Elijah and Amaziah (2 Kings 1)

This sermon was preached on 11/4/2013

A few years have passed since we last heard from Elijah when he confronted Ahab over the scheme that deprived Naboth of his inheritance and his life. During those years Ahab was killed and his son Amaziah had come to the throne. His reign was to be a very short one, but it was a reign marked by great wickedness, as we can see from 1 Kings 22:52-53.

Amaziah was the son of Ahab and Jezebel. As we can see from the incidents in this chapter he had absorbed the pagan practices of his parents, especially his mother. Their form of worship included a range of gods and the one selected by Amaziah was a Philistine deity (Ekron was a Philistine city). It is striking that the king assumes that a more powerful god lives outside his own country, for in a sense he must have been the god of an enemy.

What can we make of his decision to approach the pagan temple at Ekron for help? Several suggestions come to mind and I will merely list them.

(1) We can see here the influence of a mother. Ahab was a bad king, yet at times he revealed a little respect for the God of Israel, such as when he repented of his sin against Naboth. There is no sign that Amaziah had this kind of respect, indeed he shows the opposite. He shares his mother’s contempt for the God of Israel. Here is a reminder of the force that a mother can be for good or for ill.

(2) This decision of Amaziah may be a silent testimony to the success of the ministry of Elijah in that it was hard for the king now to find a spokesman for Baal within the borders of Israel. Or the request may mean that the king did not want to offend some of his subjects who had rejected the worship of Baal through the work of Elijah.

(3) In contrast, it is possible that the people imagined the false god could heal illnesses or perhaps he was regarded as more powerful than other gods. For all we know, many people may have been in the habit of worshipping at this location.

(4) Whatever the reason, it is clear that Amaziah did not think it would be useful to ask the true God for help. The king did not even try to merge help from the pagan gods with a consultation with those who preferred the God of Israel. Nevertheless the Lord was aware of the king’s foolish decision.

Why this divine response?

We know that the king’s decision at this time was not the first occasion he had decided to participate in idol worship (1 Kings 22:52-53). This then raises the question as to why the Lord intervened here in such a drastic manner. After all, it was his providence that included within it the king’s fall from the roof of his house. Why did the Lord not inform Amaziah on an earlier occurrence that he would be struck down with death? This divine response points to something having changed with the king’s decision, that he had crossed over a line. I would suggest that here the king is guilty of an especially blatant, high-handed sin that reveals his persistent and determined opposition to God.

Clearly Amaziah has badly damaged himself in the fall he had experienced. He senses that it may be a fatal accident. Surely in such a situation he should seek the Lord. Yet he chooses not to do so and reveals the strength of rebellion in his heart against the true God. The Lord sometimes does not judge people until they reach a certain level of rebellion. Of course, we cannot say what the level is for each person. Yet we should not be surprised when blatant sinners suddenly undergo what seems to be divine judgment. Frequently the Lord will not allow his name to be demeaned beyond a certain extent and he will intervene in a dramatic manner.

How should we react to this account of God’s judgment on a sinful king? What is the point of God doing this at that time and of recording it for others to read? In addition to recognizing the fact that the king sinned blatantly, we should also see in this incident a sample of the future divine judgment that will take place at the end of history. If there was a person in the country that people would imagine was strong enough to resist the call of God it would be the king. Yet here the Lord brings the most powerful man down to the level of being a helpless recipient of his punishment. The people at the time, and us as well, were to look at this event and fear for themselves because it is a reminder that God will judge.

The task and the timing

The Lord’s response was to send an angel to Elijah and inform him of a task. Clearly, Elijah did not know what Amaziah had decided to do. It is important to note this because sometimes people assume that prophets in biblical times knew everything and could see what people were doing in secret. When they did, the only reason why they knew was because God had chosen to reveal things to them in that way.

