What the Bible says about Amaziah
(From Forerunner Commentary)
Jehoash's son, Amaziah, became king at age 25 and reigned until age 54. Like his father, he declined to do anything about the high places in his realm. In many respects, Amaziah's reign mirrored his father's; it began well and ended poorly. Immediately after his coronation, he showed his commitment to God's law: Although he had the servants who had participated in his father's murder executed, he did not punish their children (II Kings 14:6; see II Chronicles 25:3-4).
Yet, after this noble beginning, Amaziah began to falter. He gathered the men of Judah and soundly defeated the Edomites, but in this victory were planted the seeds of his own defeat:
Now it was so, after Amaziah came from the slaughter of the Edomites, that he brought the gods of the people of Seir, set them up to be his gods, and bowed down before them and burned incense to them. Therefore the anger of the LORD was aroused against Amaziah, and He sent him a prophet who said to him, "Why have you sought the gods of the people, which could not rescue their own people from your hand?" So it was, as he talked with him, that the king said to him, "Have we made you the king's counselor? Cease! Why should you be killed?" Then the prophet ceased, and said, "I know that God has determined to destroy you, because you have done this and have not heeded my advice." (II Chronicles 25:14-16)
Like Jehoash, Amaziah was not only lax in destroying the centers of idolatry within his realm, but he also later practiced idolatry himself. He trusted in God enough for the victory over Edom—and by extension, over the gods of the Edomites—but he then put his trust in those neutered gods and turned away from the God who had defeated them! To compound his folly, Amaziah rejected the Word of God through His prophet, culminating in God turning against him.
Unchecked by the prophet's words, Amaziah let the God-given overthrow of Edom go to his head, and he challenged the king of Israel to battle. The king of Israel—wiser in this instance—tried to warn him off (II Chronicles 25:19-20). Predictably, Amaziah suffered defeat, and a large portion of Jerusalem's wall was destroyed. Further, the Israelites ransacked both the house of the Lord and the king's house, portraying what Amaziah himself had symbolically done to the Temple and his own house. Finally, like his apostate father, Amaziah died a dishonorable death at the hands of assassins.
II Chronicles 25:2 gives a slightly different assessment of Amaziah: "And he did what was right in the sight of the LORD, but not with a loyal heart." The word "loyal" can also be translated as "full," "whole," "perfect," "peaceable," "made ready," or "blameless." It has the connotation of "friendly," as in being friendly to a cause. For example, when Solomon inaugurated the Temple, he commanded Israel to "Let your heart therefore be loyal to the LORD our God, to walk in His statutes and keep His commandments, as at this day" (I Kings 8:61; emphasis ours throughout).
In other words, in Amaziah existed an element of resignation or perfunctory compliance, but he was not wholly committed to doing the right thing. He did what was right, but it was under internal duress. Because of the guidance Jehoiada the priest gave to his father and his own familiarity with the law of God, Amaziah could not claim ignorance. He knew the right thing to do, and for a time, he did it—but his heart was not in it. As soon as he had a taste of success and a boost of confidence, what was in his heart—pride, idolatry, and insolence before God, among other things—could no longer be contained. As Jesus taught, the things of the heart eventually come out and cause defilement (Mark 7:20).
How much are we like Amaziah? We can certainly stumble as he did. He knew of the true God and the right way, but he was also well aware of the pagan world around him. For a time, he constrained himself to do what was right, but once things began going his way, the world turned his head, and his heart was lifted up. Because he did not have a loyal heart—because he was not wholeheartedly devoted to God—it was only a matter of time before what was inside revealed itself. While doing what is "right in the sight of the LORD" is always better than doing wrong, perfunctory compliance eventually ends. Amaziah's tolerance of the high places in the kingdom God had entrusted to him exposed what lived in his heart, and eventually, his life came to match it, much to his detriment and those under him.
Where do our loyalties truly lie? Doing what is right in God's sight does not count for much if the heart strains to go another way. Though Solomon failed to follow his own advice, he gives tremendous counsel in Proverbs 4:23 (NIV): "Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life."
