courage.

c. And went to the valley of salt, and smote of the children of Seir ten thousand.
The Valley of Salt, near the Dead Sea, was a traditional battleground between Judah and Edom. Here Amaziah experienced decisive victory. God honored obedience exactly as promised. Judah prevailed without Israel’s help, confirming that victory comes from the LORD alone.

i. Selman rightly notes that the victory was clear, yet the narrative is sober. There is no recorded thanksgiving or acknowledgment of God’s hand at this point, foreshadowing Amaziah’s later spiritual failure.

d. And other ten thousand left alive did the children of Judah carry away captive…and cast them down from the top of the rock.
This act of brutality is troubling. Though Edom was a hostile nation, this execution was excessive and cruel. Scripture records it without commendation. Victory achieved through obedience does not excuse savagery. Amaziah obeyed God in dismissing Israel, but his heart was not fully shaped by God’s character.

i. This incident exposes the limitation noted earlier, Amaziah did what was right, but not with a perfect heart. Partial obedience can coexist with moral blindness. Triumph in one area does not sanctify brutality in another.

e. But the soldiers of the army which Amaziah sent back…fell upon the cities of Judah.
The consequences of Amaziah’s earlier alliance with Israel did not vanish immediately. Though forgiven and corrected, secondary effects followed. The dismissed soldiers vented their rage by attacking Judahite cities from Samaria to Beth-horon, killing three thousand and seizing spoil.

i. Poole explains that the mercenaries felt disgraced and deprived of expected profit. Their violence was driven by wounded pride and greed. The hundred talents were likely paid to officers, not distributed to individual soldiers, increasing resentment.

ii. Meyer’s observation is vital. Even forgiven sin may leave scars. Amaziah’s initial decision to hire apostate allies invited consequences that obedience could not entirely erase. Scripture repeatedly teaches that while God forgives sin, He does not always remove all temporal fallout. “Be sure your sin will find you out” (Numbers 32:23).

f. The theological lesson.
Amaziah’s obedience brought victory, but not immunity from all consequences. God honored faithfulness, yet the king still bore the aftershocks of a compromised decision. This passage teaches two truths simultaneously. Obedience brings God’s help, and compromise leaves lingering wounds. Wisdom requires not only repentance, but foresight.

B. Amaziah’s sin and the judgment against him

1. (2 Chronicles 25:14–16) Amaziah’s strange idolatry and arrogance

“Now it came to pass, after that Amaziah was come from the slaughter of the Edomites, that he brought the gods of the children of Seir, and set them up to be his gods, and bowed down himself before them, and burned incense unto them. Wherefore the anger of the LORD was kindled against Amaziah, and he sent unto him a prophet, which said unto him, Why hast thou sought after the gods of the people, which could not deliver their own people out of thine hand? And it came to pass, as he talked with him, that the king said unto him, Art thou made of the king’s counsel? forbear; why shouldest thou be smitten? Then the prophet forbare, and said, I know that God hath determined to destroy thee, because thou hast done this, and hast not hearkened unto my counsel.”

a. He brought the gods of the children of Seir, and set them up to be his gods.
This is one of the most irrational acts recorded of a king of Judah. Amaziah took the defeated gods of Edom, gods that had proven utterly powerless, and enthroned them as objects of worship. Victory should have confirmed the supremacy of the LORD. Instead, it inflated Amaziah’s pride and dulled his discernment. Triumph became the occasion of apostasy.

i. The absurdity is deliberate in the text. These gods failed to protect their own people, yet Amaziah bowed before them. Idolatry is not merely sin, it is spiritual insanity. “They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not” (Psalm 115:5).

ii. Selman rightly observes that success revealed Amaziah’s heart. Where obedience had previously restrained him, victory exposed latent pride, cruelty, and apostasy. Prosperity often tests character more severely than adversity.

b. Wherefore the anger of the LORD was kindled against Amaziah.
God’s response was righteous and restrained. Instead of immediate destruction, He sent a prophet. Judgment was deserved, but mercy preceded it. God confronted Amaziah with reason before executing wrath.

