Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Kings 12:1
In the seventh year of Jehu Jehoash began to reign; and forty years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name [was] Zibiah of Beer-sheba.
Ch. 2Ki 12:1-16. Joash reigns well but the high places are not removed. The house of the Lord is restored (2Ch 24:1-14)
1. Jehoash began to reign, and forty years reigned he in Jerusalem ] The R.V. puts the words into the usual order in these recitals, by placing ‘began’ before ‘Jehoash’ and ‘he reigned’ before ‘forty years’.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
CHAPTER XII
Jehoash reigns well under the instructions of Jehoiada the
priest, 1-3.
He directs the repairing of the temple; the account of what
was done, 4-16.
Hazael takes Gath; and, proceeding to besiege Jerusalem, is
prevented by Jehoash, who gives him all the treasures and
hallowed things of the house of the Lord, 17, 18.
The servants of Jehoash conspire against and slay him, 19-21.
NOTES ON CHAP. XII
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
In the seventh year of Jehu Jehoash began to reign,…. So that he reigned twenty one or twenty two years contemporary with Jehu’s reign, for Jehu reigned twenty eight years:
and forty years reigned he in Jerusalem; the same number of years David and Solomon reigned:
and his mother’s name was Zibiah of Beersheba; a city in the tribe of Simeon, in the extreme part of the land of Canaan southward; her name in the Chaldee dialect is Tabitha, the same with Dorcas in Greek, Ac 9:36.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(1-5). Reign of Joash. – 2Ki 12:1 (1, 2). His age on ascending the throne, viz., seven years (cf. 2Ki 11:4). – Commencement and length of his reign. His mother’s name was Zibiah of Beersheba.
2Ki 12:2
(3).
2Ki 12:3
(4).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Reign of Joash, King of Judah. | B. C. 878. |
1 In the seventh year of Jehu Jehoash began to reign; and forty years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Zibiah of Beer-sheba. 2 And Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the LORD all his days wherein Jehoiada the priest instructed him. 3 But the high places were not taken away: the people still sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places.
The general account here given of Joash is, 1. That he reigned forty years. As he began his reign when he was very young, he might, in the course of nature, have continued much longer, for he was cut off when he was but forty-seven years old, v. 1. 2. That he did that which was right as long as Jehoiada lived to instruct him, v. 2. Many young men have come too soon to an estate–have had wealth, and power, and liberty, before they knew how to use them–and it has been of bad consequence to them; but against this danger Joash was well guarded by having such a good director as Jehoiada was, so wise, and experienced, and faithful to him, and by having so much wisdom as to hearken to him and be directed by him, even when he was grown up. Note, It is a great mercy to young people, and especially to young princes, and all young men of consequence, to be under good direction, and to have those about them that will instruct them to do that which is right in the sight of the Lord; and they then do wisely and well for themselves when they are willing to be counselled and ruled by such. A child left to himself brings his mother to shame, but a child left to such a tuition may bring himself to honour and comfort. 3. That the high places were not taken away, v. 3. Up and down the country they had altars both for sacrifice and incense, to the honour of the God of Israel only, but in competition with, and at least in tacit contempt of, his altar at Jerusalem. These private altars, perhaps, had been more used in the late bad reigns than formerly, because it was not safe to go up to Jerusalem, nor was the temple-service performed as it should have been; and, it may be, Jehoiada connived at them, because some well-meaning people were glad of them when they could not have better, and he hoped that the reforming of the temple, and putting things into a good posture there, would by degrees draw people from their high places and they would dwindle of themselves; or perhaps neither the king nor the priest had zeal enough to carry on their reformation so far, nor courage and strength enough to encounter such an inveterate usage.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Second Kings – Chapter 12 AND Second Chronicles – Chapter 24
Joash Reigns in Judah Commentary on 2Ki 12:1-5 AND 2Ch 24:1-5
The parallel accounts of Kings and Chronicles start off both with details of the reign of Joash. He was seven years old when his reign commenced, and Jehu had reigned seven years in Israel. Joash’s father, Ahaziah, had been slain by Jehu when the little king was an infant, but he had been crowned only after the end of his wicked grandmother, Athaliah’s interregnum. Joash’s mother was Zibiah, a woman from Beer-sheba in the south of Judah, but nothing more is known of her. The reign of Joash extended for forty years and might have been much longer had he remained faithful to the Lord, but it was cut short by his assassination.
Both accounts are careful to note that Joash’s reign was right in the sight of the Lord as long as the good priest Jehoiada was his regent and counselor. It is surprising, however, that the high priest did not have the high places removed while he was regent. The people continued to offer their private sacrifices and to burn incense to false gods in these places. Jehoiada secured two wives for Joash, who bore to him sons and daughters.
During this time Joash conceived the need to repair the temple, which contained breaches, probably from its neglect during the time since Jehoshaphat. Certain of the funds which came into the temple by the worshippers were to be devoted to this work. These included all things dedicated by those making votive offerings, the assessment of those for dedication of self, field, animal, etc., and all the freewill offerings. It was to be received by the priests and used to repair any breach found in the temple. The Levites were charged to go about the land in an attempt to raise the funds needed, and to do so in haste. However the Levites were not obedient to the charge to hasten the work, and it remained undone. They were like many people today who make a pretense of doing the Lord’s work, but never do so (cf. Eze 33:31; Mat 21:28-31).
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
THE RESTORATION OF THE TEMPLE BY JOASH
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.
2Ki. 12:2. Jehoash did right all his days wherein Jehoiada, &c.The word wherein may be rendered because, and that alters the meaning from during the period in which Jehoiada instructed him, into all his days, i.e., during the kings entire life, because Jehoiada instructed him. This difference of meaning depends on the preservation or rejection of the suffix in the word . The account, however, in the Chronicles is, that Jehoash acted rightly all the days of Jehoiada the priest. But the grammatical construction of the sentence in Kings requires because, rather than wherein.
2Ki. 12:3. But the high places were not taken awaySee Notes on 1Ki. 3:2. Consider the popular fondness for the evil practices, the youthfulness of the king, and the sanction given to all such idolatrous iniquities during the evil sway of Athaliah, and this inability to suppress so gross an impiety is not unaccountable.
HOMILETICS OF 2Ki. 12:1-3
THE WORTH OF GODLY COUNSEL
I. That godly counsel is a powerful help to a consistent and upright life. And Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord. There is nothing in the history to lead us to suspect the sincerity of Jehoashs religious devotion in the earlier years of his reign. He was carefully instructed in his infancy, and grew up in the midst of godly influences. His religious character was moulded under the wise and capable counsel of good Jehoiada. It is an unspeakable advantage to grow up under the fostering shelter of a good and holy life. A few words of warning or encouragement at the right moment have often saved a soul from ruin. Good counsels observed are chains to grace which, neglected, prove halters to strange undutiful children. Sometimes bad men will give good advice, and the man who can take it and act upon it shows his good sense and superiority. He who is wise enough in youth to take the advice of his seniors, unites the vivacity and enterprise of early, with the wisdom and gravity of later, life.
II. That godly counsel is potent with some only when under the direct influence of a living personal example. All his days wherein Jehoiada the priest instructed him. While Jehoiada lived, Joash faithfully observed the covenant he had made with Jehovah, and, though the fact is not stated, it is implied that he afterwards departed from the counsels of his benefactor. This defection is related in the Chronicles. It is difficult to do wrong in the presence of the good; their holy and upright example is a rebuke and a deterrent to every evil tendency. The influence of Samuel was a powerful check upon the impulsive rashness and violence of Saul; and when that influence was withdrawn, it is not difficult to trace the degeneracy of the unhappy monarch, and how speedily he came to his doom. We shall never know how much we owe to the holy and consistent lives of those with whom we come in frequent contact. A virtuous man, says Felltham, shining in the purity of a righteous life, is a light-house set by the seaside, whereby the mariners both sail aright and avoid danger; but he that lives in noted sins is a false lantern which ship-wrecks those that trust him. Nothing awakens our sleeping virtues like the noble acts of our predecessors. They are flaming beacons that fame and time have set on hills to call us to a defence of virtue whensoever vice invades the commonwealth of man. We all need the encouraging influence of example; but there are some natures so feeble in moral stamina that they cannot stand alone. They have been so accustomed to depend upon others, that when their adviser fails them, they succumb. It would seem Joashs was such a nature.
III. That godly counsel does not always avail to bring about the thorough reform of long standing abuses. But the high places were not taken away (2Ki. 12:3). The popular fondness for the private and disorderly rites performed in the groves and recesses of hills was so inveterate that even the most powerful monarchs had been unable to accomplish their suppression; no wonder that in the early reign of a young king, and after the gross irregularities that had been allowed during the mal-administration of Athaliah, the difficulty of putting an end to the superstitions associated with the high places was greatly increased (Jamieson). Besides, Jehoiada, while acting with surprising energy in the restoration of the dynasty, was an old mana hundred years old when Joash was crowned, and he lived thirty years after. He might therefore feel himself unable to cope with the demolition of long-established customs that had baffled and defied younger and stronger men. If his counsel halted at this point, it was so far defective. He knew the danger to Judah of these idolatrous practices, and should not only have counselled their extinction, but have had the courage of carrying out what he counselled. The unreformed abuses were a snare to the people in after years, and, as the sequel showed, led to the ruin of the king whose career begun so auspiciously.
LESSONS:
1. They who give counsel to others should be exemplary themselves.
2. It is the mark of a noble nature to receive counsel and profit by it without taking offence.
3. We should be prepared to carry out to its consequences the counsel we give to others.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
2Ki. 12:1-3. That which appears to be the greatest misfortune for a child, to be left fatherless and motherless at an early age, often becomes a great blessing in the gracious providence of God. What would have become of Jehoash if he had been brought up at the court of his idolatrous father and his depraved mother? God gave him in Jehoiada far more than he had lost in his father and his mother. None need instruction more than those who are called to govern; there is no more responsible calling than that of instructing those who will have to rule. Unfortunately, this task is rarely intrusted to those who, like Jehoiada, are fitted for it by age, learning, experience, and piety.
2Ki. 12:2. A faithful teacher. I. A great boon to a young and inexperienced king. II. Has the opportunity of exerting a potent and widespread influence for good. III. Is all the more powerful when associated with a consistent religious character.
The part played by Jehoiada raised the priesthood to an importance which, with the single exception of Eli, it had never before attained in the history of the Jewish nation, and which it never afterwards altogether lost. Through the priesthood the lineage of David had been saved, and the worship of Jehovah restored in Judah even more successfully than it had been in Samaria through the prophets. During the minority of Joash, Jehoiada virtually reigned. The very office was in some sense created by himself. He was regarded as a second founder of the Order, so that in after days he, rather than Aaron, is described as the chief (Jer. 29:26).Stanley.
A statesman, we are told, should follow public opinion. Doubtless as a coachman follows his horses, having firm hold on the reins, and guiding them.Hare.
2Ki. 12:3. The inveterate evils of idolatry. I. Have a powerful ally in the corruptions of human nature. II. Are the occasion of worse evils in the future. III. Survive the most violent efforts of reform. IV. Can be cured only by thorough eradication.
Even these holy and just hands came short of what they might have done. The high places remained still: those altars were erected to the true God, but in a wrong place. It is a marvel if there be not some blemishes found in the best government. I doubt Jehoiada shall once buy it dear that he did not his utmost.Bp. Hall.
Custom had so prevailed that Jehoiada durst not advise the king to cross the people in this superstition, lest it should cause a tumult; lest they should more regard commotioners than commissioners, and be more guided by rage than by rightviolence and obstinacy, like two untamed horses, drawing their desires in a blind-fold career, as it fell out in England when King Edward VI. began to reform. Trapp.
Rulers ought not to allow themselves to be restrained from carrying out what is good and right from any fear of persons, lest they may possibly incur the disfavour of the people. There never was a prince who was not himself guilty of faults and errors, as we see here from the example of Jehoash, who did not abolish the sacrifices on the high places.Lange.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
B. THE REIGN OF JOASH IN JUDAH 11:21-12:21
Like so many of the Hebrew monarchs, Joash got off to a great start. As long as his protector and adviser Jehoiada was living, the young king pursued the right course. But when the old priest died, Joash fell into the snare of pride and apostasy. After a brief introductory note (2Ki. 11:21 to 2Ki. 12:3), the author discusses at length the major accomplishment of the reign of Joash, the repair of the Temple (2Ki. 12:4-16). He then briefly narrates Joashs humiliating capitulation to Hazael the Aramean (2Ki. 12:17-18), and the ignominious death of this king at the hand of conspirators (2Ki. 12:19-21).
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE REIGN OF JOASH
(2Ki. 11:21 to 2Ki. 12:3)
TRANSLATION
(21) Joash was seven yean old when he began to reign. (1) In the seventh year of Jehu, Joash began to reign; and forty years he reigned in Jerusalem; and his mothers name was Zibiah from Beersheba. (2) And Joash did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD all the days in which Jehoiada the priest instructed him. (3) Only the high places he did not remove; yet the people were sacrificing and burning incense in the high places.
Seventh King of Judah
JEHOASH (or JOASH)
835796 B.C.
(Yahweb-gifted)
2 Kings 11, 12; 2Ch. 22:10 to 2Ch. 24:27
Synchronism
Jehoash 1 = Jehu 7
Contemporary Prophet
Zechariah son of Jehoiada
Mother: Zibiah
Appraisal: Good and Bad
It is He that givetb salvation unto kings; who delivers David His servant from the hurtful sword. Psa. 144:10
COMMENTS
The author of Kings treats the reign of Joash with great brevity and tenderness, and one must go to Chronicles (2 Chronicles 24) to gain a true perspective of the character of this king and his reign. For over half of his reign of forty years the priest Jehoiada was his adviser. During those years the king did what was right in the sight of the Lord (2Ki. 11:2). Chronicles relates the sad story of Joashs apostasy after the death of Jehoiada, an apostasy which reached its climax when the king ordered Zechariah the son of Jehoiada slain in the Temple precincts. The only negative note in the report here is that Joash tolerated the continued use of the high places outside Jerusalem where people made sacrifices and burned incense to Yahweh (2Ki. 11:3). It was not until the reign of Hezekiah that this practice was banned by royal decree.
3. REPAIR OF THE TEMPLE (2Ki. 12:4-16)
TRANSLATION
(4) And Joash said unto the priests, All the money of the holy gifts that is brought unto the house of the LORD, the money of the one who passes the account, the money that every man is set at, all the money which shall go up upon the heart of a man to bring to the house of the LORD, (5) let the priests take it to them, each man from his acquaintance; and let them repair the breaches of the house wherever a breach shall be found. (6) But it came to pass in the twenty-third year of King Joash that the priests had not repaired the breaches of the house. (7) And King Joash called to Jehoiada the priest and to the priests, and he said unto them, Why have you not repaired the breaches of the house? Now take no money from your acquaintances, but give it for the breaches of the house. (8) And the priests consented to take no more money from the people, neither to repair the breaches of the house. (9) And Jehoiada the priest took a chest, and bored a hole in its lid, and placed it beside the altar on the right as one comes to the house of the LORD; and the priests who kept the door put there all the money that was brought to the house of the LORD. (10) And it came to pass when they saw that there was much money in the chest, the kings scribe went up and the high priest, and they put it in bags; and they counted the money that was found in the house of the LORD. (11) And they gave the money after weighing it into the hands of those who did the work, the overseen of the house of the LORD; and they paid it out to the carpenters and builders who were working on the house of the LORD, (12) and to the masons and the stonecutters, and for buying timber and hewn stone to repair the damages to the house of the LORD, and for all which went out upon the house to repair it. (13) But there was not made for the house of the LORD bowls of silver, snuffers, basins, trumpets or any vessel of gold or vessel of silver of the money that was brought into the house of the LORD; (14) but It was given to those who did the work, and they repaired with it the house of the LORD. (15) Nor did they think about the men to whom they gave the silver to give to those who did the work; for they were men who dealt faithfully. (16) The guilt money and the sin money was not brought to the house of the LORD; it belonged to the priests.
COMMENTS
When the minority of Joash came to an end and the king succeeded to the administration of the affairs of state, his first order of business was the repair of the Temple. It seems somewhat strange that Jehoiada had made no repair efforts when he was the regent and practically had sole management of affairs. The high priest must have had good reason for refraining from this much needed project. At any rate, after taking full control of the reins of government, Joash regarded the Temple repairs as the most pressing business of the state. Perhaps the six years he had spent within the Temple precincts had inspired him with a love of those sacred buildings.