David C. Grabbe
The High Places (Part Three)
Joash, Amaziah, and Uzziah all started out well but later hardened their hearts. They all rejected God's Word and refused to repent. God wanted them to return to Him, but their intransigence forced His hand.
Is God hard? Is He austere and unmerciful? Does God owe us salvation and eternal life? Is He bound to give us blessings regardless of our conduct, despite the direction of our lives? No, our choices decide our fate (see Ezekiel 18:23-28).
God demands individual responsibility. He never condones sin nor grants license for anyone to disobey His commands. The subject here is not about transgressions done out of weakness or ignorance but those committed as a way of life with knowledge of wrongdoing. He judges such sins seriously. Yet, even for such sins, God always desires and allows the sinner to repent.
As we see in the examples of these kings, He will always chase after the sinner with His Word and allow him time to repent. He always leaves the door open for a sinner who will return to Him. But eventually, the mind becomes set (Ecclesiastes 8:11), the conscience becomes seared (I Timothy 4:2), and repentance becomes impossible.
At some point, a sinner will no longer change, and God says that He then makes a final judgment. He tells Moses after he had offered his own life for the sins of Israel, “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book” (Exodus 32:33). God enters names into the Book of Life, and He has the prerogative to erase names from it as well—a sobering thought indeed.
Essentially, Joash, Amaziah, and Uzziah all quoted Deuteronomy 29:19: “I shall have peace, even though I walk in the imagination [dictates] of my heart.” At a certain point, confronted with their sins, they said, “I will not repent, I will not listen to God's prophets. I will continue in the direction I am going, and despite that, I will live in peace and prosperity.” God says that is the kind of thinking He expects from a drunk: “I can continue to drink and not get become impaired.”
In verse 20, Moses reaches a scary conclusion about how God would deal with such a person at that point:
The LORD would not spare him; for then the anger of the LORD and His jealousy would burn against that man, and every curse that is written in this book would settle on him, and the LORD would blot out his name from under heaven.
Through Moses, God is saying, “Do not kid yourself. You cannot live in violation of My ways and expect Me not to respond.” Most of us have come out of a Protestant society that teaches that God is essentially obligated to give us salvation because of the depth of His grace. Protestant theology proclaims that His mercy is so great that, as long as we have accepted the blood of Jesus Christ, salvation is assured. This claim is not true. While this teaching tickles people's ears, they forget that God's justice perfectly balances His mercy, and His love tempers both.
He knows that anybody who desires to live in a way opposed to His way of life would be miserable for all eternity should he inherit the Kingdom of God. God's sense of justice will not allow Him to give eternal life to such a person. He will not commit a person to that depth of misery, nor will He allow him to cause suffering for others. Like Satan, he would be a thorn in the side of the godly. If God determines that it would not be good for someone to live in His Kingdom, because he refuses to live as God requires, he will not be there.
John W. Ritenbaugh
Three Missing Kings (Part Two)Related Topics: Accepting Responsibility for Our Sins | Accepting Responsibility for Our Transgressions | Amaziah | Amaziah as Unsteady in Character | Blot Name from Book of Life | Conscience , Seared | God's Patience Designed to Lead us to Repentance | God's Sense of Justice | Hardening Hearts | Joash | Joash's Character | Joash, Amaziah, and Uzziah | Seared Conscience | Sin, Deadening effects of | Sin, Willful | Three Missing Kings in Matthew 1 | Willful Sin
This evaluation of Amaziah's character provides a key to understanding his character. In II Chronicles 25:11-12, a battle between Judah and Edom occurs, and Amaziah wins a great victory. Then he does something that defies logic:
Now it was so, after Amaziah came from the slaughter of the Edomites, that he brought the gods of the people of Seir, set them up to be his gods, and bowed down before them, and burned incense to them. (II Chronicles 25:14)
This reaction is hard to comprehend! God gave him a great victory over the Edomites and their gods, and instead of praising and worshipping the God of Israel, he decides to adopt the idols of Edom as his gods. What was he thinking? God responds as we might expect:
Therefore the anger of the LORD was aroused against Amaziah, and He sent him a prophet who said to him, “Why have you sought the gods of the people, which could not rescue their own people from your hand?” So it was, as he talked with him, that the king said to him, “Have we made you the king's counselor? Cease! Why should you be killed?” Then the prophet ceased and said, “I know that God has determined to destroy you because you have done this and have not heeded my advice.” (II Chronicles 25:15-16)
Amaziah would not take correction and threatened to kill God's prophet if he continued to criticize him for his actions. Though he had followed the prophet's advice earlier, the king is now beginning to expose his disloyal heart.
