Average Is Not Good Enough Series

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 of Judah. 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 am delighted to meet you,” said the father of the college student, shaking hands warmly with the professor. “My son took algebra from you last year, you know.”

“Pardon me,” said the professor, “he was exposed to it, but he did not take it.” (More Toasts, Gertrude Stein)

None of the good king was as pathetic 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 deserved mention or merit 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 worse 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 Amaziah 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. This 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 not wholeheartedly,” the only good king thus introduced. There was nothing to his life apart from bloodshed and battles, feuding and fighting, pride and provocation. Unlike Asa (1 Kings 15:11-12), Jehoshaphat (1 Kings 22:45-46) and Jehoash (2 Kings 12:4) who actively did something for the Lord, Amaziah arrogantly did nothing positive for the Lord.