When he was in a position to do so, the king ordered the priests to utilize all that they received from the people in the way of money for making the repairs on the Temple. This money accrued from three sources which are mentioned in 2Ki. 11:4 : (1) the money of every one who passes the account, i.e., the census moneythe half-shekel received from the males over twenty whenever a census was taken (Exo. 30:12-16); (2) the money at which every man is set, i.e., the redemption money derived from the redemption of the firstborn (Num. 18:15-16) or of persons who had vowed themselves to God (Lev. 27:2-8); and (3) the free-will offerings. This money was to be gathered out of all the cities of Judah (cf. 2Ch. 24:5). The priests in each locality would make the collections from their acquaintances, their neighbors. These monies would be used to repair the damages which had befallen the Temple building both as a result of the neglect of that place and by the willful violence of Athaliah (2Ch. 24:7).
By the twenty-third year of the king, the job still had not been completed. The text in no way suggests that the priests throughout the land had embezzled funds; they simply had been negligent in collecting the money. Probably very little money had been received and once the funds necessary for maintaining the Temple services had been subtracted, there just was not enough left to vigorously pursue the refurbishing of the Temple. It is not said that no repairs were made, but rather that the priests did not hasten (2Ch. 24:5) to complete the task.
Greatly concerned about the lack of progress in the Temple project, the king summoned Jehoiada the high priest and consulted with him about the best steps to be taken to expedite the repairs. The lower priests were rebuked for having ceased to make any effort to get the job done. The king then revoked his earlier order authorizing the local collections to be used for the building fund, and outlined a new procedure for raising the necessary funds (2Ki. 11:7). The priests agreed to relinquish the local collections and, along with them, the responsibility for dispensing the funds in the repair operation (2Ki. 11:8).
The new plan worked out by Jehoiada and the king is revealed in 2Ki. 11:9 (cf. 2Ch. 24:8). A public chest was set up conspicuously in the Temple court near the great altar, and the people were invited to bring their contributions to the Temple. The priests received the money from those who offered it at the gate of the Temple court and placed those contributions immediately in the chest (2Ki. 11:9). The chest was tangible evidence to the people of the purpose to which their money would be applied and naturally stimulated their giving.
Periodically the high priest and a royal secretary would empty the chest and count the money by putting it in bags each of which would hold a definite amount (2Ki. 11:10). Since the lumps of silver which passed for shekels in this period were of very uncertain weight, it was necessary not only to count the individual pieces, but to weigh each bag to ascertain its precise weight and value. These monies were then handed over to the superintendents who had been placed over the Temple, and these officers in turn purchased the materials and paid the laborers (2Ki. 11:11-12). Carpenters, builders, masons and stone-cutters are mentioned by the author of Kings; workers in iron and brass are mentioned by the Chronicler (2Ch. 24:12). The Temple had been standing for a century and a half, and so far as the records go, no other repair work had ever been undertaken. Doubtlessly as the work went on it was found that repairs of all sorts and kinds were needed.
While the repair work was in progress, no monies from the chest were used to purchase sacred vessels for the Temple services (2Ki. 11:13). After the repairs were completed, then the surplus money was expended in this way (2Ch. 24:14). The Temple had been spoiled by successive kings to buy off enemiesby Rehoboam to pay Shishak (1Ki. 14:26), by Asa to bribe Benhadad (1Ki. 15:18), and by Joash himself to procure the retreat of Hazael (2Ki. 12:18). These vessels needed to be replaced, and it is no wonder that the surplus monies were used for this purpose. But the repair of the Temple structures took precedence (2Ki. 11:14).
Everyone had complete confidence in those who had been appointed by Jehoiada to oversee the work and dispense these funds, for they dealt faithfully, i.e., honestly (2Ki. 11:15). But in all the enthusiasm for the repair work, the priests themselves were not forgotten. The trespass money which the Law required to be paid in compensation to an injured party (Lev. 6:2-6; Num. 5:6-8) apparently was given to the priests if the injured party was dead and left no kinsman. The sin money seems to have been a customary but not obligatory offering brought by a worshiper to the priest who officiated in a sacrificial service. Such freewill offerings the priests was entitled to receive (Num. 5:10). These monies were not required to be put in the chest, nor applied to the repair operation; they belonged exclusively to the priests.
3. THE INVASION OF HAZAEL (2Ki. 12:17-18)
TRANSLATION
(17) Now Hazael king of Aram went up, and fought against Gath, and captured it; then Hazael set his face to go up against Jerusalem. (18) And Joash the king of Judah took all the dedicated things which Jehoshaphat, Joram, and Ahaziah his fathers, kings of Judah, had dedicated, and his own dedicated things, and all the gold that was found In the treasures of the house of the LORD and the house of the king, and sent it to Hazael king of Aram; and he went away from Jerusalem.
COMMENTS
A considerable time gap occurs between 2Ki. 11:16-17 for which the Chronicler supplies some of the particulars. Jehoiada died and, because of the contribution he had made to the national life, was highly honored by being buried in the sepulchers of the king (2Ch. 24:16). Influenced now by the Jewish aristocracy, Joash allowed the reintroduction of idolatry (2Ch. 24:18). Zechariah the son of Jehoiada vigorously protested these developments, but was slain by order of the king right in the Temple court. The invasion of Judah by Hazael seems to be regarded by the Chronicler as divine judgment for this murderous deed.
After conquering and taking from Israel the Transjordan region, Hazael cast his eye upon the coastal plain. It would appear that the city of Gath fell easily to him. When last mentioned, Gath was a Judaean possession (2Ch. 11:8); but by this time the city may have been once again under Philistine control. The route back to the Transjordan territories would take Hazael near Jerusalem. Encouraged by his easy victory at Gath, the brash Aramean decided to make a bid at Jerusalem (2Ki. 11:17). With a very small army, Hazael was able to inflict a defeat on a much more numerous Judaean army (2Ch. 24:24). Much spoil was taken by the invaders from the north (2Ch. 24:23). Then Hazael commenced a siege of Jerusalem itself. Like Rehoboam and Asa before him, Joash bought off the Aramean with the treasures from the Temple of the Lord. These were valuables placed there by the pious Jehoshaphat and even by the apostates Joram and Ahaziah who, for superstitious reasons more than anything else, had continued to make contributions to the Temple. Even the items which he himself had given to the Temple he was forced to retrieve as well as the few objects of gold made with the residue of the money given for the Temple repair earlier in his reign (cf. 2Ch. 24:14). Valuables from the royal palace also were collected and sent to Hazael. The palace had been plundered in the days of Jehoram by the Arabs and Philistines (2Ch. 21:16-17), but plenty of time had elapsed for fresh accumulation of valuables. Hazael was sufficiently satisfied with the tribute rendered to him and withdrew from Jerusalem (2Ki. 11:18).
4. THE ASSASSINATION OF JOASH (2Ki. 12:19-21)
TRANSLATION
(19) And the rest of the acts of Joash and all which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (20) And his servants rose up, and planned a conspiracy; and they smote Joash in the house of Millo which goes down to Silla. (21) And Jozachar the son of Shimeath and Jehozabad the son of Shomer his servants smote him; and he died, and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David. And Amaziah his son reigned in his place.
COMMENTS
As in the case with most of the kings of Judah, the author refers his readers to the records which he utilized in compiling this book (2Ki. 11:19). The author apparently deliberately has chosen to ignore the darker side of the reign of Joash. He hints, however, that all was not right by relating how Joash met his death. It would seem that Joash was sorely wounded in the battle against Hazael. For some time he was confined to a room in the house of Millo, a fortress built by David and Solomon (2Sa. 5:9; 1Ki. 9:15; 1Ki. 9:24). Apparently Millo was a massive wall which extended down to an otherwise unlocated spot called Silla. While the king was confined there, two of his servants conspired against him and slew him (2Ki. 11:20). The conspirators are named in 2Ki. 11:21, and the Chronicler points out that both men had foreign mothers. What might have motivated these servants to this act of violence is not indicated in the text. Joash was buried with his fathers, i.e., in the city of David (2Ki. 11:21), but not in the royal tombs (2Ch. 24:25). He was succeeded by his son Amaziah.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
XII.
THE REIGN OF JEHOASH, OR JOASH. (Comp. 2 Chronicles 24)
(1) Forty years.A common round number. David and Solomon are each said to have reigned forty years.
His mothers name.The author of these short abstracts generally gives this particular in regard to the kings of Judah.
Beer-sheba.A famous Simeonite sanctuary, and resort of pilgrims (Amo. 5:5; Amo. 8:14).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
The Reign Of Jehoash (Joash) King Of Judah c. 835-796 BC ( 2Ki 12:1-21 ).
As usual the prophetic author has been extremely selective in what material he has used. His concern was with response or otherwise to YHWH, not with general history. Thus after the usual initial summary in which he gave Jehoash qualified approval while Jehoiada was still alive (as so often he does not explain the qualification but leaves us to make what we an of the hint), he first explained the way in which the Temple was restored after its years of neglect and mistreatment by Jehoram, Ahaziah and Athaliah, and went on to indicate how later Jehoash split with the priests (presumably once Jehoiada’s influence had declined), and took over the arrangements for the maintenance of the Temple. He then finished off with a description of how the accumulated wealth of Judah finally passed into foreign hands, and how Jehoash was assassinated. We are left to draw the conclusion that in the later years of his reign Jehoash had made himself liable to God’s judgment.
The denuding of the state of its treasures was a common way in which the author indicated that all was not quite right with what were, in some cases, otherwise to be seen as ‘good’ kings as far as Yahwism was concerned. Compare 2Ki 11:18 with 2Ki 14:14; 2Ki 18:15 ; 1Ki 15:18; and see also 2Ki 16:8 ; 2Ki 24:13; 1Ki 14:6. It is only when we turn to Chronicles that we discover the details of the failures that lay behind what happened to these ‘good’ kings.
Analysis.
a
b And Jehoash did what was right in the eyes of YHWH all his days in which Jehoiada the priest instructed him. However the high places were not taken away. The people still sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places (2Ki 12:2-3).
c And Jehoash said to the priests, “All the money of the hallowed things which is brought into the house of YHWH, in current money, the money of the persons for whom each man is rated, and all the money that it comes into any man’s heart to bring into the house of YHWH, let the priests take it to them, every man from his acquaintance, and they shall repair the breaches of the house, wherever any breach shall be found” (2Ki 12:4).
d But it was so, that in the three and twentieth year of king Jehoash the priests had not repaired the breaches of the house (2Ki 12:5).
e Then king Jehoash called for Jehoiada the priest, and for the other priests, and said to them, “Why do you not repair the breaches of the house? Now therefore take no more money from your acquaintance, but deliver it for the breaches of the house.” And the priests consented that they should take no more money from the people, nor repair the breaches of the house (2Ki 12:6).
f But Jehoiada the priest took a chest, and bored a hole in its lid, and set it beside the altar, on the right side as one comes into the house of YHWH, and the priests who kept the threshold put in it all the money which was brought into the house of YHWH (2Ki 12:9).
g And it was so, when they saw that there was much money in the chest, that the king’s scribe and the high priest came up, and they put up in bags and counted the money that was found in the house of YHWH (2Ki 12:10).
h And they gave the money which was weighed out into the hands of those who did the work, who had the oversight of the house of YHWH, and they paid it out to the carpenters and the builders, who wrought on the house of YHWH, and to the masons and the hewers of stone, and for buying timber and hewn stone to repair the breaches of the house of YHWH, and for all that was laid out for the house to repair it (2Ki 12:11-12).
g But there were not made for the house of YHWH cups of silver, snuffers, basins, trumpets, any vessels of gold, or vessels of silver, of the money that was brought into the house of YHWH, for they gave that to those who did the work, and repaired therewith the house of YHWH (2Ki 12:13-14).
f Moreover they did not make a reckoning with the men, into whose hand they delivered the money to give to those who did the work, for they dealt faithfully (2Ki 12:15).
e The money for the trespass-offerings, and the money for the sin-offerings, was not brought into the house of YHWH. It was the priests (2Ki 12:16).
d Then Hazael king of Aram went up, and fought against Gath, and took it, and Hazael set his face to go up to Jerusalem (2Ki 12:17).
c And Jehoash king of Judah took all the hallowed things that Jehoshaphat and Jehoram and Ahaziah, his fathers, kings of Judah, had dedicated, and his own hallowed things, and all the gold which was found in the treasures of the house of YHWH, and of the king’s house, and sent it to Hazael king of Aram, and he went away from Jerusalem (2Ki 12:18).
b Now the rest of the acts of Joash, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2Ki 12:19).
a And his servants arose, and made a conspiracy, and smote Joash at the house of Millo, on the way which goes down to Silla. For Jozacar the son of Shimeath, and Jehozabad the son of Shomer, his servants, smote him, and he died, and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David, and Amaziah his son reigned instead of him. (2Ki 12:20-21).
Note that in ‘a’ we are told about Jehoash’s reign and its commencement, and in the parallel of its cessation. In ‘b’ we learn of Jehoash’s behaviour and in the parallel are referred for further details to the annals of the kings of Judah. In ‘c’ all the hallowed things are brought into YHWH’s house and wealth built up there, and in the parallel YHWH’s house is denuded of its hallowed things and of its wealth. In ‘d’ there were still breaches in the house of YHWH, and in the parallel Hazael sets his face to breach the walls of Jerusalem. In ‘e’ the priests were to take no more money from either their fellow-priests or the people, and in the parallel the money for the trespass and sin offerings was for the priests. In ‘f’ money was brought into the house of YHWH, and in the parallel that money was handed out to faithful men who did the work. In ‘g’ when sufficient money had been accumulated it was counted and bagged, and in the parallel it was not used for any purpose other than the repairing of the house of YHWH. Centrally in ‘h’ the money was paid out to those who repaired the breaches in the house of YHWH.
2Ki 12:1
‘In the seventh year of Jehu, Jehoash began to reign, and he reigned forty years in Jerusalem, and his mother’s name was Zibiah of Beer-sheba.’
Jehoash (also called Joash) began to reign over in the seventh year of Jehu. Had it been reckoned as was customary in Judah that would have been six years (excluding the accession year). Thus Jehoash, being seven years old, was born before Jehu came to the throne. Jehoash then reigned for forty years, and yet we are told little about his reign. The prophetic history was only interested in the activity which demonstrated his attitude and behaviour with regard to YHWH. It is a reminder to us that that is also what God is concerned about with us. Forty years slipped by and in the end he had accomplished little that according to the prophetic author was worth recording. Will it be the same with us?
The name of the Queen Mother was Zibiah (gazelle) of Beersheba, a marriage which had strengthened the previous kings’ hold over the Negeb through which there were important trade routes.
2Ki 12:2
‘And Jehoash did what was right in the eyes of YHWH all his days in which Jehoiada the priest instructed him.’
Approval for Jehoash is qualified. The prophetic author often gives us a disquietening hint and then leaves us to work it out. (He did it regularly in the case of Solomon). In this case it was that he did right in the eyes of YHWH all the while that Jehoiada was instructing him. This hint is expanded on when he gives details of the judgments that fell on Jehoash towards the end of his reign. We are left to gather that once Jehoiada’s influence had been removed Jehoash was unfaithful to YHWH (something confirmed in 2 Chronicles 24).
2Ki 12:3
‘However the high places were not taken away. The people still sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places.’
However, even in the best days there was still a failing, for no great effort was made to remove the many high places where the people themselves sacrificed and offered incense. It was a natural but dangerous procedure for the people who lived at some distance from the Temple or other official high place, to make use of the ancient sanctuaries which had been set up from of yore in the hills for the worship of the ancient gods. They felt that they had a certain sanctity, and using such sanctuaries gave them an opportunity to personally express their faith. In many cases they were genuinely seeking to worship YHWH, but using the old sanctuaries was dangerous, both because they contained symbols of the old gods which could easily then be incorporated into their worship (the pillars and the Asherah poles/images), and also because they then absorbed the ideas associated with them, ideas which had already been the ruin of Israel. It was so easy to think of Baal (meaning ‘lord’) in terms of YHWH. (See Hos 2:16).