Feeling strong, Amaziah decides to challenge Israel, whose angry mercenaries had killed three thousand Judahites after being dismissed from Judah's service—not a very smart move. For one thing, it pitted Judah with two tribes against Israel with its ten tribes. Joash, king of Israel, was justifiably contemptuous of Amaziah's challenge, warning him of defeat in the form of a parable (II Chronicles 25:18).
Amaziah, in his pride, refuses to listen. The chronicler interjects that God inspired his refusal because He needed to punish the king for taking Edomite gods as his own (verse 20). Amaziah takes his forces into battle against Israel at Beth Shemesh, and he and his army are smashed just as the king of Israel had predicted.
Like his father Joash, Amaziah comes to a violent end years later:
After the time that Amaziah turned away from following the LORD, they [likely a group of nobles] made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem, and he fled to Lachish; but they sent after him to Lachish and killed him there. Then they brought him on horses and buried him with his fathers in the City of Judah. (II Chronicles 25:27-28)
So, for the second time in as many generations, the king of Judah is assassinated. The conspirators held Amaziah in such contempt that they killed him, tied him over the back of a horse, and sent his body back to Jerusalem for burial. Another king suffers an ignominious end, although he at least had the honor of burial among the former kings of Judah.
In terms of character, Amaziah was unstable, reversing his early loyalty to God on a dime. He wanted victory and glory, and when God gave it to him, he failed to see that God was its source and absurdly chose to worship Edomite gods. Instead of listening to God's prophet, he threatened him with death. He foolishly challenged a far stronger Israelite army, expecting the same results he had had against the Edomites, not realizing the Source of his power had become his adversary. And apparently, he never learned his lesson, disenchanting his nobles until they decided to rid themselves of him.
We could compare him to the man in Jesus' parable (Luke 14:28-30), who began to build, seemingly well. However, his early success went to his head, and like a piece of overripe fruit, he began to turn rotten. He dropped the true God for idols. Like the man in the parable, he did not have what it took to finish what he had started.
Unsteady in character and conduct, he was a semi-religious man who only wanted what faithfulness could get him. He was sufficiently pious early in life, but that early piety did not justify his later pride and self-indulgence.
John W. Ritenbaugh
Three Missing Kings (Part Two)Related Topics: Amaziah | Amaziah as Unsteady in Character | Amaziah's Ignominious Sin | Amaziah's Lack of Character | Amaziah's Pride | Amaziah's Vacillating Instability | Idolatry | Joash, Amaziah, and Uzziah | Self Indulgence | Three Kings Missing from Matthew 1 | Three Missing Kings in Matthew 1
Amaziah was preparing to go to war; he was putting a fighting machine together. So he took a census, and this is what he found.
John W. Ritenbaugh
Why Three Kings Are Missing From Matthew 1
In the parable, Amaziah of Judah is the thistle, and Joash of Israel is the cedar. A cedar is mighty and strong, while a thistle is so weak that a little old forest animal could trample it to smithereens and scatter it. He is taunting them, "Try to attack me, and I will step on you like on a thistle, and all the seeds will blow everywhere." Well, Amaziah, in his puffed-up pride, having just won a battle against the Edomites says "Heh, heh, I will get you," but he did not get them. He went to battle against Israel, and he got himself smashed, just as Joash said he would be.