c. Why hast thou sought after the gods of the people, which could not deliver their own people out of thine hand?
The prophet’s question is devastating in its simplicity. It appeals to logic, experience, and history. The evidence of God’s power was fresh. The impotence of Edom’s gods was undeniable. Amaziah’s idolatry had no rational defense.

d. Art thou made of the king’s counsel? forbear; why shouldest thou be smitten?
Amaziah responded not with repentance, but arrogance. He rejected correction, insulted the prophet, and threatened violence. This is the language of hardened pride. When truth confronts arrogance, arrogance often silences truth.

i. Trapp’s observation is penetrating. God could have destroyed Amaziah instantly, yet He reasoned with him. Rejecting prophetic correction is rejecting mercy itself.

e. I know that God hath determined to destroy thee.
The prophet’s final word is chilling. Judgment was no longer conditional. Amaziah crossed a line. Persistent rejection of correction transforms warning into verdict. “He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy” (Proverbs 29:1).

2. (2 Chronicles 25:17–20) The king of Israel warns the king of Judah

“Then Amaziah king of Judah took advice, and sent to Joash, the son of Jehoahaz the son of Jehu, king of Israel, saying, Come, let us see one another in the face. And Joash the king of Israel sent to Amaziah king of Judah, saying, The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife: and there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon, and trode down the thistle. Thou sayest, Lo, thou hast smitten the Edomites; and thine heart lifteth thee up to boast: abide now at home; why shouldest thou meddle to thine hurt, that thou shouldest fall, even thou, and Judah with thee? But Amaziah would not hear; for it came of God, that he might deliver them into the hand of their enemies, because they sought the gods of Edom.”

a. Come, let us see one another in the face.
Intoxicated by victory and wounded pride, Amaziah challenged Israel to battle. His confidence was misplaced. He mistook success granted by God for personal greatness. This war was unnecessary, reckless, and pride driven.

i. Amaziah’s reasoning appeared sound by human standards. Judah had recently defeated Edom decisively. Israel appeared militarily weakened after Syrian oppression. But human calculation without God leads to ruin.

b. The thistle that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar.
Joash of Israel responded with remarkable restraint and wisdom. His parable was an indirect rebuke, warning Amaziah of his insignificance relative to the danger he was courting.

i. Dilday’s explanation is apt. The thistle overestimated itself, imagined equality with the cedar, and was destroyed effortlessly. Pride invites crushing judgment.

c. Thine heart lifteth thee up to boast: abide now at home.
This was sound counsel, even though it came from a wicked king. God sometimes speaks truth through unlikely mouths. Amaziah was warned plainly. Staying home would have spared Judah great harm.

d. Why shouldest thou meddle to thine hurt, that thou shouldest fall, even thou, and Judah with thee?
Joash highlighted the broader consequence. Amaziah’s pride endangered the entire nation. A king’s arrogance never affects him alone.

e. But Amaziah would not hear.
This completes the pattern. He rejected the prophet of God, then ignored the caution of a pagan king. When correction is consistently refused, blindness becomes judicial.

f. For it came of God, that he might deliver them into the hand of their enemies.
This does not mean God authored Amaziah’s sin, but that God sovereignly allowed Amaziah’s pride to run its course. Idolatry produced arrogance. Arrogance produced foolish war. God allowed the chain to proceed to judgment.

i. Poole’s comment is precise. God handed Amaziah over to his own passions. Divine judgment often consists of letting sinners have what they insist upon.