2Ki 12:4-5
‘And Jehoash said to the priests, “All the money of the hallowed things which is brought into the house of YHWH, in current money, the money of the persons for whom each man is rated, and all the money that it comes into any man’s heart to bring into the house of YHWH, let the priests take it to them, every man from his acquaintance, and they shall repair the breaches of the house, wherever any breach shall be found.” ’
We are not told at what stage in his reign Jehoash took an interest in the repair of the Temple and decided that it had to be borne by the people rather than by the royal treasury. The Temple had been allowed to fall to some extent into disrepair by Jehoram, Ahaziah and Athaliah even though the first two had, as was customary, laid up treasures in it. They had been more interested in the prosperity and welfare of the temple of Baal, and had stripped the Temple in order to embellish Baal’s temple (2Ch 24:7). And it was only too easy for even the most orthodox priests of YHWH to feel the sanctity of the ancient building and thus be hesitant about ‘modernising’ it. As 2Ki 11:6 speaks of the twenty third year of his reign we probably have to think in terms of half way through his reign when he would still only be around twenty eight.
So Jehoash decided that something definitely had to be done about the Temple, but not from the royal treasury. It was the general custom among kings of those days to maintain the temples of their gods, and the Temple in Jerusalem was to some extent the king’s chapel (he had his own private way into it), so that this was unusual. We may well see this as the first sign of his spiritual decline. He thus commanded that the priests be given the funds pouring into the Temple from the ‘holy offerings’. These included anything ‘devoted’ to YHWH, moneys collected from the people for the specific purpose of repairing the Temple (1Ch 24:5-6) through the possibly previously neglected yearly poll tax (Exo 30:11-16), the votive offerings paid according to age and sex (Leviticus 37), and the freewill and thanksgiving offerings. The aim was for these to be used to finance the repairing of the breaches in the Temple.
Although the term ‘money’ is used in translations, and has been used here, it should be recognised that this term is not strictly correct. At this time coins had not been invented, and payments were made in gold and silver and by barter. Thus ‘current money’ does not mean ‘current coin’ for there was none. Rather it refers to gifts of silver, gold, bronze, etc. brought in at the current time.
‘Let the priests take it to them, every man from his acquaintance (or business assessor).’ The idea here is that the priests had overall responsibility for the moneys, and were also to use it for repairing the building. It was thus to be passed to priests by priests. Alternately, and more probably, the word for ‘acquaintance’ (makkaro) may be translated ‘business assessor’ on the basis of the Akkadian makaru. Compare how the mkrm are listed at Ugarit along with the priests and other temple personnel. Their main continuing responsibility in the Temple was probably the assessing of the value of sacrificial animals and various offerings.
2Ki 12:6
‘But it was so, that in the three and twentieth year of king Jehoash the priests had not repaired the breaches of the house.’
But in the twenty third year of his reign it came to Jehoash’s attention that the Temple was still not being properly maintained, and that there were still ‘breaches in the house’. The failure may have been because of their reverence for the building as it was (they may have considered that they had done what repairs were strictly necessary and that to do more would desecrate the Temple), or it may have been because they considered their ritual duties more important than repairing even an old and revered building, or it may have been simply due to negligence or ignorance, or even to embezzlement. Whichever way it was they were called to account.
2Ki 12:7
‘Then king Jehoash called for Jehoiada the priest, and for the other priests, and said to them, “Why do you not repair the breaches of the house? Now therefore take no more money from your acquaintance, but deliver it for the breaches of the house.” ’
Jehoash therefore called to him ‘the Priest’ Jehoiada, and the other priests and asked them why they had not seen to the proper repair of the Temple. Then he commanded that the priests were no longer to take money from Temple funds in order to repair the Temple, but should deliver it to those who would see to it that the work was done properly (appointed by the palace).
2Ki 12:8
‘And the priests consented that they should take no more money from the people, nor repair the breaches of the house.’
This was agreed on by the priests who consented to the fact that they should no more take funds from the people, nor be responsible for repairing the Temple building.
2Ki 12:9
‘But Jehoiada the priest took a chest, and bored a hole in its lid, and set it beside the altar, on the right side as one comes into the house of YHWH, and the priests who kept the threshold put in it all the money which was brought into the house of YHWH.’
Then Jehoiada made a large collection chest, and bored a hole in its lid, so that any ‘moneys’ being brought to the house of YHWH by the Levites on their annual collection of the poll tax, and any other ‘monetary’ gifts or payments by people paying their poll tax at the Temple, could be put into it. And ‘the priests who kept the threshold’ (see 2Ch 24:8) ensured that all the funds accumulated were put into the chest. This collection chest was seemingly placed in the court of the Temple near the entrance but on the right hand side of the altar. (‘Beside’ can vary in meaning depending on the context and does not require close proximity. Consider its use for example in Jdg 19:14 (‘by Gibeah’), 1Sa 5:2 (‘by Dagon’ where there was room for Dagon to fall before the Ark); 1Sa 20:41 (‘towards the south’); 1Ki 1:9, (a stone ‘by en-Rogel’); 1Ki 4:12 ; 1Ki 21:1 (a vineyard ‘hard by the palace of Ahab’). In none of these cases does it mean literally ‘beside’).
‘The priests who guarded the threshold.’ These were three in number (2Ki 25:18) and were important Temple personnel. See Jer 52:24 where they are mentioned along with the chief priest and the second priest. Their responsibility was to ensure non-intrusion into the Temple by unauthorised people, e.g. foreigners, ‘unclean’ people, etc.
2Ki 12:10
‘And it was so, when they saw that there was much money in the chest, that the king’s scribe and the high priest came up, and they bagged (literally ‘wrapped’ or ‘poured out’) and counted the money that was found in the house of YHWH.’
Once the offerings in the chest had accumulated sufficiently, and they saw how much there was in the chest, the king’s scribe and the high priest came up and put it in bags and assessed the silver that had been put in the chest and was thus ‘found in the house of YHWH’. Alternately it may signify that they turned it into ingots (poured it out) and assessed it.
There is a rare mention here of ‘the Priest’ as ‘the high priest’. But it was necessary in order to parallel ‘the king’s scribe’, so that there could be no doubt as to who was in mind (the leading priest), and the title also appears in Num 35:25; Num 35:28 where again it was required so that there should be no doubt that ‘the Priest’ i.e. the primary priest, was meant. There is no reason for doubting its use at an early stage because it was also a title for the leading priest at Ugarit. Indeed most nations had their ‘high priest’.
2Ki 12:11-12
‘And they gave the money which was weighed out into the hands of those who did the work, who had the oversight of the house of YHWH, and they paid it out to the carpenters and the builders, who wrought on the house of YHWH, and to the masons and the hewers of stone, and for buying timber and hewn stone to repair the breaches of the house of YHWH, and for all that was laid out for the house to repair it.’
The ‘money’ was then given to those who oversaw the work who accordingly paid the skilled workmen who worked on the house of YHWH and also bought any necessary materials. Notice that it was ‘weighed out’. It was not in coinage. The skilled workmen included carpenters, builders, masons and stone-workers.
2Ki 12:13-14
‘But there were not made for the house of YHWH cups of silver, snuffers, basins, trumpets, any vessels of gold, or vessels of silver, of the money that was brought into the house of YHWH, for they gave that to those who did the work, and repaired therewith the house of YHWH.’
The ‘money’ was all used for building and repair work. None was used to make the required accessories required in the Temple such as the silver cups, the snuffers, the basins, the trumpets, and the vessels of gold and silver. It was used strictly for its correct purpose.
2Ki 12:15
‘Moreover they did not make a reckoning with the men, into whose hand they delivered the money to give to those who did the work, for they dealt faithfully.’
Nor were the overseers required to make a reckoning, because it was recognised that they dealt honestly and fairly. This may be intended to contrast with how the priests had previously acted, but not necessarily. It may just have been a commendation of the overseers.
2Ki 12:16
The money for the guilt-offerings, and the money for the sin-offerings, was not brought into the house of YHWH. It was the priests.’
‘However, the ‘money’ in respect of guilt offerings and sin offerings was not brought into the house of YHWH and put in the chest. That was for the priests. Offerings equivalent to guilt offerings and sin offerings were also evidenced at Ugarit where there was also a complicated ritual system. The difference lay in their interpretation and application.
For references to the sin offerings see Leviticus 4-5; Mic 6:7. Compare also Exo 29:14; Exo 29:36; Exo 30:10; Exo 32:30-34; Exo 34:7-9; regularly in Leviticus and Numbers. For reference to the guilt offerings see Leviticus 5-7; Lev 14:13-28; Lev 19:21-22; Num 5:7-8; Num 6:12; Num 18:9; Isa 53:10 and compare 1Sa 6:3-4; 1Sa 6:8; 1Sa 6:17. The latter had mainly in mind cases where restitution was possible (see Leviticus 5).
So the work went on and the Temple was repaired and then constantly maintained. Jehoram’s reign seemed to be providing a bright spot in Judah’s history. But, alas, once Jehoiada was removed from having direct influence over him Jehoash appears to have fallen into evil ways (see 2Ch 22:10 to 2Ch 24:27) with the result that judgments came on him. The prophetic author does not bring out the detail. He expects us to recognise that something was wrong when he mentions these judgments. The first judgment was the invasion by Hazael, king of Aram, which caused all the treasures of Judah to vanish into the coffers of Aram, and the second was Jehoash’s assassination.
2Ki 12:17
‘Then Hazael king of Aram went up, and fought against Gath, and took it, and Hazael set his face to go up to Jerusalem.’
We have already come across Hazael’s depredations on Israel. But he looked wider than that and also raided Philistia, where he besieged Gath and took it. His aim was possibly to secure the trade routes so important to Aram, and as always to obtain booty. Then he decided that his victorious army should invade Jerusalem. This was ‘the city which God had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel to put His Name there, i.e. as His prime Sanctuary’, and what, of course, Jehoash should have done was seek to YHWH for deliverance. But instead of that he bought Hazael off. Such was his spiritual deterioration.
2Ki 12:18
‘And Jehoash king of Judah took all the hallowed things that Jehoshaphat and Jehoram and Ahaziah, his fathers, kings of Judah, had dedicated, and his own hallowed things, and all the gold which was found in the treasures of the house of YHWH, and of the king’s house, and sent it to Hazael king of Aram, and he went away from Jerusalem.’
He did what some of his ancestors had done before him. He took all the treasures accumulated in Judah, both the hallowed things and the gold stored in the Temple and the treasures and hallowed things in his own palace and store rooms, and sent them to Hazael in return for immunity from invasion. The denuding of the state of its treasures was a common way in which the prophetic author indicated that all was not quite right with what were, in some cases, otherwise to be seen as ‘good’ kings as far as Yahwism was concerned. Compare 2Ki 11:18 with 2Ki 14:14; 2Ki 18:15 ; 1Ki 15:18. See also 2Ki 16:8; 2Ki 24:13; 1Ki 14:6 where it happened to ‘bad kings’. It is only when we turn to Chronicles that we discover the details of the failures that lay behind what happened to these ‘good’ kings. The author of Kings expects us to take the hint, without spelling it out.
‘All the hallowed things that Jehoshaphat and Jehoram and Ahaziah, his fathers, kings of Judah, had dedicated.’ In the case of Jehoshaphat they had been dedicated to YHWH, but in the cases of Jehoram and Ahaziah they may have been dedicated to Baal, although political expediency may have required some to be deposited in the Temple. We should note that the emphasis is not on the loss of the Temple treasures as such, but on the loss of all the treasures of Judah.
2Ki 12:19
‘Now the rest of the acts of Joash, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?’
Having dealt with the primary religious aspects of his reign the prophetic author now refers us for general details to the official annals of the kings of Judah. He was not interested in history for its own sake.
2Ki 12:20-21
‘And his servants arose, and made a conspiracy, and smote Joash at the house of Millo, on the way which goes down to Silla. For Jozacar the son of Shimeath, and Jehozabad the son of Shomer, his servants, smote him, and he died, and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David, and Amaziah his son reigned instead of him.’
But YHWH’s final anger against Jehoash (Joash) was revealed in that he allowed him to be assassinated. Some of those who served him entered into a conspiracy against him, and the two assassins, Jozacar and Jehozabad, slew him. This took place while he was in his bed (2Ch 24:25) at the house of Millo, on the way which goes down to Shur. Again the prophetic author expects us to gather that he had offended YHWH. In context this was because he had not looked to YHWH rather than to bribes for deliverance when Hazael threatened Jerusalem. But Chronicles adds the extra feature that Jehoash had arranged for the slaying of Zechariah, the son of his mentor Jehoiada, while he was protesting and prophesying in the Temple at the deterioration in the obedience of the people to YHWH (2Ch 24:19-22).
‘The house of Millo, on the way which goes down to Silla.’ This is unidentified but was probably a garrison which he was visiting and sleeping at to his cost. The fact that it happened in such a way that he was replaced by his son, suggests widespread feeling against him. He was buried ‘with his fathers in the city of David’, but not in the royal tomb (2Ch 24:25), and was replaced by his son Amaziah. The important thing as a member of the Davidic house was to be buried in the city of David.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
2Ki 12:1-21 The Reign of Jehoash Over Judah (835-796 B.C.) 2Ki 12:1-21 records the story of the reign of Jehoash over Judah.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Temple Repaired
v. 1. In the seventh year of Jehu, v. 2. And Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all his days wherein Jehoiada, the priest, instructed him; v. 3. But the high places were not taken away; the people still sacrificed and burned Incense in the high places, v. 4. And Jehoash said to the priests, v. 5. let the priests take it to them, every man of his acquaintance, v. 6. But it was so that in the three and twentieth year of King Jehoash the priests had not repaired the breaches of the house, v. 7. Then King Jehoash called for Jehoiada, the priest, and the other priests, and said unto them, Why repair ye not the breaches of the house? v. 8. And the priests consented to receive no more money of the people, v. 9. But Jehoiada, the priest, took a chest, and bored a hole in the lid of it, v. 10. And it was so, when they saw that there was much money in the chest, that the king’s scribe, v. 11. And they gave the money, being told, into the hands of them that did the work, v. 12. and to masons and hewers of stone, and to buy timber and hewed stone to repair the breaches of the house of the Lord, and for all that was laid out for the house to repair it. v. 13. Howbeit, there were not made for the house of the Lord, v. 14. but they gave that to the workmen, and repaired therewith the house of the Lord. v. 15. Moreover, they reckoned not with the men, into whose hand they delivered the money to be bestowed on workmen, v. 16. The trespass-money and sin-money was not brought into the house of the Lord; it was the priests’;
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
2Ki 12:1-21
THE REIGN OF JOASH. THE REPAIR OF THE TEMPLE. WAR OF JOASH WITH HAZAEL, AND HIS DEATH BY A CONSPIRACY.
2Ki 12:1-3
The writer of Kings is extremely brief and incomplete in his account of the reign of Joash. He seems to have had a great tenderness for him, and to have determined that he would put on record nothing to his discredit. We have to go to Chronicles (2Ch 24:1-27.) for a complete account, and for an estimate of the real character of the king and of his reign. Both writers appear to have drawn from the same original document, but the writer of Kings made large omissions from it. In a few points only is his narrative fuller than Chronicles.
2Ki 12:1
In the seventh year of Jehu. Athaliah began to reign very soon after the accession of Jehu (2Ki 11:1), and reigned six full years (2Ki 12:3). The first year of Joash was thus parallel with Jehu’s seventh. Jehoashor Joash, as he is called sometimes in Kings (2Ki 11:2; 2Ki 13:1, 2Ki 13:10), and always in Chroniclesbegan to reign; and forty years reigned he in Jerusalemthe writer of Chronicles (2Ch 24:1) and Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 2Ki 9:8. 4) agreeand his mother’s name was Zibiah of Beersheba. Josephus calls her “Sabia.”
2Ki 12:2
And Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all his days wherein Jehoiada the priest instructed him. So the Septuagint, the Vulgate, Luther, De Wette, Keil, Bahr, and our Revisers. Only Ewald and Thenius attempt to make the passage contradict Chronicles by translating, “Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all his days, because Jehoiada the priest had instructed him.” But this translation is very forced and unnatural. The writer evidently intended to add a qualifying clause to his statement that Joash reigned well “all his days,” but did not wish to draw too much attention to it.
2Ki 12:3
But the high places were not taken away. So it had been with the best of the previous kings of Judah, as Asa (1Ki 15:14) and Jehoshaphat (1Ki 22:43); and so it was with the other “good” kings (2Ki 14:4; 2Ki 15:4, 2Ki 15:35) until the reign of Hezekiah, by whom the high places were removed (see below, 2Ki 18:4). We must remember that it was Jehovah who was worshipped in the “high places,” not Baal, or Moloch, or Ashtoreth (see the comment on l Kings 2Ki 15:14). The people still sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places. The people, not the king, in the earlier portion of his reign; but in the later portion, probably the king also (see 2Ch 24:17, 2Ch 24:18).