John W. Ritenbaugh
Why Three Kings Are Missing From Matthew 1
Most of us have probably seen a Western in which a man gets shot out the wilderness somewhere, and someone ties his body onto the horse, draped over the top, stomach to the saddle, with his hands tied to his feet underneath. That is what they did to Amaziah, just tied him to a horse and sent him back to Jerusalem. What an ignominious ending for the royal seed!
Let us evaluate his character. What we see in him is vacillating instability. He was a great deal like Joash, but Amaziah wanted the best of both worlds. We could compare his life to the parable Jesus gave of a man who began to build yet was not able to finish. Amaziah started off well. He listened to the prophet of God and repented. When he changed his ways, God gave him a great victory, but then he began to turn. He was a man who was semi-religious and unsteady in character and conduct. He had the right kind of piety and godliness early in his life, but early piety and godliness is no excuse for self-indulgence later on.
The flaw we see beginning to develop is that these three kings (Joash, Amaziah, and Uzziah) all began well, but they did not finish well.
John W. Ritenbaugh
Why Three Kings Are Missing From Matthew 1
There is an individual responsibility. God never condones sin nor grants license for anyone to disobey His commands. This is not speaking about our transgressions done out of weakness or ignorance. These are transgressions that are done as a way of life with knowledge that one is doing wrong. However, God always allows the sinner to repent. He will always chase after the sinner with His Word, giving him the opportunity to turn around. We see that in the lives of the kings Joash, Amaziah, and Uzziah. God always leaves the door open for a sinner who desires to repent. If he does not repent, his mind eventually becomes set, seared, and over time, repentance becomes impossible.
John W. Ritenbaugh
Why Three Kings Are Missing From Matthew 1Related Topics: Amaziah | Conscience , Seared | Inability to Repent | Individual Responsibility | Joash | Repentance | Seared Conscience | Sin, Willful | Transgressing the Law | Uzziah | Willfully Sin
Evidently, Amos' teaching was effective because the people responded - at least it caused a reaction. He was a good strategist; he preached at the shrines where the people were. His influence radiated out as the word spread that a prophet from Judah was proclaiming doom for the nation. The people listened and spoke to each other about his preaching. When Amos accused the religious leaders of Israel of failing to teach God's way of life, Amaziah, a high religious official of the shrine in Bethel, felt he needed to respond.
As we see in Amos' case, a person can obey God and still receive public persecution. God will not protect us from all persecution, partly because it affords an opportunity to witness for and glorify Him. Amos' answer to Amaziah's charges makes this witness and enables him to prophesy further. Additionally, his response instructs us regarding the nature and function of a prophet.
This also shows a clear example of the biblical use of a plumb line, a building tool used to determine if an object is upright (verses 7-9). Does God hold the plumb line against Amaziah or Amos? Actually, He judges both. Amaziah represents the false religions, and Amos represents the true religion. The content of their conversation reveals how God would judge them. Primarily, though, God was evaluating Amos.
We need to apply the plumb line to ourselves. Are we taking the grace of God for granted? Could God be angry with some of us in His true church? Revelation 3:14-22 shows that the Laodiceans are sincere when they assert that they are spiritually complete, but God is ready to vomit them out! Obviously, the Laodiceans are not judging themselves against God's plumb line, or they would have known they were out of alignment with His will.
Because they feel so secure in their own spirituality, they probably think it incredible that God would single them out for punishment. It is clear, however, that God punishes those who forsake their part of the covenant with Him. Revelation 12:17 shows that, on the other hand, Satan persecutes those who keep the commandments of God and live godly lives.
God's religion is more than keeping the basic Ten Commandments. The Pharisees kept them, but our righteousness has to exceed theirs (Matthew 5:20). One difference between Christ and the Pharisees was that Christ's righteousness was positive while the Pharisees' was negative. Though both kept the commandments, the sincere Pharisee was righteous by avoiding sin, but Christ was righteous by always doing good as well.
