AVERAGE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH (2 CHRONICLES 25:1-28)
One day Linus came home with his report card. As he turned on the TV, his sister Lucy scoffed at his grade: “You got a “C” in history? That’s only average.” Linus defended himself: “So what? I’m an average student in an average school in an average community. What’s wrong with being average?” Lucy retorted, “Because you’re capable of doing much better.” To which Linus sighed and said, “That’s the average answer!”
The sibling quarrel continued when Linus plopped himself on a sofa, with his head resting on his right hand, by now regretting talking back to the feisty Lucy, who did not let up: “You think that being average is enough, don’t you?” As Linus walked away Lucy screamed after him, with hands thrown up: “Well, it isn’t! What shape would the world be in today if everyone settled for being average?” Finally, Linus turned to ambush a speechless Lucy: “What shape is the world in today?”
Amaziah was the most mediocre, insubordinate and ungrateful among the eight good kings. He was the ninth king of the southern Judah, the fourth good king of Judah and the son of Joash, the good king who died an ignoble death after defeat by the Syrians. Joash’s officials conspired against him and killed the king for murdering the prophet son of likable high priest Jehoiada (2 Chron 24:25). Against this backdrop Amaziah succeeded his father on the throne. The new king started on the right track when he set aside the nightmare of his father’s death and put behind him the thought of avenging Joash. Other than that, he was not known for the rest of his years for anything but below average.
What makes a person average or acceptable in the eyes of the Lord? How do we move from being average, second-rate or even irrelevant to excellent, first class and inspirational in life and conduct?
Be Clear, Not Confused, About Your Commitment
25:1 Amaziah was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-nine years. His mother’s name was Jehoaddin; she was from Jerusalem. 2 He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, but not wholeheartedly. 3 After the kingdom was firmly in his control, he executed the officials who had murdered his father the king. 4 Yet he did not put their sons to death, but acted in accordance with what is written in the Law, in the Book of Moses, where the LORD commanded: “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins.” (2 Chron 25:1-4)
I had thought long and hard about a grade I gave to a preaching student. The student, at the start of the last quarter of his studies, two months before his graduation and two classes into the quarter, said he had to leave school to assume pastoral duties immediately at his home church abroad. The abrupt departure took me by surprise but the school had assented to his request. How in the world can one halfway round the world take a practical subject like preaching?
The 40-something student had taken my preaching class for previous two quarters with average results but had finally gotten the hang of it. Upon receiving his final preaching assignment, I was taken back at how much the quality of his work had deteriorated. His assignment was unrecognizable; church work had taken its toll.
I wanted to flunk him but wrote to the administration office out of compassion, asking, “What is the minimum passing grade?” They told me “C,” which was what I gave the student.
None of the good king was as bad as Amaziah. So far, the good kings of the southern kingdom of Judah have ranged from good to excellent. Asa was a good king; his son Jehoshaphat was excellent. Joash was a good king, but Amaziah was mediocre. In fact, Amaziah’s name was omitted from Jesus’ genealogy (Matt 1:8) for good reason. He barely passed and deserved to be a good king. The reason why not enough was written about or spoken of him was that he was the worst of the eight good kings of the southern Judah, not identical to the bad kings but almost indistinguishable from them, not worst than them but not much better. His name was a shame and a disgrace to other good kings. His commitment was lacking and leaking from day one. God could see through him from day one. He had reserved his heart for something else. He was a classic opportunist.
One of the things he did well when he ascended the throne was to put his father’s murderers to death but spared the innocent of death. He did not cause needless bloodshed, spill innocent blood or erase a family. His fostered a lot of goodwill, put many people at ease, and make his kingly transition smooth.