2Ki 12:4-16
The repair of the temple. It is rather surprising that the temple had not been thoroughly repaired by Jehoiada during the long minority of Joash, when he must practically have had the sole management of affairs. Probably he did repair the worst of the damage done by Athaliah’s orders (2Ch 24:7), which may have been very considerable, but neglected the restoration of such portions of the edifice as appeared to him of secondary importance, as the walls of the courts and the outbuildings. Joash, however, when his minority came to an end, and he succeeded to the administration of the state, took a different view. To him the completion of the repairs seemed a pressing business. Probably he thought the honor of God required the entire obliteration of Athaliah’s wicked proceedings, and the renewal of the temple’s old glories. His six years’ residence within the temple precincts may have also inspired him with a love of the building as a building.
2Ki 12:4
And Jehoash said to the priests. The initiative of Joash is strongly marked, alike in Kings and Chronicles (2Ch 24:4). The general weakness of his character, and want of vigor and decision, make it the more surprising that he should in this particular matter have shown himself capable of taking his own line and adhering to it (2Ki 12:7). He has scarcely received from historians the credit that is due to him for his persistent and successful efforts to accomplish an object which was for the honor of religion, and which was yet not pressed forward by the priesthood. Certainly he was no mere puppet of the priestly order. All the money of the dedicated things that is brought into the house of the Lord; rather, all the money of the holy gifts that is brought into the house of the Lord; i.e. all that ye receive from the people in the way of money. This money accrued from three sources, which the king proceeded to enumerate. First, even the money of every one that passeth the account; i.e. the census moneythe aggregate of the half-shekels received from the males of above twenty years old, whenever a census was taken (Exo 30:12-16). The rendering, “current money,” preferred by Thenius, Bahr, and our Revisers, is shown by Keil to be untenable. Secondly, the money that every man is set at; i.e. the redemption money, derived in part from the payments made for redeeming the firstborn (Num 18:15, Num 18:16); in part from the sums which the priests exacted from such as had vowed themselves (Le 27:2-8), or those belonging to them, to God.
And [thirdly] all the money that cometh into any man’s heart to bring into the house of the Lord; i.e. all the free-will offerings that should be made in money by any of the Israelites.
2Ki 12:5
Let the priests take it to them, every man of his acquaintance. The money was to be gathered of “all Israel,” out of all “the cities of Judah” (2Ch 24:5). The priests of each locality were to be the collectors, and would therefore gather “of their acquaintance.” As we cannot suppose that very much would accrue from either the first or second source, since a census was rarely taken, and personal vows were not very common, we must regard the command of Joash as, in the main, the authorization of a general collection throughout the kingdom of voluntary contributions towards the temple repairs, and so as analogous to the “letters” which our own sovereigns, or archbishops, issue from time to time for collections in churches for special objects. And let them repair the breaches of the house, wheresoever any breach shall be found. The “breaches,” or dilapidations, may have been caused, partly by the neglect of necessary repairs during the reigns of Jehoram, Ahaziah, and Athaliah; but they were mainly the result of the willful violence of Athaliah (2Ch 24:7). Apparently, the damage done must have been very great.
2Ki 12:6
But it was so, that in the three and twentieth year of King Jehoash the priests had not repaired the breaches of the house. No charge is made against the priests of malversation or embezzlement. They had simply been negligent. Probably very little money had come in; and they had not been very active in their endeavors to obtain larger contributions. It must be remembered that what went to the fabric fund would, for the most part, be a deduction from the ordinary revenue of the temple, which was not, perhaps, much in excess of the ordinary demands upon it. We can, therefore, quite understand that the king’s policy would not be popular with the priests (see 2Ch 24:5). Still, it is to be observed that they are not said to have executed no repairs, but only not to have “made haste” and completed their task by the time that the king looked for its completion.
2Ki 12:7
Then King Jehoash called for Jehoiada the priest. So, too, the writer of Chronicles (2Ch 24:6). The king did not take the matter into his own hands, but consulted with the head of the priestly order on the best steps to take in order to expedite the repairs. He made no” charge,” delivered no “rebuke.” He did not “remove the administration of the funds from the hands of the delinquent order” (Stanley). On the contrary, he left it in their hands (2Ki 12:9-11). Two changes only were made:
1. A public chest was set up conspicuously in the temple court, near the great altar, and the people were invited to bring their contributions to the temple, and hand them to the priests, who should straightway deposit them in the chest in the sight of the congregation.
2. The chest was opened from time to time, and the money counted, in the presence of the high priest and of a royal secretary. It was then delivered over to “the overseers of the house”persons, probably, of the priestly orderappointed by Jehoiada (2Ki 11:18), who disbursed it to the carpenters and masons (2Ki 12:11, 2Ki 12:12). The chest was a sort of tangible evidence to the people of the purpose to which their contributions would be applied, and naturally stimulated their giving. The presence of the king’s officer at the counting of the money, was equivalent, not really to an “audit” (Stanley), but to a publication of the accounts, and would prevent any suspension of the work, so long as it was clear that the money found in the chest had not been expended. Thus a new impetus was given to the movement. The measures taken completely answered. Contributions flowed in rapidly, and in a few years the whole work was accomplished (see 2Ch 24:13, 2Ch 24:14). And the other priests, and said unto them, Why repair ye not the breaches of the house? This shows that no repairs were going on ‘in the twenty-third year of Joash, but not that none had been done previously. Now therefore receive no more money of your acceptance. This was a revocation of the order given in 2Ki 12:5, and necessarily put an end to the local collections, which that order required. But deliver it for the breaches of the house. If the priests were not to “receive the money,” they could not “deliver” it. Obscurity is introduced by the desire for extreme brevity. In point of fact, they were to “receive” (2Ki 12:9), but in a new way.
2Ki 12:8
And the priests consented to receive no more money of the peoplei.e; to put an end to the local collections ordered in 2Ki 12:5neither to repair the breaches of the house; i.e. neither to be responsible severally for laying out the money which they collected in repairs.
2Ki 12:9
But Jehoiada the priest took a chest. The writer of Chronicles says, “At the king’s commandment, they made a chest” (2Ch 24:8). The suggestion was probably the king’s, but the ecclesiastical and civil authorities worked harmoniously in the business. And bored a hole in the lid of itas hundreds of thousands have done since his timeand set it beside the altar, on the right side as one cometh into the house of the Lord. The altar intended is, of course, the altar of burnt offering, which was in the court of the temple, directly opposite the porch. The chest was placed outside the sanctuary (2Ch 24:8), and, indeed, outside the porch, on the right hand as one entered into the court by the north door. It was thus very conspicuous. And the priests that kept the doori.e. the door of the courtput therein all the money that was brought into the house of the Lord. The priests received the money from those who offered, at the gate of the court, and, proceeding to the chest, dropped it in through the aperture. A man could not see that all which he had given was put in, but he reckoned on the good faith of the priest, and was satisfied.
2Ki 12:10
And it was so, when they saw that there was much money in the chest. “When they saw” means “when they perceived.” They would not see that the chest was becoming full, but would know by the weight, and perhaps by the sound which the money made when it was dropped in. That the king’s scribe. “Royal secretaries” were common in ancient Persia, and often acted as the king’s commissioners (Herod; 3.128; Xen; ‘Cyrop.,’ 8.6. 16; ‘AEcouom.,’ 4.8). Such persons are seen on the Assyrian sculptured slabs, with a roll of paper or parchment in one hand, and a pen in the other, taking account for the king of the spoil brought in from foreign countries. And the high priest. Since the time of Joshua, the high priest had been called simply “the priest.” The restoration of the full title (hac-cohen hag-gadol) marks the increasing power of the priests and the diminishing power of the kings under the later monarchy. Came up, and they put up in bags, and told, the money that was found in the house of the Lord. Money was ordinarily put up in bags, containing a certain definite amount, the mouth of the bag being then tied round with a string (see 2Ki 5:23; and comp. Pro 7:20; Isa 46:6; Hag 1:6). Hence putting money up in bags was sometimes called, as in this place, “binding it.” No doubt they “told,” or counted, the money first, and put it in the bags afterwards; but is a very common figure of speech.
2Ki 12:11
And they gave the money, being toldrather, after weighing itinto the hands of them that did the work, that had the oversight of the house of the Lord. It must be remembered that no coins existed as yet; and the lumps of silver which passed as shekels and half shekels, were of very uncertain weight. To know the value of the money in each bag, it was necessary, not only to count the pieces, but to weigh each bag separately. The bags, when weighed, were handed over by the high priest and the royal secretary to the officers whom Jehoiada had appointed (2Ki 11:18) to have the general superintendence of the “house.” And they laid it out to the carpenters and builders, that wrought upon the house of the Lord. The “paid it out” of our Revisers is better than “laid it out.” The overseers of the temple paid over to the carpenters and the builders, from time to time, such money as was needed for the work done or doing.
2Ki 12:12
And to masons; rather, to the masons. The “masons” (goderim) are the actual artisans who worked under instructions from the “builders.” And hewers of stoneor, stone-cuttersrather, those who sawed up the stones on the spot, than those who hewed them in the quarriesand to buy timber and hewed stone to repair the breaches of the house of the Lord. The writer of Chronicles mentions “workers in iron and brass” (bronze) also (2Ch 24:12). Probably, when once the work was taken thoroughly in hand, it was found that repairs of all sorts and kinds were needed. The temple had stood for a hundred and thirty-six years, and up to this time it had, so far as we know, undergone no repairs at all. Certainly none are mentioned. And for all that was laid out for the house to repair it. This general clause shows how wide were the powers of the overseers. The suspicions and jealousies which modern writers have imagined contrast remarkably with the general confidence and trust which seem to have prevailed among all those concerned in the repairs.
2Ki 12:13
Howbeit there was not made for the house of the Lord bowls of silver, snuffers, basins, trumpets, any vessels of gold, or vessels of silver, of the money that was brought into the house of the Lord; i.e. while the repairs were incomplete, while the work was still going on, no portion of the money taken from the chest was expended in the purchase of new sacred vessels, whether of gold or silver, whether howls, or snuffers, or basins, or trumpets the whole was rigidly applied to the renovation of the temple building. There is no contradiction between this statement and that of the writer of Chronicles (2Ch 24:14), who tells us that, after the entire repairs were completed, the surplus money was expended in this way, on the purchase of “vessels to minister and to offer, spoons, and vessels of gold and silver.” We can well understand that, after the spoiling of the temple by successive kings to buy off enemiesby Rehoboam to content Shishak (1Ki 14:26), by Asa to gratify Benhadad (1Ki 15:18), and by Joash himself (2Ki 12:18) to procure the retreat of Hazael from the siege of Jerusalem, the vessels of the temple must have required renovating almost as much as the fabric itself; and when it was found that there remained a surplus over and above all that was needed for building purposes, we cannot wonder that it was applied to the renewal of the vessels, absolutely essential as they were for the service of the sanctuary.
2Ki 12:14
But they gave thati.e; the whole money contributedto the workmenequivalent to “the carpenters, builders, masons, hewers of stone,” etc; mentioned in 2Ki 12:11, 2Ki 12:12and repaired therewith the house of the Lord; i.e. expended the money on the repairs.
2Ki 12:15
Moreover they reckoned not with the men, into whose hand they delivered the money to be bestowed on workmen. Society rests upon faith and trust. In all business transactions confidence must be reposed in some one, whose character is the guarantee of his honesty. In the case before us, the overseers of the temple were the persons trusted to expend the money aright (see 2Ki 12:11). The overseers (2Ki 11:18) had been appointed by the high priest. For they dealt faithfully; i.e. honestly.
2Ki 12:16
The trespass money. When a man had injured another, he was bound by the Law to make compensation to the injured party at the valuation of the priest, with the addition of one-fifth more than the value (Le 2Ki 6:2-6; Num 5:6-8). The compensation was, primarily, to be made to the man himself; secondarily, if he were dead, to his nearest kinsman; finally, if he had left no kinsman, to the priest. And sin money. According to the Law, the priest was entitled to no money with a sin offering; but it seems to have become customary to make the priest who offered it a voluntary gift, to compensate him for his trouble. Such free gifts the priest was by the Law (Num 5:10) entitled to receive. Was not brought into the house of the Lordi.e. it was not deposited in the chest, or applied to the repairs, butit was the priests’.
2Ki 12:17, 2Ki 12:18
The war of Joash with Hazael. A considerable gap occurs between 2Ki 12:16 and 2Ki 12:17. We learn from Chronicles some particulars of the interval. Not long after the completion of the repairs, Jehoiada, who had lived to a good old age in complete harmony with the monarch, expired. His piety, and his good services, as preserver of the house of David, as restorer of the temple-worship, and joint-repairer with Joash of the temple itself, were regarded as entitling him to extraordinary funeral honors; and by general consent he was interred within the city of Jerusalem, in the sepulchers of the kings (2Ch 24:16). His removal led to a fresh religious revolution. “The Jewish aristocracy, who perhaps had never been free from the licentious and idolatrous taint introduced by Rehoboam and confirmed by Athaliah, and who may well have been galled by the new rise of the priestly order, presented themselves before Joash, and offered him the same obsequious homage that bad been paid by the young nobles to Rehoboam. He feeling himself released from personal obligations by the death of his adopted father, threw himself into their hands. Athaliah was avenged almost upon the spot where she had been first seized by her enemies”. Joash began by allowing the reintroduction of idolatry and grove-worship (2Ch 24:18), and then, when remonstrated with by Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, who had succeeded his father in the office of high priest, had the remonstrant set upon by the people and slain. The writer of Chronicles closely connects this murderous deed with the Syrian war, which followed it within a year (2Ch 24:23), and was generally regarded as a Divine judgment.
2Ki 12:17
Then Hazael King of Syria went up, and fought against Gath. Hitherto Judah had been safe from any attack on the part of Syria, since Israel had been interposed between the two powers. Now, however, that Hazael had conquered from Jehu the entire trans-Jordanic territory (2Ki 10:33), the case was wholly alteredJudah and Syria had become conterminous along the line of the lower Jordan, and Syria could invade Judaea at any moment. It is surprising that Gath should have been the special object of attack, since Oath (Abu-Gheith) lay remote from the Syrian frontier, in the southwestern part of Judaea, and could only be reached from Syria by an enemy who was not afraid of leaving Jerusalem behind him. Gath, when last mentioned, was a Judaean city, and was fortified by Rehoboam (2Ch 11:8); but it was originally Philistine (1Sa 5:1-12 :17), and the Philistines had recovered it before the time of Uzziah (2Ch 26:6). To which power it belonged when Hazael made war upon it is uncertain. And took itprobably took it by storm, and plundered it, but did not attempt an occupationand Hazael set his face to go up to Jerusalem. If Gath be Abu-Gheith, as appears probable, it would be distant from Jerusalem not less than forty miles in a direct line. If Hazael, however, was returning to the trans-Jordanic country taken from Israel, it would lie in his way, and might naturally tempt him to make a dash at it, more especially as he was flushed with victory.
2Ki 12:18
And Jehoash King of Judah took all the hallowed things. The writer of Chronicles tells us that, first of all, there was a battle. “The army of the Syrians came with a small company of men, and the Lord delivered a very great host into their hand” (2Ch 24:24). The loss was especially heavy among the nobles, who officered the Jewish army. Much plunder was taken by the visitors (2Ch 24:23). Then, probably, the siege of the city was commenced, and Joash, like Rehoboam and Asa before him (1Ki 14:26; 1Ki 15:18), and Hezekiah subsequently (2Ki 18:15, 2Ki 18:16), had recourse to the temple treasures, and with them bought off the invader. It is noticeable that Athaliah had not deprived the temple of them previously. That Jehoshaphat, and Jehoram, and Ahaziah, his fathers, kings of Judah, had dedicated. Though Jehoram and Ahaziah apostatized so far as to maintain the Baal-worship in Jerusalem, and even to force attendance on it (2Ch 21:11), yet they did not relinquish altogether the worship of Jehovah. That Jehoram called his son, Ahaziah, “possession of Jehovah,” and Ahaziah one of his sons, Joash, “whom Jehovah supports,” is indicative of this syncretism, which was common in ancient times, but against which pure Judaism made the strongest possible protest. And his own hallowed thingsi.e; the gifts which he had himself made to the templeand all the gold that was found in the treasures of the house of the Lord. This was probably not much; but some “vessels of gold” had been made (2Ch 24:14) out of the residue of the money subscribed for the repairs. And in the king’s house. The royal palace had been plundered by the Arabs and Philistines combined in the reign of Jehoram (2Ch 21:16, 2Ch 21:17); but in the thirty years that had since elapsed there had been time for fresh accumulations. And sent it to Hazael King of Syria: and he went away from Jerusalem. The personal presence of Hazael at the siege seems to be here implied, while 2Ch 24:23 rather implies his absence. Perhaps he was absent at first, but joined the besiegers after a while.