The problem of the Laodicean is selfishness, self-concern. His opposite, the Philadelphian (which means "brotherly love"), is commended by God for his obedience and for doing good. His religion is outward in practice because he has prepared himself to give and serve through his relationship with God. The Laodicean is too busy gathering his wealth and indulging himself to give much thought to his fellow man.
Like the Laodiceans, the ancient Israelites concentrated on self-advantage, self-pleasing, and covetousness. This resulted in their being very hard on the needy and the poor. They ignored doing good works and serving their brothers. Amaziah apparently felt he needed to speak out and defend "that old-time religion."
John W. Ritenbaugh
Prepare to Meet Your God! (The Book of Amos) (Part Two)Related Topics: Amaziah | False Religion | Judging Ourselves | Judging Self | Laodiceanism | Persecution | Plumb Line | Self Absorption | Self Centeredness | Self Concern | Self Indulgence
In Amaziah's accusations against him, Amos was tested in several ways. The accusations were very pointed, designed to raise his anger and hatred so that he would respond in a way that would "show his true colors." In reality, Amos' true colors did surface—that he was a true man of God!
Amaziah misrepresented him as disloyal, often the first accusation made against a true servant of God. The Jews accused Christ of rebellion against the Roman government, a totally unfounded accusation. In Amos' case the accusation was equally unfounded.
The priest accused Amos of saying that Jeroboam would die in battle (Amos 7:11). He was really tricky. To prove that Amos had said this, he quoted something the prophet really did say: "Israel shall surely be led away captive" (Amos 5:27; 6:7). In reality, the prophecy made no mention specifically of Jeroboam. Amaziah's false accusation was supported with something that was true.
The Jews tried this with Christ too. They used, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19), as proof that He would destroy the Temple (Mark 14:58). They misrepresented what He said because He did not refer to the physical Temple. This is one of Satan's frequent ploys.
A second way that Amos was tested is in his motivation for serving God. Amaziah charges Amos with preaching for selfish reasons, for money, represented by, "Flee to the land of Judah. There eat bread" (Amos 7:12). Amos, a Jew, was preaching in Israel. To paraphrase, Amaziah said, "If you go back to Judah and tell them what you have preached against Israel, they will love you. They like hearing bad things about Israel! They will fill your basket with big offerings, and you'll be rich!" If Amos were not a true man of God, he might have swallowed this enticement.
Third, Amos was tested in his personal security. A threat implied that if he did not leave Israel, he would get hurt: "Never again prophesy at Bethel, for it is the king's sanctuary, and it is the royal residence" (verse 13). This test evaluated Amos' ability to confront authority. In referring to "the king's sanctuary, and . . . the royal residence," Amaziah warns him: "This is the national cathedral! What you say shouldn't be uttered in a hallowed, sacred place like this. It is dedicated to the welfare of Israel. In saying such things, you are challenging the king's authority." His ploy failed, though, since Jeroboam seems to have taken no action against Amos.
John W. Ritenbaugh
Prepare to Meet Your God! (The Book of Amos) (Part Two)Related Topics: Amaziah | Amos, Book of | Amos, Prophecies of | Amos, The Prophet | False Witness | Jeroboam I
When Amos answers, "I was no prophet, nor was I a son of a prophet, but I was a herdsman and a tender of sycamore fruit" (Amos 7:14), he contends that God Himself commissioned him to "prophesy to My people Israel" (verse 15). Amos was simply a faithful servant of God, with no formal training for the job God sent him to do. "So," he says, "don't tell me not to prophesy when God tells me to!" The apostles said much the same to the Sanhedrin (Acts 5:29).
Then he utters his prophetic denunciation of Amaziah (Amos 7:17). Amaziah's wife and children are included in the curse for two reasons. First, as shown earlier, a leader determines the course of those under him. Any curse that fell on Amaziah would also, to one degree or another, affect his family.
