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” (II Kings 14:9).
If military success is a mark of human happiness, the period around about 800 B.C. was a good time for the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Both of them had just previously passed through bad times at the hands of the Syrians. Jehoash, king of Judah, had paid a large tribute to Hazael, king of Syria, in order to buy the freedom of Jerusalem. The contemporary king of Israel, Jehoahaz, had suffered even more at the hands of Hazael. The Lord “cut Israel short” before the Syrians and many Israelitish cities were overrun by the enemy.
The reigns of the succeeding kings, however, brought great changes for the better. In Judah, Jehoash was followed by Amaziah, who, though not a David, was nevertheless a king who at times shewed great zeal for the God of his fathers. His father, whose bribe had, for once in a way, kept the enemy away, perhaps because of their other commitments, had been murdered by his servants. Amaziah’s first act was to execute the assassins, though, contrary to the practice of kings of those days, who used to extirpate all possible rebels, he refrained from punishing their children. Having thus consolidated his position he had leisure to prepare to deal with the Edomites in the south. To do this he conscripted all fit men of twenty years old and over and thus raised an army of 300,000 men. Not satisfied with this large force he spent a further hundred talents of silver in hiring 100,000, mercenaries from the neighboring kingdom of Israel. He now felt strong enough to undertake his campaign and was just about to order his troops to march when a prophet requested audience. His message was that it was not the will of God that the Israelitish mercenaries should be used and that if they were not sent away the projected war would be a failure. “What about my hundred talents?” said Amaziah. “The Lord is able to give you a lot more than that,” replied the prophet. Amaziah was wise and disbanded his hired soldiers. This caused great resentment among those dismissed, which had repercussions later.
With his remaining troops the king of Judah went to his campaign. He was successful at the battle of the Valley of Salt, south of the Dead Sea. Ten thousand Edomites were killed in the action, and ten thousand more were taken prisoner and put to death later. Selah, possibly the modern rock city of Petra, was captured and re-named Joktheel (‘subdued by God’) and the discomfiture of the foe was complete. As so often happened in Jewish history, however, victory was not an unmixed blessing. With extraordinary perverseness and inconsistency Amaziah was so attracted by the gods of Edom that he brought some of them home from the war and actually burned incense to them. Again the prophet sought an audience: “What folly is this?” he said, “these Edomite gods which you have set up in Judah could not save their own people and yet you worship them and think they can help you!” Amaziah was not so wise on this occasion. He received the prophet’s protest with anger, “How long have you been confidential advisor to the king?” he demanded, “Get out before I am compelled to punish you for your insolence!” The seer went, but not before he had again warned the king that God would not overlook his infidelity. More bad news came to the king for it was reported that the mercenaries whom he had dismissed, deprived thus of their share of the spoils of war, had vented their resentment on a number of the cities of Judah on their way home and had done much damage and injury to the citizens. In spite of this, the day of retribution was not yet, and Amaziah continued to glory in his victory.
In Israel, Jehoahaz had been succeeded by Joash and the great enemy and oppressor of Jehoahaz, Hazael, had also died and been followed by his son Benhadad III. The changes of monarch meant a change of fortunes, in accordance with Elisha’s dying prophecy (II Kings 13-14/19). Assuming the offensive against Benhadad, Joash won three decisive battles and turned the Syrians out of Israel, freeing the cities which Hazael had occupied.
Thus at the time to which our story relates there was in both Judah and Israel a king who was flushed with victory. It is easy to see what kind of a man Amaziah was. Not without a spark of godly sentiment he was apt to smother it when it threatened to challenge his pride and ambition. He was a man to whom success was a serious danger in view of his tendency to get inflated ideas of his own achievements and importance. There is little material at this stage to estimate the character of Joash. His later method of dealing with Amaziah, however, shews a lordly self-conceit, mingled with a willingness to tolerate the king of Judah more or less good-humoredly, so long as he did not interfere too much.