2Ki 12:19-21
The close of the reign of Joashhis murder by his servants. Again the narrative of Kings is to be supplemented by that of Chronicles. From Chronicles we learn that, before the withdrawal of the Syrians, Joash had fallen into a severe illness, which confined him to his apartment (2Ch 24:25). This gave opportunity for conspiracy. Among the courtiers were two, perhaps more, whom the fate of Zechariah had grieved, and who were probably opposed to the entire series of later changes in religion which had been sanctioned by Joash (2Ch 24:17, 2Ch 24:18). These persons “made a conspiracy,” which was successful, and “slew Joash on his bed” (2Ch 24:25). They then buried him in Jerusalem, but “not in the sepulchers of the kings.”
2Ki 12:19
And the rest of the acts of Joash, and all that he did, are they not written in the chronicles of the kings of Judah? This formal phrase, with which he concludes his account of almost every Jewish king (1Ki 14:29; 1Ki 15:7, 1Ki 15:23; 1Ki 22:45; 2Ki 8:23; 2Ki 14:18; 2Ki 15:6, etc.), cannot be regarded as an acknowledgment by the author of any special or designed reticence with respect to the reign of Joash. We must suppose him unconscious of any such design. He had to omit much in every case; in the present he happened to omit all the darker shades; and the result was an over-favorable portraiture of the monarch. But, in the providence of God, complete historical justice was secured by the labors and researches of a second inspired writer.
2Ki 12:20
And his servants arose, and made a conspiracy. By “his servants” officers of his household are probably intended, attendants whose position would give them ready access to his person. And slew Joash in the house of Millo. Joash had probably transferred his residence to “the house of Mille.”the great fortress built by David (2Sa 5:9) and Solomon (1Ki 9:15, 1Ki 9:24) in Jerusalemfor greater security during the siege; and, being there prostrated by sickness, could not remove from it when the siege was over. Which goeth down to Silla. No commentator has succeeded in explaining this passage. There is no other mention of Silla; and it is difficult to understand how a fortress could be said to “go down” to any place. Our Revisers’ conjecture”on the way that goeth down to Silla”may be accepted as a possible explanation; but it implies that a word () has dropped out of the text.
2Ki 12:21
For Jozachar the son of Shimeath; called in Chronicles “Zabad,” probably through a corruption of the text. His mother, Shimeath, was, according to Chronicles (2Ch 24:26), an Ammonitess. And Jehozabad the son of Shomer. For “Shomer” we have in Chronicles “Shimrith,” which is the feminine form of “Shomer,” and we are told that she was a Moabitess. The Jews were at all times fond of taking wives from Moab and Ammon (Rth 1:4; 1Ki 11:1; Ezr 9:1, Ezr 9:2; Neh 13:23), despite the prohibition of mixed marriages in the Law (see Deu 7:3). His servants, smote him, and he died (for their motives, see the introductory paragraph), and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David. Some critics (as Thenius and Dean Stanley) see a contradiction between this statement and that of 2Ch 24:25, that he was “not buried in the sepulchers of the kings;” but, as Bertheau, Keil, and Bahr observe. “the two statements are not irreconcilable,” since he may have been regarded as “buried with his fathers,” if his grave was anywhere in Jerusalem, even though he was excluded from the royal burying-place. And Amaziah his son reigned in his stead. (For the reign of Amaziah, see 2Ki 14:1-20.)
HOMILETICS
2Ki 12:2
Weakness in a monarch almost as bad as wickedness.
The most prominent trait in the character of Joash was his lack of independence and moral weakness. He had no strength of will, no stamina; in the expressive, if inelegant, language of our times, “no backbone.” He must always lean upon some one. Let us look at Joash
I. IN HIS YOUTH. At this time he was so fortunate as to have a natural prop and support in Jehoiada, his uncle by marriage, and his guardian during the years of his minority. Jehoiada’s was a strong character, and the life of Joash, while Jehoiada guided his steps, if not marked by any strikingly great actions, was correct, exemplary, worthy of praise. There was piety and right feeling in the pains, which he took to promote the restoration of the temple, and prudence in the measures whereby he succeeded in effecting his purpose. The measures may have beenprobably weresuggested by Jehoiada; but the king deserves some credit for adopting them.
,
,
As the writer of Kings says, “Joash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all his days wherein Jehoiada the priest instructed him“ (2Ki 12:2). But Jehoiada could not live forever. He reached a very advanced age; but at last he “waxed old and died” (2Ch 24:15), and Joash was left to manage as he might without him. Let us look at him now
II. IN HIS MIDDLE AGE, AFTER THE DEATH OF JEHOIADA. Apparently his weakness is known, and it is at once assumed that he must put himself under directors. The “princes of Judah” go to him, pay him court, flatter him probably, at any rate offer him unusual honors. And at once he succumbs, and places himself under their influence. We cannot suppose him not to have been aware of what he was doing. He must have known the leanings of the “princes,” and have understood that, in adopting them as his advisers, he was giving up all the traditions of his earlier life, and taking a new departure. Such lightness would not have been surprising in a mere youth; but Joash was now at least thirty years of age, probably more, and might have been expected to have formed and settled his principles and his character. Still, experience shows that even thirty years of a pious life, if it has been passed “under tutors and governors,” does not fix a man’s future in the same linenay, often leads him to an almost irrepressible desire for revolt, and for departing widely from his antecedents. The desire is a temptation of the devil, and, if yielded to, has devilish results; but it is very often yielded to. Nero’s outbreak after he had got rid of Seneca is the most palpable historical example; but the experience of most persons must have shown them scores of instances of men, trained and brought up in good courses till middle life, and then suddenly set free to take their own line, who have plunged into dissipation, impiety, and wickedness of all kinds. The case of Joash is extraordinary, not in its general features, but in the lengths to which he went. Under the influence of the “princes,” he allowed the Baal-worship to be reintroduced, and gave it free tolerance.
When prophets remonstrated, and Zechariah denounced God’s vengeance on those who had forsaken him (2Ch 24:19, 2Ch 24:20), then Joash, unaccustomed to opposition, was so exasperated that he went the length of murdermurder of a high priest within the precincts of the temple, by the cruet death of stoning, and murder of one for whom he ought to have had a special kindness, in remembrance of the vast benefits which he had received from his father (2Ch 29:22). It is quite possiblenay, probablethat Joash (like Henry II. in the case of Becket) did not deliberately determine on the murderthat hasty words, uttered in extreme exasperation, were seized upon (Stanley) by his too-officious servants, and carried out in act before he could retract them. But this only emphasizes his weakness. A well-intentioned prince, yielding to evil influences, sanctions the most atrocious crime that the temple ever witnessed (Mat 23:35) and through Ms wellness involves the nation in guilt greater than any that had been incurred by the doings of the most wicked of preceding monarchs.
2Ki 12:4-8
Inconvenience of setting priests and ministers to serve tables.
However convinced we may be of the honesty of the priests and Levites concerned in collecting money at this time for the repairs of the temple, it is undeniable that their proceedings in the matter created distrust and dissatisfaction. We know too little of the monetary arrangements previously in use among the Jews to see with any real clearness what exactly the complaint of the laity was, or how far the priests and Levites had a satisfactory answer to it. Probably the rules given were not sufficiently definite; and it may also well have been that the priests and Levites were not sufficiently versed in business transactions to understand completely what the rules laid down expressed. We must remember that, in the early Church, when the apostles had to occupy themselves with money matters, it was not long before complaints arose (Act 6:1), and the apostles refused any longer to “serve tables.” The very foundation of society is a division of labor. In an organization like that of the Church, whether Jewish or Christian, it is of extreme importance to disconnect the performance of high spiritual functions from the duty of receiving, apportioning, and disbursing large sums of money. This is so
I. BECAUSE, AS A GENERAL RULE, THE MOST SPIRITUALITY MINDED OF MEN ARE THE MOST INAPT FOR THE DETAILS OF BUSINESS. Different qualities of mind, qualities offering a strong contrast, and very rarely united in the same person, are requisite for success in business and for winning souls to God; also intimate acquaintance with an entirely different set of facts is in each ease necessary. Spiritually minded men are in many instances woefully deficient in worldly knowledge, know nothing of book-keeping by double entry, and even find a difficulty in remembering the multiplication mine. Their faculties are suited for something higher than “serving tables,” and to employ them in such service is to waste valuable material in work for which it is wholly unsuited.
II. BECAUSE, IF BUSINESS TBANSACTIONS ARE ILL MANAGED, SUSPICIONS ARISE, AND GOD‘S MINISTERS SHOULD BE ABOVE SUSPICION. A minister’s usefulness is gone if once he is suspected in money matters. It is seriously impaired, even if nothing is proved against him beyond incapacity and blundering. Many a clergyman has got into most serious trouble by undertaking work of a worldly kind, which he never ought to have undertaker, and failing in the proper management of it, though his honesty was quite unimpeachable.
III. BECAUSE THE TIME GIVEN BY MINISTERS TO BUSINESS MATTERS MIGHT BE BETTER SPENT IN THE PROPER WORK OF THE MINISTRY. This was what the apostles felt (Act 6:2-4); they wished to give themselves wholly to “the ministry of the Word and to prayer.” Modern clergymen have, in addition, parochial visiting and reading to employ them, both making large demands upon their time, and impossible to be shifted upon others. A congregation will, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, derive far more benefit from their minister having an additional hour a day, or two hours a day, for reading, than from his spending the time in slaving at accounts, collecting the children’s pence, looking after clubs, and bargaining for coals or blankets. The study of the Bible, with all the new light which is thrown upon it by recent scholarship and research, is imperative; and it is also essential that a clergy man should hay? such a knowledge of the current and tendencies of modern thought as is only to be maintained by very diligent reading of the popular literature, periodical and other, of the day.
IV. BECAUSE IT PROMOTES HARMONY AND UNION IF THE LAITY ARE EMPLOYED IN THE BUSINESS MATTERS OF THE DISTRICT, OR CHURCH, OR PARISH. In almost every parish or congregation there will be among the laity persons quite fit to undertake the functions whereof we have been speaking. And such persons will in most cases be gratified by being asked to undertake them. They will be glad to be associated with the clergyman in parochial matters, and to relieve him of a portion of his burdens. It will be a satisfaction to them to be doing some work for Christ and his Church, to feel that they are a part of the organization, and that by their gratuitous service they are furthering the cause of their Lord and Master. And the greater intercourse which will thus take place between them and their spiritual guides will foster good feeling and mutual regard and respect.
2Ki 12:4-15
Church restoration a good work, acceptable to God. David’s desire to build God a house is often mentioned to his honor (2Sa 7:2; 1Ch 17:1, 1Ch 17:2; 2Ch 6:7; Act 7:46). Solomon’s reputation for piety and zeal rests mainly upon the pains which he took to erect for God’s worship a noble and suitable edifice (Wis. 9:8; Ecclesiasticus 47:13; Act 7:47). The “repairing of the house of God” (2Ch 24:27) by Joash obtained him his place among the good kings (2Ki 12:2). Josiah’s restoration (2Ki 22:3-7) helped to put him in the higher category of those who were in no way defective (Ecclesiasticus 42:4). Zerubbabel and Jeshua were long held in honor, because they “builded the house, and set up a holy temple to the Lord” (Ecclesiasticus 49:12). It was the great glory of Judas Maccabaeus that he cleansed and “renewed the sanctuary” (1 Macc. 5:1). If God is to have any outward worship at all, if nations are to honor him openly, if men are to join in common prayer for mutual encouragement and edification, there must be buildings for the purpose; and natural reverence requires that they shall be kept solely for the purpose. He who provides such buildings does a good work; he who repairs them when they need it, or restores them when they have gone to decay, shows the same spirit as the original builder, and deserves scarcely less praise. Of course, we assume that both builders and repairers and restorers do their work in a proper frame of mind, and from proper motives; otherwise church-building, like almsgiving or any other good work, may cease to be pleasing to God, or may even become an “offense” to him. Church-builders and church-restorers should see
I. THAT THEY DO NOT THEIR WORK OUT OF OSTENTATION OR FOR THEIR OWN GLORY. This their conscience will readily tell them if they honestly consult it.
II. THAT THEY DO IT NOT IN A SPIRIT OF MERE AESTHETICISM, OUT OF A LOVE OF ART. Considering the personal character of those who built St. Peter’s at Rome, and the dominant spirit of the age, it is difficult to suppose that the main motive at work among the promoters was not the aesthetic one. And there may be a danger of the same kind at the present day, when art is in such high estimation.
III. THAT THEY DO IT NOT OUT OF STRIFE, OR JEALOUSY, OR EMULATION, BUT, IF POSSIBLE, WITH A SINGLE EYE TO GOD‘S HONOR, OR, AT ANY RATE, WITH GOD‘S HONOR AS THEIR MAIN OBJECT. As some preached the gospel out of strife (Php 1:15) in the apostles’ time, so it may be that occasionally nowadays the desire of surpassing a neighbor, or outshining a rival, may be at the root of men’s munificence in church-building and chapel-building. As “dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to stink” (Ecc 10:1), so a wrong motive takes away all its sweet savor from a good action.
HOMILIES BY C.h. IRWIN
2Ki 12:1-3
The influence of a wise counselor.
“Joash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all his days wherein Jehoiada the priest instructed him.”
I. MUCH DEPENDS UPON THE CHARACTER OF THE SOVEREIGN. Compare England under the Stuarts with England under Cromwell or Queen Victoria. An impure and licentious court demoralizes a whole nation. A pure court is a standing rebuke to iniquity in high places. We have much need to pray “for kings, and for all that are in authority.” We have much need to be thankful for the character and life of our present sovereign.
II. THE NATIONAL LIFE LARGELY DEPENDS UPON THE CHARACTER OF THE NATION‘S COUNSELLORS. In our limited monarchy the “ministers of the Crown” are virtually the rulers of the nation. How important that a Christian nation should have Christen rulers, Christian legislators! The time has surely come when the voice of the Christian people of the British empire should be much more heard in Parliament. It is not so much the politics of party we need, as the politics of Christianity. We want rulers who will remember that “righteousness exalteth a nation.” We want our laws to be based upon the eternal law of God. We want legislators who have the fear of God before their eyes. Christian people need to be aroused to their duty in this matter. They should see to it that, so far as they can secure it, Christian men are chosen to represent them in the legislature of the nation.C.H.I.
2Ki 12:4-16
The repairing of the temple under Joash: a missionary sermon.
I. THIS WORK HAD ITS ORIGIN IN THE KING‘S COMMAND. Kings get a great many hard knocks nowadays. But kings have not been all bad. Considering the fierce light which beats upon a throne, and the special temptations to which they are exposed, perhaps the character of kings will bear investigation as well as the character of many of their critics. If in Jewish history we find a Jeroboam and an Ahab, we also find a Solomon and a Hezekiah. If in Roman history we find a Nero staining with cruelty and bloodshed the imperial purple, we find others like Trajan and Marcus Aurelius, the patrons of literature, philosophy, and the arts. If in our British nation some of our sovereigns were not all they should have been, we can point to the influence for good which many of our rulers have exercised. So, although Joash ended badly, he began well. The first work of Joash and Jehoiada was to pull down the temple of Baal, and destroy his images. Their next work was to repair the temple of the Lord. Not merely had the house of the Lord been neglected for the worship of Baal, but, as we read in 2 Chronicles, “the sons of Athaliah, that wicked woman, had broken up the house of God; and also all the dedicated things of the house of the Lord did they bestow upon Baalim.” Joash was grieved that the house of God should be in this shameful condition. He gave command that the temple should be repaired. He instructed the priests and Levites that they were to make collections for this purpose, not only in the temple, but throughout the land, every man from his acquaintance.
1. We have got the command of a King in reference to his Church. The Lord Jesus Christ expects that all who are his people will take an interest in building up that Church. We are first of all to build up the Church of Christ in our own land and in our own district. The professing Christian who enjoys the privileges of a Church, but contributes nothing to its support, is not obeying the teaching of God’s Word. Then, also, we are to pray and give and labor for the extension of Christ’s kingdom throughout the world. “Let him that heareth say, Come.” “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” “The harvest truly is plenteous, but the laborers are few; pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth laborers into his harvest.” Here are three commands of Christ. How are we seeking to fulfill them?