Second, it is a biblical principle that families are often unified in belief. The saying, "Blood is thicker than water," concedes that family ties often prove stronger than the influence of God's Holy Spirit. Frequently, if one leaves the church, others in the family will leave too.
As one member of the family rises or falls, so do the others. Because of his bold denunciation of God's prophet, Amaziah would suffer, and his family would suffer with him. God would see to it that this priest of Bethel would witness in a personal way the coming destruction of the nation as it fell upon his family with a vengeance.
This example, the only narrative section in the entire book, graphically illustrates the fruits of complacency and pride. God sends His prophets to ring as many warning bells as they can to wake His people up to the urgency of the times. The window of opportunity to avert the prophesied disaster is a small one, and God wants His people to use that time to seek Him and change their ways.
The prophet depicts a Laodicean society, like the United States today, from the top echelons to the lowest of beggars (Isaiah 1:5-6). Such a nation prefers form over substance, words over deeds, and tolerance over righteousness.
A sober glance around this nation speaks volumes about the downward spiral already in progress. Crime is rampant on our streets and in our homes. Government scandal and corruption are common news items. Our families are falling apart while we make speeches about "family values."
We also see Laodiceanism creeping into the church as the people begin adopting the lifestyles and attitudes of the world. When they equate material prosperity with spiritual acceptance, they become satisfied with themselves and their spiritual progress (Revelation 3:17). Seeing what Laodiceanism produces, we should never let ourselves become spiritually complacent.
The signs of the times are all around (Luke 12:54-56). It is not good enough just to see them, though. We must act upon this knowledge and truly seek God. Isaiah writes,
Seek the Lord while He may be found, call upon Him while He is near. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, and He will have mercy on him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon. (Isaiah 55:6-7)
Now is the time!
John W. Ritenbaugh
Prepare to Meet Your God! (The Book of Amos) (Part Two)Related Topics: Amaziah | Blood is Thicker than Water | Complacency | Complacency, Moral | Corruption | Curse | Family Ties | Laodiceanism | Moral Decay | Pride | Prophecy | Prophesying | Prophets
I Chronicles 3 contains a counterpart to Matthew's list, at least his middle section covering the kings of Judah, that is, the family of David:
Solomon's son was Rehoboam; Abijah was his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son, Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son, Ahaz his son, Hezekiah his son, Manasseh his son, Amon his son, Josiah his son. The sons of Josiah were Johanan the firstborn, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, and the fourth Shallum. The sons of Jehoiakim were Jeconiah his son and Zedekiah his son. (I Chronicles 3:10-16)
From David to Zedekiah, twenty-one kings reigned in Judah. But in Matthew's list, only the names of fifteen kings appear. Three of the six left out, the three who followed Josiah (Shallum/Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Zedekiah), were of the same generation, brothers—blood relatives, of the same family line. However, two of them, Shallum and Zedekiah, are not direct ancestors of Jesus and so are not included, providing a logical reason for their absence. Matthew further disparages this generation by skipping over Jehoiakim and naming his son, Jehoiachin or Jeconiah, as Josiah's son (his literal grandson).
In addition, a renegade queen, Athaliah, is not on either list. She was the granddaughter of Omri, king of Israel (II Chronicles 22:2), and a truly evil woman. She usurped the throne following her son Ahaziah's death by killing all his heirs. She deserves exclusion, yet some of the most evil kings of Judah are on the list as part of Christ's ancestry.
Another three kings whose names appear in the king list in I Chronicles 3 fail to appear in Matthew's list. Which three kings they are is not entirely clear because of a confusion of names. There are two possibilities.
The kings in question appear in I Chronicles 3:11-12: “Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son.” The first possibility is that Matthew excluded Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah from his list because of their connection to Athaliah.
The second possibility is that he left Joash, Amaziah, and Azariah off his list. The last of these kings is better known as Uzziah. Why did Matthew drop them from Jesus' family tree? Rather than excluding them due to their connection to Athaliah, he may have omitted them to draw attention to a disastrous flaw these three men had in common.