3. (2 Chronicles 25:21–24) Proud King Amaziah is defeated by Israel

“So Joash the king of Israel went out, and they saw one another in the face, both he and Amaziah king of Judah, at Beth-shemesh, which belongeth to Judah. And Judah was put to the worse before Israel, and they fled every man to his tent. And Joash king of Israel took Amaziah king of Judah, the son of Joash, the son of Jehoahaz, at Beth-shemesh, and brought him to Jerusalem, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim unto the corner gate, four hundred cubits. And he took all the gold and the silver, and all the vessels that were found in the house of God with Obed-edom, and the treasures of the king’s house, the hostages also, and returned to Samaria.”

a. Judah was put to the worse before Israel, and they fled every man to his tent.
This defeat was decisive and humiliating. Judah did not merely lose ground, they collapsed in disorder. The phrase “every man to his tent” signals panic and complete breakdown of morale. This was the inevitable result of Amaziah’s pride and refusal to heed both prophetic warning and prudent counsel. The LORD, who had granted victory over Edom, now withdrew His hand.

b. Joash king of Israel took Amaziah king of Judah.
Amaziah’s pride ended in captivity. The king who challenged Israel now stood powerless before Israel’s king. Knapp’s observation is sharp and accurate. Amaziah’s name means strength of the LORD, yet he trusted in his own strength. Scripture emphasizes that he strengthened himself, not that he relied upon God. His self sufficiency contradicted his very name.

c. And brought him to Jerusalem, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem.
This act was both symbolic and strategic. Breaking down four hundred cubits of Jerusalem’s wall exposed the city to future attacks and publicly humiliated Judah. The wall represented security, strength, and identity. Amaziah’s foolish war left the people of God exposed because of one man’s pride.

d. He took all the gold and the silver, and all the vessels that were found in the house of God.
The consequences of Amaziah’s arrogance extended far beyond himself. The treasures of the house of the LORD were seized. Sacred vessels were plundered. The wealth of the king’s house was taken. What God had restored under Joash was stripped away under Amaziah. Sin at the top always impoverishes those below.

i. The hostages also.
Human lives were taken as collateral. Families suffered because of Amaziah’s decision. His pride cost Judah its security, its wealth, and its sons. Leadership failure always multiplies suffering.

ii. Clarke rightly notes that Amaziah’s quarrel may have appeared just, but the outcome proved Joash’s warning correct. Amaziah meddled to his hurt, and Judah fell with him. Pride never limits its damage to the proud.

4. (2 Chronicles 25:25–28) Amaziah is hated and killed by his own subjects

“And Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah lived after the death of Joash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel fifteen years. Now the rest of the acts of Amaziah, first and last, behold, are they not written in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel? Now after the time that Amaziah did turn away from following the LORD they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem; and he fled to Lachish: but they sent to Lachish after him, and slew him there. And they brought him upon horses, and buried him with his fathers in the city of Judah.”

a. After the time that Amaziah did turn away from following the LORD.
This phrase explains everything. The conspiracy did not arise merely because of political embarrassment, but because Amaziah had turned away from the LORD. His spiritual apostasy preceded his political collapse. When a king abandons God, the people eventually abandon the king.

i. Trapp’s assessment is sobering. Amaziah lived fifteen more years, but they were empty years. He ruled without affection, without trust, and without peace. God sometimes allows prolonged life, not as blessing, but as exposure.

ii. Payne notes that Amaziah’s son Uzziah was elevated as coregent during this period. This indicates diminished confidence in Amaziah’s leadership and a quiet transition of authority away from him.

b. They made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem.
Amaziah lost the loyalty of his own people. The same pattern that marked his father Joash now repeated itself. Both kings began with promise and ended assassinated because they forsook the LORD.

c. He fled to Lachish.
Lachish was a fortified city, but also one historically linked with compromise and idolatry. Knapp’s observation is insightful. Amaziah fled not toward faithfulness, but toward familiarity. He sought refuge in a place shaped by the same spiritual errors he embraced.

d. They sent after him to Lachish and slew him there.
Flight did not save him. Judgment caught him where he ran. Amaziah could escape men briefly, but he could not escape the consequences of forsaking God. Clarke’s description is fitting. Having forsaken the LORD, Amaziah was forsaken by friends and died an untimely and violent death.

e. They buried him with his fathers in the city of Judah.
Unlike Joash, Amaziah was buried with his fathers, but there is no note of honor, mourning, or distinction. The Chronicler records the burial without commendation. His reign ended not with glory, but with silence.