2. The cause of Christian missions rests upon the command of our King. Some may think little of Christian missions. They may make light of their necessity, or undervalue the work they have donethough testimonies to the value of missionary work are becoming more frequent every year from explorers, from scientific men, from statesmen, even from heathen who have not become Christians. But it is enough for the true Christian that Christ has commanded the evangelization of the world. “That command,” said the Duke of Wellington, “is the marching orders of the Christian Church.”
II. THIS WORK WAS DELAYED BY NEGLECTFUL PRIESTS. Notwithstanding the command of King Joash, which would seem to have been given early in his reign, for a long time nothing was done. The time passed by till the twenty-third year of his reign, and still the priests had not repaired the breaches of the house of the Lord. Joash called the priests and the Levites together, and asked them why they had not carried out the work entrusted to them. Then he took it out of their hands in a certain measure. They who should have been the foremost in their zeal for the house of God had been tardy in this important work. How often it has unhappily been so in the history of the Christian Church! It was through the priesthood of the Western Church in the Middle Ages that the greatest corruptions crept in. Forgetting their spiritual profession, they mixed themselves up with the political strife of their day. The popes aspired to be lords over God’s heritagea claim which Christ forbade his apostles to exercise. They thirsted for temporal power, and put the power of the Church into competition with the governments of the nations, just as the present pope is seeking to do in our own time. They thirsted for wealth and splendor, and thus began the traffic in indulgences against which Luther raised his mighty voice. All this time they were unfaithful to the high commission they professed to hold. They were forgetful of the plain statement of Christ, “My kingdom is not of this world.” But this unfaithfulness of the teachers of religion is not confined to the Church of Rome. All Churches have suffered from it at one time or another. How much of the delay in the great work of Christian missions has been due to the neglect and unfaithfulness of religious teachers! For centuries scarcely anything was done to carry the gospel into heathen lands. Protestant missions can scarcely be said to have existed before the nineteenth century. The blight of moderatism, which was over all Christian communities in the last century, was fatal to all missionary effort for the time. But God‘s work does not depend upon men, or on any class of men. If those who are stewards of God are unfaithful to their trust, God will commit it to other hands. If men enter the sacred stoics of the ministry for the sake of earning a livelihood, God can deprive them even of that. How important for ministers of Christ to remember that they are watchmen upon the walls of Zion, and that if they neglect to warn the sinner, the blood of lost souls will be required at their hands! They are to be teachers and examples of the flock, leaders in every good work. Well it is for the Christian minister when he can say with the Apostle Paul, “I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men, for I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.”
III. THIS WORK WAS SUPPORTED BY GENEROUS PEOPLE. We may learn much from this chapter about the place of money in the Church of God. First of all, we see that the people were regularly rated or assessed for the support of religious ordinances. It is to this that Joash refers (verse 4) when he speaks of the money of every one that passeth the accountthe money that every man is set at. And in the account which is given in 2 Chronicles it is said that they made a proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem to bring in to the Lord the collection that Moses the servant of the Lord laid upon Israel in the wilderness. When we look into the thirtieth chapter of Exodus, the last chapter of Leviticus, and other passages, we find the clear instructions of God himself on this matter. When the numbering or census of the people was made, each one was assessed at so much for an atonement offering. This money was devoted to maintain the services of the sanctuary. Then again, if any one entered into a special vow to be the Lord’s, he incurred special pecuniary obligations, and was rated accordingly. All these offerings Joash ordered to be set apart on this occasion for the repairs of the temple, with the exception of the sin and trespass offerings, which were secured to the priests, and which could not be touched for any other purpose. From these and other details we learn that God expected the Israelites to contribute regularly a fixed sum, in proportion to their income, for the support of religious ordinances. He expected of those who took special vows upon them that they should consecrate more of their money to his service. So God expects of his people still, and particularly of those who make the full profession of Christianity involved in attendance at the Lord’s table. Some preacher stated lately that it is no “charity” when we give to the support of the Church with which we are connected. It is merely the payment of a debtthe fulfillment of obligations which every one incurs when he becomes a member of a Christian Church, and obligations which can no more be rightly shirked than any other just and lawful debt. Over and above that, he said, there is, of course, a large margin for the exercise of Christian charity and benevolence. This was the case when Joash appealed to the people to contribute, not only the fixed sum at which they were rated, but also “all the money that cometh into any man’s heart to bring into the house of the Lord.” He was not ashamed to appeal to them for money, for it was for a good cause. It was for God’s cause, for God’s house. He put the chest in a prominent place, where it could be seen (verse 9). And his faithful, earnest appeal was not without effect. We read in 2Ch 24:10 that” all the princes and all the people rejoiced, and brought in, and cast into the chest, until they had made an end.” No doubt they experienced the blessing which is implied in the words, “God loveth a cheerful giver.” We need to study God’s Word more on this subject of Christian giving. We have seen what the Old Testament rules were. Here is one from the New Testament: “On the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him.” If we were to give systematically, as these words exhort; if we were to measure our weekly offerings by our prosperity, how much larger our offertories would be! what an overflowing offering of silver and gold would be given to carry the gospel to the heathen!
IV. THIS WORK WAS CARRIED OUT BY FAITHFUL WORKERS. Those are very remarkable words, “Moreover they reckoned not with the men, into whose hand they delivered the money to be bestowed on workmen: for they dealt faithfully“ (2Ch 24:15). There were faithful workmen, and faithful overseers of the work. And what was the explanation of this unusual confidence on the part of the contributors, and unusual faithfulness on the part of the workers? Ah! there had been a reformation of religion! Wherever true religion flourishes, there there will be honest and upright dealing between man and man. When the great revival of religion took place in Ulster in 1859, the change was soon manifest in the conduct of the whole community. Scenes of strife and turbulence became scenes of kindness and peace. The officers of justice had easy work in maintaining law and order, and at many of the sessions there was absolutely no criminal business. When men are influenced by the fear of God it will not be hard to procure obedience for the law of man. When the love of Christ is in men’s hearts there will be love for our fellow-creatures also. May we not say the same of the great work of missions to the heathen, that it is being carried on by faithful workers? Where shall we find such a record of faithfulness, of patience, of devotedness, of perseverance, of heroic courage, as in the life and work of many a humble missionary to heathen lauds? When we remember how many of those who have gone forth as missionaries, in connection with the Church and with the great missionary societies, have sacrificed high literary, or commercial, or professional prospects at home, it is but reasonable that the Christian Church should express its sympathy with such self-denial and devotedness by contributing liberally to the work of foreign missions (vide infra, on 2Ki 13:14-19).C.H.I.
2Ki 12:17-21
The last days of Joash. He began well, but ended badly.
The close of the reign of Joash is a melancholy contrast to its beginning. In a most remarkable way preserved, by the providence of God and the kindness of a God-fearing woman, from the massacre of his brothers; then kept safe in the house of the Lord for six years of his helpless childhood;one would think he would never have forgotten how much he owed to the watchful care and goodness of God. He had been surrounded with good influences. Jehoiada had watched over him like a father. When he came to the throne, Jehoiada had caused him to enter into a covenant with God. He began his reign with a great religious reformation. He ended it with a shameful forsaking of God. There were three causes of his fall.
1. He retained the high places. His reformation was not complete. The germs of future evil were there. How careful we should be of the beginnings of evil! It seemed a small matter to retain the high places. But that small act of negligence or want of courage prepared the way for national idolatry, and for the ultimate downfall of Joash. It accustomed the people to heathen modes of worship (cf. infra, on 2Ki 14:1-4).
2. He listened to evil counselors. It was an evil day for Joash when Jehoiada passed away. “Now after the death of Jehoiada came the princes of Judah, and made obeisance to the king. Then the king hearkened unto them. And they left the house of the Lord God of their fathers, and served groves and idols: and wrath came upon Judah and Jerusalem for this their trespass” (2Ch 24:17, 2Ch 24:18). Ah! how true it is that “evil communications corrupt good manners”!
3. He disregarded the warnings of God. The Lord “sent prophets to them, to bring them again unto the Lord but they would not give ear” (2Ch 24:19). Zechariah the son of Jehoiada came with a special warning. But here again we see the hardening effect of sin. Not only did Joash pay no attention to his warnings, but with the basest ingratitude, forgetful of all he owed to Jehoiada, Zechariah’s father, he put Zechariah to death. The messenger of God may suffer for his faithfulness in rebuking sin, as John the Baptist was imprisoned by Herod, but no royal power can stay the judgments of God. Joash, who had slain God’s prophet, was himself slain by his own servants. The nation had forsaken God, and God forsook them in their time of need. Such a career as that of Joash shows the necessity for constant watchfulness against sin. Many, like him, begin well, but end badly. They make a fair profession at first, but by-and-by, when troubles or persecutions arise, they are offended. They go back and walk no more with Christ. Or they become worldly minded, and, being engrossed in the present, forget the concerns of eternity. Many might utter the melancholy cry, “Our lamps are gone out.” To every one of us the message may well be sent, “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.”C.H.I.
HOMILIES BY D. THOMAS
2Ki 12:1-21
The history of Joash.
“In the seventh year,” etc. The whole story of Joash is soon told. He was a son of Ahaziah, and the only one of his children who escaped the murderous policy of Athaliah. “It would seem that this child, whom the pity and affection of a pious aunt (Jehosheba) had preserved, was the only surviving male representative of the line of Solomon. Jehoram, his grandfather, who married Athaliah, in order to strengthen his position on the throne, slew all his brethren, and all his own sons were slain in an incursion by the Arabians, except Ahaziah, the youngest, who succeeded him; while on the death of Ahaziah, his wicked mother, Athaliah, ‘arose and destroyed all the seed royal of the house of Judah,’ except the little child Joash, who was rescued from her grasp. So that the unholy alliances formed by the descendants of Solomon, and the manifold disorders then accruing, had reduced everything to the verge of ruin. Measures were concerted by Jehoiada, the high priest, for getting rid of Athaliah, and placing Joash on the throne, after he had attained to the age of seven; and having in his youth the wise and the faithful round his throne, the earlier part of the reign of Joash was in accordance with the great principles of the theocracy. The Lord’s house was repaired and set in order, while the temple and idols of Baal were thrown down. But after Jehoiada’s death, persons of a different stamp got about him, and, notwithstanding the great and laudable zeal which he had shown for the proper restoration of God’s house and worship, a return was made to idolatry to such an extent as to draw forth severe denunciations from Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada. Even this was not the worst, for the faithfulness of Zechariah was repaid with violence; he was even stoned to death, and this, it is said, at the express command of the king. The martyred priest exclaimed as he expired, ‘The Lord look upon it, and require;’ and it was required as in a whirlwind of wrath. For a Syrian host, under Hazael, made an incursion into Judaea, and both carried off much treasure and executed summary judgment on many in Jerusalem, not excepting Joash himself, whom they left in an enfeebled state, and who was shortly afterwards fallen upon and slain by his servants. Such was the unhappy termination of a career which began in much promise of good, and the cloud under which he died even followed him to the tomb, for while he was buried in the city of David, it was not in the sepulchers of the kings of Judah. He reigned forty yearsfrom B.C. 878 to 838.” The narrative, whether we regard it as inspired or not, reminds us of five things worth consideringthe dilapidating influence of time upon the best material productions of mankind; the incongruity of worldly rulers busying themselves in religious institutions; the value of the co-operative principle in the enterprises of mankind; the potency of the religious element in the nature of even depraved people; and the power of money to subdue enemies.
I. THE DILAPIDATING INFLUENCE OF TIME UPON THE BEST MATERIAL PRODUCTIONS OF MANKIND. Joash here called upon the priests and the people “to repair the breaches of the house,” i.e. the temple. The temple, therefore, though it had not been built more than about a hundred and sixty years, had got into a state of dilapidation, there were breaches in it; where the breaches were we are not told, whether in the roof, the floor, the walls, or in the ceiling. The crumbling hand of time had touched it. No human superstructure, perhaps, ever appeared on the earth built of better materials, or in a better way, than the temple of Solomon. It was the wonder of ages. Notwithstanding this, it was subject to the invincible law of decay. The law of dilapidation seems universal throughout organic nature; the trees of the forest, the flowers of the field, and the countless tribes of sentient life that crowd the ocean, earth, and air, all fall into decay; and so also with the material productions of feeble man. Throughout the civilized world we see mansions, churches, cathedrals, palaces, villages, towns, and cities, in ruins. All compound bodies tend to dissolution; there is nothing enduring but primitive elements or substances. This being so, how astoundingly preposterous is man’s effort to perpetuate his memory in material monuments! The only productions of men that defy the touch of time, and that are enduring, are true thoughts, pure sympathies, and noble deeds. He who builds up the temple of a true moral character produces a superstructure that will last through the sweep of ages, the wreck of thrones, and the crash of doom.
II. THE INCONGRUITY OF WORLDLY RULERS BUSYING THEMSELVES IN RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS. Joash was no saint, the root of the matter was not in him; he had no vital and ruling sympathy with the Supreme Being, yet he seemed zealous in the work of repairing the temple. “Then King Joash called for Jehoiada the priest, and the other priests, and said unto them, Why repair ye not the breaches of the house? now therefore receive no more money of your acquaintance, but deliver it for the breaches of the house.” Though the conduct of corrupt men in busying themselves with things pertaining to religion is incongruous, alas! it is not uncommon. Such conduct generally springs from one of two things, or from bothpolicy or superstition. The religion that is popular, whether it be true or false, rulers recognize and sanction. They use the religious element in the community as a means by which to strengthen their thrones and augment their fame. Not only, indeed, are kings actuated thus, but even the corrupt tradesman, lawyer, doctor, etc; must show some interest in the popular religion in order to succeed in his secular pursuits. But superstition as well as policy often prompts corrupt men to busy themselves in matters of religion. Do not many build and beautify churches and subscribe to religions institutions, hoping thereby to escape perdition and to ensure the favor of Heaven? Alas! some of the corruptest men are often most busy in religious affairs. The man that betrayed the Son of God at the last Passover was most busy on that awful night; “his hand was on the table.”
III. THE VALUE OF THE CO–OPERATIVE PRINCIPLE IN THE ENTERPRISES OF MANKIND. It would seem that the work of repairing the temple was so great that no one man could have accomplished it. Hence the king called earnestly for the cooperation of all. “And Jehoash said to the priests, All the money of the dedicated things that is brought into the house of the Lord, even the money of every one that passeth the account, the money that every man is set at, and all the money that cometh into any man’s heart to bring into the house of the Lord, let the priests take it to them, every man of his acquaintance: and let them repair the breaches of the house.” They obeyed his voice. The people gave the money, and all set to work; the “priest that kept the door,” the “high priest,” the “carpenters,” the “masons,” the” builders,” the “hewers of stone,” etc. By this unity of action “they repaired the house of the Lord.” Two remarks may be made concerning the principle of cooperation.
1. It is a principle that should govern all men in the undertakings of life. It was never the purpose of the Almighty that man should act alone for himself, should pursue alone his own individual interests. Men may, and often do, make large fortunes by it, but they destroy their own peace of mind, degrade their natures, and outrage the Divine laws of society. Men are all members of one great body; and was ever a member made to work alone? No; but for the good of the whole, the common weal.
2. It is a principle that has done and is doing wonders in the undertakings of life. Our colleges, hospitals, railways, etc; are all the products of co-operation. The more men get intellectually enlightened and morally improved, the more this principle will be put into operation. This principle, however, has its limits. In spiritual matters it must not infringe the realm of individual responsibility. There is no partnership in moral responsibility. Each man must think, repent, and believe for himself. “Every man must bear his own burden.”
IV. THE POTENCY OF THE RELIGIOUS ELEMENT EVEN IN DEPRAVITY. At this time Israel was morally almost as corrupt as the heathen nations. From the beginning Israel was the Church of God in little more than a metaphorical sense. Never in the history of the world has there been a member of the true Church whose sympathies with Jehovah were not supreme. But how many of the Jews had this supreme sympathy? Notwithstanding this, the religious sentiment was in them, as in all men, a constituent part of their natures; and this sentiment is here appealed to, and roused into excitement; and, being excited, men poured forth their treasures and employed their energies for the repairing of the temple. This element in man often sleeps under the influence of depravity, but mountains of depravity cannot crush it; it lies in human nature as the mightiest latent force. Peter the Hermit, Savanorola the priest, Wesley the Methodist, and others in every age, have roused it into mighty action, even amongst the most ignorant and depraved of the race. Cunning priests and crafty king/have appealed to it as the strongest force that can bear them on to the realization of their miserable ends. The truly good and godly must appeal to it if they would accomplish any great work for mankind. By its right action only can men rise; by its dormancy or wrong development men must inevitably fall.