God does not tell us which is the correct answer. Either of the two possibilities would be a good enough reason for their absence from Matthew's list. The second, however, has greater application to Christians living and growing today. We are not descended from or have any direct connections to Athaliah, but we may well have a similar spiritual problem to what Joash, Amaziah, and Uzziah had.
John W. Ritenbaugh
Three Missing Kings (Part One)
Who is this man, Uzziah? The King James Version reads “Ozias,” which is closer to the Greek version of the name. To answer this question makes things very interesting.
We will pick up the trail of these names in the reign of Jehoram:
And they [an army of Philistines and Arabians] came up into Judah and invaded it, and carried away all the possessions that were found in the king's house, and also his sons and his wives, so that there was not a son left to him [Jehoram] except Jehoahaz, the youngest of his sons. (II Chronicles 21:17)
This invasion was devastating for Jehoram. He lost all his wives and sons except the youngest, Jehoahaz. In II Chronicles 22:1, after the ignominious burial of Jehoram, the people of Judah crowned a new king: “Then the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his place.”
Just four verses earlier, the chronicler names Jehoram's youngest son “Jehoahaz,” and here he calls him “Ahaziah.” Are these two different men or the same man with two names? The latter is the correct answer since, in both cases, he is identified as the youngest son. Over a couple of years, his name changed from Jehoahaz to Ahaziah. It is most likely that his birth name was “Jehoahaz,” but he took “Ahaziah” when he ascended the throne. (In my lifetime, Britain's Prince Albert, Duke of York, took the regnal name of George VI. His given name was “Albert Frederick Arthur George,” and before his ascension to the throne, he was always known as “Albert” or called by his nickname, “Bertie.”)
This king's name becomes more complicated in II Chronicles 22:6:
Then he returned to Jezreel to recover from the wounds he had received at Ramah, when he fought against Hazael king of Syria. And Azariah the son of Jehoram, king of Judah, went down to see Jehoram the son of Ahab in Jezreel, because he was sick.
Beyond the fact that the king of Israel is also named “Jehoram” as Ahaziah's father was, the text calls the king of Judah “Azariah”! This person cannot be a different king of Judah because no other sons of Jehoram remained alive. This king obviously has three names: Jehoahaz, Ahaziah, and Azariah.
And the confusion continues! In II Chronicles 25:27, another name crops up: “After the time that Amaziah turned away from following the LORD, they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem, and he fled to Lachish; but they sent after him to Lachish and killed him there.” This verse recounts the death of Amaziah. When a king dies, a new king ascends to the throne, and II Chronicles 26:1 relates who followed Amaziah: “Now all the people of Judah took Uzziah, who was sixteen years old, and made him king instead of his father, Amaziah.”
Amaziah's son, Uzziah, now sits on David's throne. II Kings 15:1 contains a parallel account of this event: “In the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam, king of Israel, Azariah the son of Amaziah, king of Judah, became king.” Amaziah's son is here called “Azariah.” This Azariah is the same man as Uzziah, the son of Amaziah, in II Chronicles 26. Other details in both accounts verify this (he ascended the throne at sixteen, and his mother was Jecholiah of Jerusalem).
The book of Matthew, written in Greek, uses the Greek equivalents of these Hebrew names. In ancient Hebrew, the vowels are not written. This omission of vowels can easily lead to confusion when the consonants of names in lists like Matthew's genealogy are similar.
This confusion of names sets up an intriguing situation. If the “Uzziah” or “Ozias” of Matthew 1:8 is the king variously called “Jehoahaz,” “Azariah,” or “Ahaziah,” and not the “Azariah” or “Uzziah” of II Kings 15:1 and II Chronicles 26:1, it means three kings in a row have been left off Matthew's list.
John W. Ritenbaugh
Three Missing Kings (Part One)
Find more Bible verses about Amaziah:
Amaziah {Nave's}