The verdict on Amaziah was clear when compared with other seven good kings:
Jehoshaphat (2 Chron 20:32), Joash (2 Chron 24:2), Uzziah (2 Chron 26:4), Jotham (2 Chron 27:2) and Josiah (2 Chron 34:2) did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, and Asa (2 Chron 14:2) and Hezekiah (2 Chron 31:20) did what was good and right in the eyes of the LORD his God, but so did Amaziah, but halfheartedly, with reservation, and with an asterik. His reign was marked by a question mark and not an exclamation point. The word “but,” (v 2, 2 Kings 14:3) or “raq” in Hebrew, followed him closely and defined his legacy. He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, but…, the only good king thus introduced.
Amaziah’s life was characterized by mediocrity, low commitment and half-hearted measures. His heart was not in his devotion. In today’s terms, he was a borderline, patchy and flaky believer. He was not indifferent or inactive, but he was untrustworthy, unreliable and unpredictable. The king was not dishonest but he was not sincere; he was not unbelieving, but he was sure undecided and unclear.
Be Conscientious, Not Clever, In Your Choice
5 Amaziah called the people of Judah together and assigned them according to their families to commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds for all Judah and Benjamin. He then mustered those twenty years old or more and found that there were three hundred thousand men ready for military service, able to handle the spear and shield. 6 He also hired a hundred thousand fighting men from Israel for a hundred talents of silver. 7 But a man of God came to him and said, “O king, these troops from Israel must not march with you, for the LORD is not with Israel-not with any of the people of Ephraim. 8 Even if you go and fight courageously in battle, God will overthrow you before the enemy, for God has the power to help or to overthrow.” 9 Amaziah asked the man of God, “But what about the hundred talents I paid for these Israelite troops?” The man of God replied, “The LORD can give you much more than that.” 10 So Amaziah dismissed the troops who had come to him from Ephraim and sent them home. They were furious with Judah and left for home in a great rage. (2 Chron 25:5-10)
Peter Drucker in his book “The Leader of the Future” says that leaders must submit themselves to the mirror test – that is, to make sure that the person they saw in the mirror in the morning was the kind of person they wanted to be, respect, and believe in. This way they fortified themselves against the leader’s greatest temptation – to do things that are popular rather than right and to do petty, mean, sleazy things.” (Bits and Pieces 1/2/97)
A dog lover has this prayer: “Lord, help me to be the person my dog thinks I am.”
Amaziah’s obedience, sadly, was conditional and disputable. He obeyed but with a lot of reluctance and resistance, attitude and argument. Getting him to do something was a titanic struggle, a wrestling match and a migraine headache. When a man of God rebuked his alliance with idolatrous Israel, the northern kingdom, and announced his defeat, Amaziah rescinded the hiring of Israelite troops and gave the mercenaries the pink slips, but promptly asked for his down payment back.
Amaziah was not one to suffer a financial loss even if the mistake was self-manufactured and self-made. He was not the type to obey in gain or loss, through thick and thin, right there and right then. Nope, he had to have a promise in writing, written in black and white, signed, sealed and delivered. His reply to the man of God (v 9) was not, “I believe,” “I’ll obey,” or “I repent.” It wasn’t even “Why didn’t you say so earlier?” “Are you sure we can win?” but “What will I get in return?” “What’s in it for me?” “What can I salvage from this?” and “How do I recoup the money?” He was the first person in the Bible I could think of who stooped to talk financial figures with God and seek monetary compensation from God. Isn’t it great to ask others to cover for one’s mistake and loss?
At this point, readers can see Amaziah’s weakness. He was motivated by money, not obedience. Money was not the reason; it was an excuse, but even then the prophet said money was not a problem. Further, he did not dismiss the troops (v 10) and then talk about money; he dismissed them only after securing a guarantee and getting a pledge. Amaziah was not making a commitment; he was making a deal, haggling over price and wrangling for concessions. He was a master negotiator, a bargain hunter and an expert accountant who was holding the cards, holding God for ransom and holding out for a better deal. The Chinese say, “Counting (even) dead or useless straws.”