V. THE POWER OF MONEY TO SUBDUE ENEMIES. “Hazael King of Syria set his face to go up to Jerusalem. And Joash King of Judah took all the hallowed things that his fathers had dedicated and all the gold that was found in the treasures of the house of the Lord and sent it to Hazael King of Syria: and he went away from Jerusalem.” Here is a man, a proud, daring monarch, who was determined to invade Judaea, and to take possession of Jerusalem, relinquishing his designs. What was the force that broke his purpose? Money. It is said that Joash sent gold to Hazael, “and he went away from Jerusalem.” Truly money answereth for all things. Money can arrest the march of armies and terminate the fiercest campaigns. After contending armies have destroyed their thousands, it is money alone that brings the battle to a close. Money is the soul of all pacifying treaties. What fools the rulers of the people are not to employ money to prevent war and turn it away from their country! Enemies can be conquered by gifts. Evil can only be overcome by good. “If thine enemy hunger, offer him bread to cat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head.”D.T.
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
2Ki 12:1-3
A mixed character.
The reign of Joash began with bright hopes, showed for a while excellent promise, yet ended ingloriously. To explain this we may consider
I. JOASH‘S ADVANTAGES.
1. He had a pious education. As a child he was brought up by his aunt Jehosheba, who, with her husband the high priest, would instill into his mind the principles of true godliness. In his strict seclusion he was kept free from sights of vice. Like Timothy, he would be taught from a child to know the things that make wise unto salvation (2Ti 3:15). To have an early training of this kind is an inestimable advantage.
2. He had a good counselor. The early education of our own Queen Victoria was carefully conducted with a view to the royal office she was afterwards to fill. It would not be otherwise with young Joash. Jehoiada would carefully impress upon his mind the principles of good government, and, after his coronation, this holy man continued to be his guide and counselor. So it is said, “Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all his days wherein Jehoiada the priest instructed him.” It is a happy thing when a king is willing to receive counsel from older and wiser heads than his own (cf. 1Ki 12:6-11).
3. He had an excellent opportunity. Joash started with every advantage for reigning well. The people were animated with hatred of idolatry from the experience they had had of it in Athaliah’s reign; they were enthusiastic in their return to the worship of Jehovah; they had inaugurated the restoration of the line of David by a new covenant with God, and by zealous acts of reform. The tide was with Joash, if he had shown strength of character sufficient to avail himself of it.
II. JOASH‘S WEAKNESS. Circumstances test men, and it was to be proved that, with all his advantages, Joash was a weak king.
1. He lacked independence of judgment. Whether the early seclusion of his life had anything to do with this, we cannot tell; but it seems plain that he was not a king accustomed to think and act for himself, but one who was easily influenced and led by others. His nature was passive clay, on which the judgment of others stamped itself. While Jehoiada lived, he allowed himself to be led by him; and when this good priest and counselor died, he allowed himself as readily to be turned into evil courses by the wicked nobility (2Ch 24:17, 2Ch 24:18).
2. He lacked firmness of will. This defect flowed from the feebleness of judgment now indicated, Joash knew the right, but he had not the courage or persistence to do it when pressure was brought to bear on him in an opposite direction, His life thus proved at last a wretched failure. Notwithstanding Jehoiada’s kindness to him, he was betrayed at length into shedding the blood of Zechariah, his benefactor’s sea (2Ch 24:20-22).
3. He lacked true surrender of heart to God. This was the prime defect in his character. His goodness, such as it wasand for a time it seemed perfectly genuinewas the result of natural amiableness, of early training, of external influences; it did not spring from a root of true conviction. Therefore, when the sun was up, it was scorched, and withered away (Mat 13:6). It was goodness like the morning cloud, and the early dewunenduring (Hos 6:3). The lesson we learn is the need of a radical change of heart as the foundation of true and enduring piety.
III. JOASH‘S IMPERFECT REFORMS. The one point noticed about him at this stage is that, while reforming the worship of the temple, the high places were not taken away as commanded by the Law. This was a reform, it is to be allowed, not easily achieved, but had Joash been a man of more character he might have accomplished it, as Hezekiah did after him (2Ki 18:4). The fact that he did not attempt it, though popular feeling was so strongly on his side, is an evidence of that weak line in his character which came more clearly to light when Jehoiada was removed.J.O.
2Ki 12:4-6
The temple repairs-a good purpose frustrated.
At an early period of his reign, Joash, instigated no doubt by the good Jehoiada, took steps to have the temple put in a proper state of repair.
I. THE REPAIR OF THE TEMPLE PROJECTED.
1. The need of repair. What is stated in Chronicles of the condition of the temple shows how terrible had been the blight which had fallen on true religion in Judah during the reign of Athaliah. “That wicked woman,” we are told, “had broken up the house of God”probably carried away its stones to build or adorn her own house of Baal; or, perhaps, had broken down part of the courts to make room for her temple on the same hill. Moreover, she had taken away all the dedicated things to bestow upon the house of Baal (2Ch 24:7). There was thus much work to be done in repairing the temple, as the numbers of workmen afterwards employed show. Many are the inroads of the world upon the ChurchGod’s spiritual temple; and any breaches found in its walls should give rise to earnest desires and efforts to see them mended.
2. The resolve to repair. Joash gave orders that the repairing of the temple should be proceeded with. He had, perhaps, by this time attained his majority. But it is a singular thing that, with such a wave of reforming zeal as passed over the nation at the time of his accession, the people themselves should have been content to let the temple lie out of repair so long. Care for God’s house is one of the ways of showing honor to God himself. Yet how slow men are to move, or make sacrifices, that God’s worship may be suitably provided for! They are content to dwell in ceiled houses, while God’s house lies waste (Hag 1:4).
II. THE REPAIR OF THE TEMPLE PROVIDED FOR.
1. By sacred dues. In ordaining that the temple should be repaired, Joash showed also how the funds for the work were to be obtained. The Chronicler gives prominence to the half-shekel tax, which in the days of Moses was levied for the benefit of the sanctuary (2Ch 24:6, 2Ch 24:9), and there were the other moneys to be paid on occasion of the fulfillment of vows (Le 27:2-8). It is well when religion is not left to be supported by haphazard contributions, but when there is some definite principle of givingsome portion of income which is regularly set apart for the Lord’s use. This creates a fund which can be readily drawn upon when any good work requires aid.
2. By free-will offerings. The stated dues were not to be the only source of revenue. There is named also “all the money that cometh into any man’s heart to bring into the house of the Lord.” It is expected that religion will touch the heart of a man, and make him willing to part with a portion of his substance for the service of God. If it does not, it is not of much value. On the other hand, it is the heart which is the source of true religious giving. The gifts which come from the hand, not from the heart, do not count for much in Heaven’s reckoning. “God loveth a cheerful giver” (2Co 9:7).
III. THE REPAIR OF THE TEMPLE STILL UNEXECUTED. Years passed on. Joash had now been twenty-three years upon the throne, yet the repairs of the temple had not so much as begun. It seems unaccountable that in so holy a work such apathy should have prevailed. The fact may be attributed:
1. To the inertia of the priesthood. Everything seems at first to have been left to the priests and Levites. They were to go through the land, make proclamation of the king’s purpose, and collect the money for the work. In this duty they appear to have been slack. “The Levites,” the Chronicler says, “hastened it not” (2Ch 24:5). Large bodies of men are slow to move. Some of the priests and Levites were probably men of no great religious enthusiasm. One can sympathize with them in their shrinking from the task of collecting money. There are few tasks more thankless.
2. To the distrust of the people. The people appear not to have had the requisite confidence in the priests to entrust them with large sums of money. At least the money seems to have come in more freely after Jehoiada made his chest with the hole in the lid of it, than it did before. The distrust of the people was natural, for the priests were in no hurry to lay out the revenues they collected.
3. To the self-interest of a privileged class. The priestly dues would suffer serious diminution during the reign of such a queen as Athaliah. Irregularities would creep in, and the priests and Levites, deprived of their proper income, would feel justified in appropriating primarily to their own support whatever moneys came to hand. Joash’s decree had the effect of cutting off these perquisites, and of restoring them to their original use in keeping up the sanctuary. It could not be expected that the classes who were to suffer would be very eager in carrying out this decree. It is never safe to trust a privileged class to carry out measures which tell against its own interests. Average human nature is not so disinterested as to act enthusiastically for the promotion of reforms which injure itself.J.O.
2Ki 12:7-16
The temple repairs-a good purpose accomplished.
When so many years had elapsed without anything being done, Joash called the priests to account, and ordered them to take no more of the money of the people for themselves, but to repair the breaches of the house. A new start was made, and this time success was attained. We may ascribe the success to
I. PRUDENT ARRANGEMENTS. Wise, business-like arrangements have much to do with the success of any undertaking. Those now entered into were under the superintendence of Jehoiada, and afforded:
1. Security against misappropriation. Jehoiada obtained a chest, and bored a hole in the lid of it. It was placed beside the altar, on the right side, and all the money that was brought was put therein. There could thus be no suspicion of any real-appropriation of the funds. Every worshipper had the certainty that what he gave would go for the purpose for which it was given.
2. A removal of temptation. The arrangement of the chest was an advantage to the priests as well as to the people. It no longer afforded any temptation to needy individuals among them to retain funds that were passing through their hands. It put the order, as a whole, above suspicion and reproach. It is well not to put needless temptations in any one’s way.
3. A convenience for giving. The chest, as it stood there beside the altar, was a permanent depository to which the contributions of the faithful could be brought. The people had not to seek out persons to receive their gifts. They knew, without asking, where to take them. Sound arrangements of this sort, inspiring confidence, minimizing temptations to negligence or dishonesty, and consulting the convenience of the offerers, were admirably adapted to promote the ends aimed at. The example may be attended to with profit in the financial management of churches, charities, missionary societies, etc.
II. WILLING GIVERS. The fact that the work was taken partially out of the hands of the priests, and that the people had now security for their gifts being properly applied, had an immediate effect on the flow of contributions. We find:
1. Liberal gifts brought. It was not long, as we are told, before there was “much money” in the chest. People are seldom as willing to give for religion as they should be, but if a good cause is put before them, if they have the case properly presented, and if they feel secure as to the disposal of their gifts, it is wonderful often how freely liberality flows forth. We must not blame people for illiberality when their backwardness in giving arises from removable, and perhaps justifiable, causes.
2. A strict account kept. This is another feature in the business-like management of the funds which was now introduced, showing what great pains were taken to impress the minds of the people with confidence in the disposal of their money. When the chest was full, the king’s scribe and the high priest came up, opened the box, put the money in bags, and made a strict account of the sums. Strictness in pecuniary details may seem a minor matter, but it is really not so. The man who is honest in his pecuniary affairs is likely to be honest all through. Nothing shakes confidence so much as the suspicion of small unfaithfulnesses in money transactions. Instinctively we apply the principle, “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?” (Luk 16:10, Luk 16:11).
III. DILIGENT WORKERS. The money contributed by the people was applied to hire the services of workers to execute the needed repairs.
1. The workers were many. There were carpenters and builders, stonemasons and hewers, and part of the money was expended also on the purchase of materials. As in this temple-building so in the Christian Church, there is need not only for givers but for workers, and every variety of gift proves to be of service. Some can give who cannot work; others can work who cannot give; others can both give and work. There are needed those with mission talentthe quarrymen and excavators; there are needed those who can educate, or hew and polish the stones when obtained; there are needed the organizers and buildersthose whose function it is to put the stones in their places, and build up the holy temple to the Lord.
2. The workers were diligent. They were set on as soon as funds were forthcoming to employ them, and they wrought with good heart till the work was finished. Labor in the kingdom of God should be diligent. The many workers did not work separately, but together, all of them helping one another; and similar combination and co-operation are necessary to overtake the work of Christ.
IV. FAITHFUL OVERSEERS. Another step in the right direction, following up the previous precautions to inspire confidence, was the appointment of men to superintend the work who could be implicitly trusted. It is a noble testimony borne concerning these men who did the part of overseers in the work of the temple, that they did not need to be reckoned with, “for they dealt faithfully.”
1. They were faithful in their oversight. They were men of probity and honor, who conscientiously looked after the men set under them, seeing that the work committed to their care was properly done. It is difficult to estimate the value, even in an economical respect, of the higher moral qualities of character. How much loss, suffering, disease, death, not to speak of minor annoyance, is inflicted on mankind through badly inspected, ill-done work? There is a sphere for faithfulness in the discharge of every kind of duty. Carlyle says of Louis XV; “His wide France, look at it from the fixed stars (them- selves not yet infinitude), is no wider than thy narrow brickfield, where thou, too, didst faithfully, or didst unfaithfully It is not thy works, which are all mortal, infinitely little, and the greatest no greater than the least, but only the spirit thou workest in that can have worth or continuance.”
2. They were faithful in their money dealings. So perfectly faithful that it was not felt necessary to keep a strict reckoning with them as to their expenditure upon the workmen. No better tribute could be paid to their incorruptible integrity than the trust thus reposed in them. It was only a very high degree of integrity which would warrant it. As a rule, it is wise to keep account even with those whose integrity we do not dispute.
V. RESPECT FOR RIGHTS. It is added that the revenues which properly belonged to the priests, the trespass money and sin money, were not touched for the purpose of the repairs. Neither was the money given for the restoration of the building applied, until the repairs were completed, to purchase new vessels for the sanctuarybowls of silver, snuffers, trumpets, etc. Probably in connection with the above arrangements for collecting the people’s money other steps were taken to put the priests’ legitimate income, the tithe dues, etc; on a more satisfactory footing. A regard for justice is thus observable throughout the whole of these dealings. Right is the proper basis to take one’s stand on in works of reformation.J.O.
2Ki 12:17-21
Dark days for Judah.
The reign of Joash began with bright promise, but ended in gloom and tribulation. It furnishes another instance of the evil consequences of forsaking God.
I. JOASH‘S APOSTASY. Of this a fuller account is given in the Book of Chronicles than here, though the statement in 2Ki 12:2, “Joash did right all his days wherein Jehoiada the priest instructed him,” already hints at a falling away after Jehoiada’s death. From Chronicles we learn the nature of his apostasy.
1. He yielded to bad counsel. His good adviser having died at the extreme age of a hundred and thirty, he listened to the flatteries and seductions of the princes of Judah, whose bent was all towards evil (2Ch 24:17).
2. He revived idolatry. If he did not actually participate in the renewed setting up of idols, he permitted it. Baal-worship, from which in infancy he had suffered so much, again lifted up its head in Jerusalem. For this trespass it is said, “wrath came upon Judah and Jerusalem” (2Ch 24:18).
3. He shed innocent blood. This declension of Joash was not allowed to go unrebuked. God sent prophets to him to testify to him and warn him, especially Zechariah, the son, or perhaps grandson, of the priest Jehoiada. But so far had the infatuation of Joash gone that he actually permitted this son of his former friend and benefactor to be stoned with stones between the temple and the altar in the court of the Lord’s house (2Ch 24:20-22; cf. Mat 23:35). This ineffaceable crime completed his ruin. As Zechariah died he had said,” The Lord look upon it, and require it” (2Ch 24:22); and God did require it. The Jews had a tradition that, at the capture of Jerusalem, this blood of Zechariah bubbled up from the floor of the temple court, and could not be pacified. Nebusaradan brought rabbis, and slew them on it, still it was not quiet; he brought children, and slew them on it, still it was not quiet; he slew ninety-four thousand on it, yet it was not quiet. The fable illustrates at least the heinousness of the deed.
II. HAZAEL‘S INVASION. The instrument employed to chastise Joash and the people for their sins was the redoubtable Hazael. He invaded the laud by the way of Philistia, and reduced it to great distress. We note regarding the invasion:
1. Its resistless character. It was but a very small company of. men that came with Hazael, but they seem to have swept the “very great host” of Judah before them with ease, destroying the princes of the people, who had been ringleaders in wickedness, and sending the spoil on to Damascus (cf. 2Ch 24:24). It is a fatal thing to break faith with God, to apostatize from solemn covenants with him, to provoke him to anger by open wickedness and deeds of blood. The strength of a nation stands not in its mighty men, but in the favor of God, and where that is withdrawn, a handful of armed men will chase a thousand (cf. Deu 4:25-27; Deu 28:27-48).