I suppose we could ask why the Lord chose to send Elijah rather than the angel to deal with the rebellious king. After all, the angel could have performed the task a lot quicker and would not have to resist any guards protecting the king. The basic answer is that the Lord is sovereign and can choose to use any method he wishes. A second reason could be that he wanted to vindicate in a public way the ministry and message of his servant Elijah now that another king was on the throne.

Another matter we can note is the Lord’s timing. Elijah was told by the angel to go and meet the messengers that the king had sent to the pagan shrine and inform them that their royal master would not recover. As we think of this matter of timing, what was it that caused the meeting to happen at the right time? From one point of view, we can say that the Lord arranged it. Yet from another angle we can observe that it happened at the right moment because Elijah obeyed promptly. Imagine what would have happened if the prophet had delayed his response. It would not have changed the divine decision regarding the king, but it would have prevented Elijah from participating in what the Lord had planned. So here we have an example of the importance of immediate obedience.

The conflict between two forces

Once the king knew that the messenger was Elijah, he tried to exercise authority over the prophet by sending three groups of soldiers. The king’s response shows the folly of his thinking and also reveals his hatred of the God of Israel. Remember that he has not been cured of his trouble – his messengers did not even have a comforting word from one of the priests of Baal, yet he now continues to engage in a war with the Lord’s prophet and sends some soldiers to arrest him. Although the king could be dead within a few hours, nevertheless he wants a fight with God.

Several features can be deduced from the king’s response. First, he assumes that the warfare is physical and that it is a battle between him and a strange-looking man. This type of assessment is made often by those opposed to the gospel – they imagine that it will be easy to deal with those who advocate it. Yet they will discover that there is much more to the conflict than they imagine. Second, the king reveals the animosity he has towards the Lord when he persists in sending soldiers to deal with the situation even although two groups perish in the process. Third, he displays a callous indifference to human life and regards his soldiers as dispensable.

A faithful man in an impossible situation

As we can see from the story, the third captain takes a different approach when he draws near to Elijah. I would suggest that he is a man of faith – he is different from the other captains because they did not seem to think that they would be judged for their mission. The third captain accepted that Elijah had sufficient acquaintance with heaven to receive its approval.

How does this captain illustrate how men of faith should live in the presence of the judgment of God? The captain displays humility by falling on his knees, he expresses concern for himself and for his soldiers, and his prayer is full of energy and desperation. Whether or not the captain was a believer, those three features should mark us during the time of divine judgment in which we live. Such a day is not a time for standing on our dignity. We should be sensitive to the reality that people are in danger of perishing and intercede for them (there is no sign here that the soldiers were praying for themselves).

Jesus and this incident

When we turn to the New Testament, we will read an account of an occasion when James and John referred to this event in the life of Elijah (Luke 9). A Samaritan village had rejected Jesus and his disciples, and the sons of Zebedee thought it would be a good idea if they called down fire from heaven on the villagers in a manner similar to how Elijah had called down fire on the soldiers. Jesus rebuked them for their request, which means that they had misinterpreted the message of the incident.

Jesus did not disapprove of what Elijah had done. But his rebuke of James and John means that Elijah’s response should not be imitated when the gospel is rejected. Their suggestion was an inappropriate use of the Bible and which would give a wrong impression to others about what God was like. In fact, their request was more in tune with their own character because it was the kind of comment one would expect from those called the ‘sons of thunder’ by Jesus. Is it not often the case that our interpretation of the Bible will say more about us than it will say about God?

What did Jesus think about Elijah’s actions? It is probably straightforward to find out because it looks as if he was there when it happened. We are told that the angelic being who guided Elijah is the special angel called ‘the angel of the Lord’. Usually when an angel of that name appears on the stage during Old Testament times, it is an appearance of the second person of the Trinity. And there is no hint that another angel has taken on the role here. So as we look at the incident, we see that the Angel is guiding his servant in how he responds to the three groups of soldiers and in what he should say to the king. And we can see how suitable it was for Jesus to speak in a special way to his two disciples about this incident.