The envoys of Amaziah waited upon Joash and, in the name of their master, said, “Come let us look one another in the face.” The meaning of this request is obscure. It clearly indicated more than a formal state visit. II Kings 14-11 suggests that war was intended, for when the kings did look one another in the face it was in battle at Beth-shemesh. The occasion may have arisen from the conduct of the Israelitish mercenaries whom Amaziah had hired and then dismissed before they could fight. From the parable which Joash used in reply, it seems that the messengers also demanded a marriage alliance between the royal houses — the son of the thistle should marry the daughter of the cedar. The whole of the facts suggest that the king of Judah may have demanded a conference to consider reparation for the depredations of the foreign legion, making the marriage alliance a condition of agreement. Exulting in his defeat of the Edomites, he threatened war in the event of failure to concede his claims.
At first Joash treated him with careless disdain, sending back a message in the terms of the parable under consideration and telling Amaziah not to think that because he had beaten Edom, he could overcome Israel.
“Glory of this (the victory of the Valley of Salt) and tarry at home, for why shouldest thou meddle to thy hurt, that thou shouldest fall, even thou and Judah with thee?”
Amaziah would not be warned. Under the providence of God, who used his own senseless ambition to punish him, he declared war. Joash was then compelled to take notice of him. The armies met “face to face” at Beth-Shemesh in Judah. The bubble of Amaziah’s ambition was pricked. His army was defeated; Jerusalem was taken and parts of the walls were broken down: Amaziah’s treasure house was raided; the vessels of the temple were seized: and large numbers of hostages were taken to Samaria. The king himself was taken prisoner, but Joash thought so little of him as a future menace that he contemptuously allowed him to keep his throne. Amaziah survived Joash for fifteen years, but he did not challenge Israel again. Finally, a conspiracy was raised against him in Jerusalem and he fled to Lachish. He was followed, however, and was assassinated in his place of refuge.
As in Jotham’s parable of the trees so in this parable vegetable life is endowed with the power of speech. Again as in the former fable, the thistle, or bramble, stands for arrogance and ambition, on this occasion expressed in Amaziah. The lordly cedar of Lebanon represents Joash’s opinion of himself, haughtily standing above lesser men. The wild beast of the forest also seems to depict Joash, this time as a warrior, although it may be that it relates to the abstract idea of war which crushed Amaziah without realizing it, just as the wild beast trod down the thistle without being aware of the fact. The lowly bramble entwining the base of the cedar, could easily be broken, but the lofty and strongly rooted cedar had nothing to fear from the wild beast.
Joash’s parable had the merits of being simple and direct and Amaziah could have been left in no doubt as to its meaning. We may think, however, that in likening himself to a cedar, as contrasted with a mere thistle, the former was not free from the sin of pride, of which he accused his rival. There is no evidence that he intended his fable to have any application other than to the persons and circumstances of which it was spoken and its lessons for us arise more from thoughts suggested by it than from its inherent teaching. From this point of view it reminds us that success is a misfortune if it leads us to over-estimate ourselves and to become presumptuous and boastful. It is foolish to think that, because some minor achievement has come our way, everything is possible to us. While there is no excuse for not making the fullest possible use of our abilities for the advancement of the Gospel cause, it is a mistake to imagine that two talents, even if fully exercised, can achieve as much as five equally rightly employed. Thistles which aspire to be like cedars are likely to he trodden down by adverse circumstances as a result of their ill-advised endeavors. In demanding peremptorily the hand of the daughter of Joash for his son, Amaziah spoke as if he were a superior, whereas he was really much inferior as he found when the monarchs met and “looked one another in the face.” In differing circumstances, but from the same fault, many others both in ancient and modern dress, who thought of themselves “more highly than they ought to think” have been disillusioned. We have only the talents that God has given us. Let us decide prayerfully and modestly what our capabilities are, being guided by others whose opinion we value, if necessary .and then let us pursue our object, gladly bending all our energies to the task.
Had the parable been spoken by God, or by a prophet speaking on behalf of God, these would have been its explicit lessons: but it was spoken as a gibe against one king by another who had scarcely less cause to learn its meaning than the object of his scorn. Its teaching for us, therefore, comes obliquely rather than directly, but it is none the less true and valuable for that.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One