Be Consistent, Not Checkered, in Your Conduct
14 When Amaziah returned from slaughtering the Edomites, he brought back the gods of the people of Seir. He set them up as his own gods, bowed down to them and burned sacrifices to them. 15 The anger of the LORD burned against Amaziah, and he sent a prophet to him, who said, “Why do you consult this people’s gods, which could not save their own people from your hand?” 16 While he was still speaking, the king said to him, “Have we appointed you an adviser to the king? Stop! Why be struck down?” So the prophet stopped but said, “I know that God has determined to destroy you, because you have done this and have not listened to my counsel.” (2 Chron 25:14-16)
On its 75th anniversary in 2005 Fortune magazine invited luminaries such as Peter Drucker, the guru of management, to speak on the subject: “The Best Advice I Ever Got.”
The 95-year-old Drucker was straightforward and not shy about how his former boss set him straight:
“The most important instruction I received was when I was just 20 and three weeks into my first real job as a foreign affairs and business editor of the large-circulation afternoon paper in Frankfurt. I brought my first two editorials to the editor-in-chief, a German. He took one look at them and threw them back at me saying, ‘They are no good at all.’ After I’d been on the job for three weeks, he called me in and said, ‘Drucker, if you don’t improve radically in the next three weeks, you’d better look for another job.’ For me, that was the right treatment. He did not try to mentor me. The idea would have been considered absurd. The idea of mentoring was post-World War II. In those days you were hired to do your job, and if you don’t do it, you were out. It was very simple.” (Fortune, 3/21/2005 “The Best Advice I Ever Got.”)
Amaziah did not listen to the advice of an appointed prophet. The purpose of the visit was not to chastise him but to correct him; not to cause trouble but to prevent trouble; and not to find fault but find solutions, but the king was immature, proud (v 19) and rude.
Verse 15 is the first record of God’s declared wrath and anger (v 15) upon a good king, but it fell on deaf ears. Previously, Jehoshaphat (2 Chron 19:2) avoided God’s anger announced upon him when he changed his ways, turned things around and did much good. Have you seen people turning worse upon divine correction and visitation? The prophet gave Amaziah, too, a chance to repent and even issued a question, so as not jump to conclusion or declare a judgment (v 15), but Amaziah was more ferocious than the prophet who had every right to be furious. The Chinese say, “Fierce people make the first accusation.” The king demonstrated such rude manners, chewed up the prophet and even threatened to kill him (v 16).
Amaziah arrogantly answered a question with two questions (v 16). The “adviser” term he mocked was used previously for court advisers good and bad such as Hushai, Ahithopel (2 Sam 17:15, 1 Kings 12:8-9). His heart did not soften up nor did his mouth talk less; he clogged up his ears and made the prophet shut up with an “or else” threat. In the end, the only redeeming grace and quality I could think of in Amaziah was that he did not strike the prophet who refused to cooperate and announced his doom. Further, he was considered a good king because the bad ones were rotten to the core and had not done anything good. Michael Wu says he was relatively good! His commitment was half, not whole.
The king was smug about defeating the Edomites (v 14), wore his pride on his sleeves and thought he could take others on. After defeating Edom Judah was engaged in a rare fight with her northern neighbors Israel, probably to retaliate the brutality of the mercenaries Amaziah had hired (v 13), but the northern king Jehoash’s attack caught Amaziah by surprise (v 21) and routed the southern army. The phrase “arrogant and proud” (v 19) in Hebrew, means “lifted your heart to glorify.” Some translations use “boast.” Amaziah was guilty not just of pride but boastfulness, blowing one’s trumpet and tooting one’s horn. The Chinese say, “Praising the fragrance of the flowers one sell.”
Conclusion: You will never suffer true loss in the sense of the word when you follow God. “The LORD can give you much more than that” (v 9) is a timely reminder of God’s ability to supply for our needs, much more than we think. Are you sitting on the fence in commitment? Are you content with being average, mediocre or bland? Be modest, but never mediocre. Be plain, but never proud. Be simple, but never sufficient.
Victor Yap
Other sermons in the series and other sermon series:
www.epreaching.blogspot.com