2. The ignominious tribute. What, in so deplorable a case, could Joash do? His princes, so bold in counseling him in courses of sin, were cowards in the field; and Hazael seemed bent on utterly overthrowing him. He had no alternative but to make the best terms he could, and buy the invader off. To furnish the requisite tribute he had to strip both the temple and his own house of all their goodly treasures. He took the hallowed things of his forefathers out of the temple, and the gold that was found in its treasuries; he took also his own gold, and sent everything to Hazael. He, the restorer of the temple, is forced to become the spoiler of the temple. To such depths of ignominy and misery are men led by forsaking the ways of God. Yet nothing seems to avail sinners for warning! They go on as madly in ways of wickedness as if no one had ever tried these paths before them, and found them the ways of death.
III. THE FATAL CONSPIRACY. We have, finally, the account of how Joash met his end by a conspiracy of two of his servants.
1. The origin of the conspiracy. We cannot err in supposing that it had its origin in the seething discontent of the people. They saw the kingdom going to pieces in the hands of an unfaithful king; they saw righteous blood shed; they had suffered severely from the barbarities of invasion. The conspirators do not seem to have plotted any dynastic change. Their act only expressed the bitter hatred with which the person of the king had come to be regarded. How different from the day when the multitude shouted, “God save the king!” And that change had come about solely through Joash’s departure from the right ways of God.
2. Its fatal result. The servants, whose names are given in the text, smote him in “the house of Millo” so that he died. Thus Joash fell by the stroke of an assassin, unpitied, unlamented by his people. When the bonds of godliness are loosed, the bonds of fidelity between man and man are loosed too (Hos 4:1, Hos 4:2).
3. The dishonor to his body. The crowning ignominy put upon Joash was the refusal of the people to allow him to be buried in the sepulcher of the kings, as Jehoiada had been (2Ch 24:25). This confirms what is said above of the odium in which he was held by his people.J.O.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
C.The reign of Joash (or Jehoash)
2Ki 11:21 to 2Ki 12:21 (2 Chronicles 24)
21Seven years old was Jehoash when he began to reign.
2Ki 12:1 In the seventh year of Jehu, Jehoash began to reign; and forty years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mothers name was Zibiah of Beer-sheba. 2And Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all his days wherein [because] Jehoiada the priest instructed him. 3But the high places were not taken away: the people still sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places. 4And Jehoash said to the priests, All the [consecrated] money [omit of the dedicated things] that is [wont to be] brought into the house of the Lord, even the money of every one that passeth the account [current money, both], the money that every man is set at, and all the money that cometh into any mans heart to bring into the house of the Lord, 5let the priests take it to them, every man of his acquaintance: and let them repair the breaches of the house, wheresoever any breach [every defect which] 11 shall be found. 6But it was so, that in the three and twentieth year of king Jehoash the priests had not repaired the breaches of the house. 7Then king Jehoash called for Jehoiada the priest, and the other priests, and said unto them, Why repair ye not the breaches of the house? now therefore receive no more money of your acquaintance, but [save that ye] deliver it for the breaches of the house. 8And the priests consented to receive12 no more money of the people, neither to repair the breaches of the house. 9But Jehoiada the priest took a chest,13 and bored a hole in the lid of it, and set it beside the altar, on the right side as one cometh into the house of the Lord: and the priests that kept the door put therein all the money that was brought into the house of the Lord. 10And it was so, when they saw that there was much money in the chest, that the kings scribe and the high priest came up, and they put [it] up in bags, and told the money that was found in the house of the Lord. 11And they gave the money, being told, into the hands of them that did the work, that had the oversight of the house of the Lord: and they laid it out to the carpenters and builders, that wrought upon the house of the Lord, 12and to masons, and hewers of stone, and to buy timber and hewed stone to repair the breaches of the house of the Lord, and for all that was laid out for the house to repair14 it. 13Howbeit there were not made for the house of the Lord bowls of silver, snuffers, basins [for sprinkling], trumpets, any vessels of gold, or vessels of silver, of the money that was brought into the house of the Lord: 14but they gave that to the workmen [commissioners], and repaired therewith the house of the Lord. 15Moreover they reckoned not with the men, into whose hand they delivered the money to be bestowed on workmen: 16for they dealt faithfully. The trespass-money and sin-money was not brought into the house of the Lord: it was the priests.
17Then Hazael king of Syria went up, and fought against Gath, and took it: and Hazael set his face to go up to Jerusalem. 18And Jehoash king of Judah took all the hallowed things that Jehoshaphat, and Jehoram, and Ahaziah, his fathers, kings of Judah, had dedicated, and his own hallowed things, and all the gold that was found in the treasures of the house of the Lord, and in the kings house, and sent it to Hazael king of Syria: and he went away from Jerusalem.
19And the rest of the acts of Joash, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah? 20And his servants arose, and made a conspiracy, and slew Joash in the house of Millo, which goeth down to Silla. 21For Jozachar the son of Shimeath, and Jehozabad the son of Shomer, his servants, smote him, and he died; and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David: and Amaziah his son reigned in his stead.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
2Ki 11:21. Jehoash was seven years old, &c. The parallel record in 2 Chronicles 24 is indeed more detailed than the one before us, and supplements it in some essential particulars, but it is not by any means an actual transmutation of it (Bertheau). Both accounts may well have been drawn from the same original document, since they are word for word the same in some parts.The name of the mother of Jehoash is given, as is usual in regard to the kings of Judah throughout the history. On Beersheba see note on 1Ki 19:3.The words in 2Ki 12:2 : All his days that Jehoiada the priest instructed him, cannot have the sense that Jehoash did, his whole life long, that which was right in the sight of God (Thenius, Ewald), for this was not true in view of what is related in 2Ch 24:17-25, which is confirmed by Mat 23:35, and which Thenius himself admits must have historical foundation. The Chronicler writes: All the days of Jehoiada the priest, i. e., so long as Jehoiada lived. The sense is, therefore, that Jehoash did what was right because, and so long as, Jehoiada was his instructor. Hence the Sept. translate; , ; and the Vulgate: cunctis diebus, quibus docuit eum Jojada sacerdos; so also De Wette and Luther [and the E. V.]. Keil: All his days that, i. e., all that part of his life in which Jehoiada instructed or guided him. For the use of he refers to Ew. 331, c, 3. [The suffix is repeated after except in general expressions of time, place, and manner.] For the suffix in he refers to 2Ki 13:14. The athnach cannot be held to be decisive in this case. For the rest, it does not follow, when we translate: All his days, because Jehoiada instructed him, that he continued to do well even after Jehoiadas death. Grotius remarks on the statement: Sic bonus Nero, quamdiu Seneca usus est magistro. [If the suffix in is retained, then the massoretic punctuation is correct; the athnach has its ordinary force; must be translated because; and the sense is that he was a good king all his life long, because of the good instruction which he received in his youth from Jehoiada. That is the simple grammatical statement of the book of Kings. If the at the end of can be sacrificed, then the athnach must be removed and Jehoiada is a genitive depending on . Let it be observed that this suffix is neglected in the versions of the Chron., Sept., and Vulg., quoted above. The sense then is that he was good as long as Jehoiada lived. This last has in its favor that it is consistent with the account in Chron. Bhr translates by because, preserving the suffix in , and tries to interpret the other meaning into this translation. The words: He did well all his days, because Jehoiada was his instructor, would never suggest that he ceased to do well after his teacher died. This attempt is fruitless, and we must make choice between the alternatives presented aboveeither to sacrifice the suffix in , and bring the account here into consistency with that in Chron., or to hold to the text and admit the discrepancy. It is a proceeding which a sound criticism cannot approve, to alter the text in the interest of supposed reconciliations. The rendering of the E. V. saves the suffix, and still produces the other sense by translating , wherein, but this is entirely contrary to the usage of the language. It would require a prep. and suffix after , referring back to .W. G. S.] On sacrifices on the high places, see note on 1Ki 3:2.
2Ki 12:4. And Jehoash said to the priests, &c. The temple had fallen out of repair, not so much on account of its age (it had only been standing for 130 years) as because it had not been properly preserved under the previous reigns, nay, even had been injured by Athaliah and her sons, and the money intended to keep it in repair had been misappropriated to the worship of Baal (2Ch 24:7). The king therefore called upon the priests, whose calling it was, to take measures for the restoration and repair of the building, and, to this end, to collect the same tax which Moses had once laid for the purpose of building the tabernacle (2Ch 24:6). , i. e., all the sliver which was wont to be brought into the sanctuary, and to be given for its purposes. This is now defined more particularly by the following words, , i. e., not floating money, irregular income, money from mere accidental gifts (Ewald), but current money (Luther: das gang und gebe ist. Cf. Gen 23:16, where the expression cannot be taken in any other way). It does not mean coined money, for the Hebrews had no coined money before the exile, so far as we know, but pieces of silver which had a fixed weight, and which were weighed out from man to man in the transaction of business. The reason why this kind of money was called for was, that it was to be paid out at once to mechanics for their labor (Thenius). Keil, following the rabbis, insists upon the translation: money of the numbered, referring back to Exo 30:13 sq. ( ); but against this translation there is the decisive consideration that it does not say: money of him who passeth among the numbered, but simply: money which passes over, that is, which passes from hand to hand in the transaction of affairs. The special cases are then mentioned in which this kind of money usually came into the treasury. The first is the one mentioned and ordained Lev 27:2 sq. (cf. Num 18:15), when any one fulfilled a vow. In this case, the priest had to fix the sum to be paid according to the sex, age, &c., of the one who had made the vow. This ransom was appropriated in the time of Moses to the support of the sanctuary. The second case was where any one brought money as a gift to the sanctuary of his own free will.According to the account in 2 Chron., the king ordered the priests to go out through the cities of Judah, and to collect the tax year by year. This does not contradict the statement before us, but rather serves to explain the words in 2Ki 12:5 : every man of his acquaintance. The dependence was upon free-will offerings, as was the case in reference to the tabernacle (Exo 35:21); the priests and levites were to exert themselves to collect these, each one in his own city and in his own circle. It is to be observed that the king did not demand of the priests that they should give up, for the repairs of the temple, any income which properly came to themselves, but that he only laid claim, for this purpose, to the funds which Moses had ordained should be used in this way.
2Ki 12:6. But it was so, that in the three and twentieth year, &c. According to 2Ch 24:5, the king had commanded the priests to hasten, but they did not hasten. Even in the 23d year of the reign of Jehoash, i. e., in the year in which there was a change of occupant of the throne of Israel (2Ki 13:1), the priests had not yet attended to the repairs of the temple, or, at best, had only attended to them very imperfectly. We cannot tell how long before his 23d year he had commanded them to see to it, but it was certainly not in his first year, when he was only seven years old. He now proposes that he will take the matter into his own hands, and adopt other measures for accomplishing it, to which they agree. This interpretation is enforced by , 2Ki 12:8 : they consented (Sept., , cf. Gen 34:15; Gen 34:22-23), which cannot possibly mean: They were obliged to yield to the determination of the king (Thenius). and the following words, 2Ki 12:7, It was placed of the House of the Lord, do not contain a strict command, but rather a proposal: nolite ergo amplius accipere (Vulg.), otherwise the corresponding statement would be that they obeyed, not that they consented. Only after the king had taken the matter into his own hands did he give orders (2Ch 24:8) to make a chest, &c. [The commentators differ widely in their judgment of the conduct of the priests in this matter, some seizing eagerly upon an incident which reflects discreditably upon them, others insisting upon a construction which shall exonerate them entirely. Bhr does not take up the point distinctly in this place. Yet 2Ki 12:8 is very obscure, and it is important for its elucidation to understand the attitude of the priests. The disposition of the priests is the key to the situation, and the correct conception of that point is the key to the correct exegesis of the verse. The impression is unavoidable that the first effort failed because it was in the hands of the priests. The payments in liquidation of vows were appropriated to the support of the worship. According to the Chronicler an especial demand was made for free-will offerings for the repairs, and that which it came into the heart of any man to give must be understood of offerings for this special end. Otherwise we might think that it referred simply to pious gifts, which the priests were wont to retain for themselves, and which the giver expected that they would retain. If we adopt the statement of the Chronicler, then, it is clear that the priests could not have used the money for themselves without embezzlement. In any case the re-appropriation to the repairs of the temple of sums which they had probably been using for some time (especially during the prevalence of idolatry) for their own support, must have curtailed their resources. That they gave them up willingly, is not to be supposed. Sums thus appropriated, but left in the administration of persons all whose interests were opposed to this use, would not probably be found to suffice for an energetic prosecution of the work. This would also check the zeal, and stop the offerings, of the people. The systematic revenue of the priests under the Mosaic constitution had been broken up during the time of apostasy; they had been obliged to make use of all the revenues of whatever kind for their own support; and the incident does not seem, when viewed fairly, to prove any extraordinary selfishness on their part. The king now, seeing that the measures he had taken to accomplish his object had only served to frustrate it, ordered them not to receive any more money for themselves, but to devote all they received to this object. Between 2Ki 12:7-8 a discussion must be understood in which the priests explained the defects in the practical workings of this scheme, and the result was an agreement that they should neither serve as collectors of the money nor be responsible for the repairs. They put the whole matter out of their hands. (See Histor. 3.)W. G. S.]
2Ki 12:9. But Jehoiada the priest took a chest, &c. The king did not even now exclude the priests from all share in the work, but took his measures in conjunction with the chief-priest, and also appointed the priests that kept the door to receive the money. The chest had a hole in its lid, into which the money was dropped. It was locked, and was only opened when it was full. Its position was by the side of the altar, on the right as one entered the temple. Instead of this we read in Chronicles: , i. e., outside. It did not, therefore, stand in the middle of the priests court (Thenius), but outside of it, at the entrance-gate which was on its right. According to 2Ch 24:9-10, the king caused this arrangement to be proclaimed throughout the whole country; it was joyfully heard, and the people now gave abundantly. [The most reasonable explanation of this is, that, under the new arrangement, a man saw his gift placed in the chest. He knew that this was inaccessible to all except the appointed officers, and that his gift was, therefore, sure to be applied to the object for which he gave it. The share of the priests was reduced to the mechanical duty of receiving the money and placing it in the chest.W. G. S.] When the chest was full, the priest sent his scribe, i. e., a civil secretary, and, in his presence, the chest was opened. This was done, not out of distrust of the priests, but because the repairs were a matter of state interest, and not merely an affair of the priests. The temple was the chief sanctuary of the nation, of the theocracy, and it was under the supervision of the king (Lisco). The money was bound up in bags and counted (cf. 2Ki 5:23). (The Chronicler has for , i. e., they emptied out. So the Vulg. also on the verse before us: effundebantque et numerabant pecuniam.) The binding up in bags is mentioned before the counting because the pieces were not counted separately. They were bound up in bags and these were weighed in order thus to estimate the sum which had been received (Keil).Them that had the oversight of the House of the Lord, to whom the money was given (2Ki 12:11), are those who had to oversee the building. According to 2Ch 34:12, they were levites. The keri is supported by 2Ki 22:5. The sense remains the same. These overseers then paid the wages to the artisans of different kinds, and purchased the necessary building materials.The statement in 2Ki 12:13-14 does not contradict 2Ch 24:14. It is there stated that, when the building was finished, and still some money remained, this was placed at the disposition of the king and the high-priest, who used it to procure gold and silver utensils. On these utensils, see 1Ki 7:50.No accounts were demanded of the overseers of the building, we are told in 2Ki 12:15, because they were implicitly trusted. 2Ki 22:7 shows that there is no reference here to a presumed infidelity of the priests, for the same words are used there, where the priests had not had anything at all to do with the work. It is only intended to call attention to the conscientiousness with which this work was taken in hand, inasmuch as the most trustworthy men were charged with it. The remark in 2Ki 12:16 has a similar object, viz., to show that the priests did not suffer on account of the new arrangement, but that the revenues which properly belonged to them, those from the trespass-offerings and the sin-offerings, were still given to them. On the trespass-offerings, see Num 5:8 sq., and Lev 5:16. According to the law, the priest received no money from the sin-offering. We must, therefore, suppose that it had become customary to give them a voluntary gift of money besides the flesh of the sacrifice (Lev 6:24).
2Ki 12:17. Then Hazael, king of Syria, went up, &c. This expedition belongs to the time when Jehoiada was already dead, and Jehoash had fallen into sin, as is clear from 2Ch 24:15-22. As Gath, one of the five cities of the Philistines (Jos 13:3), lay much farther south than Samaria, and was almost due west of Jerusalem towards the sea-coast, this expedition against it forces us to assume that Israel had been already conquered by Hazael (2Ki 13:3). We must leave undecided whether Gath at that time belonged to Judah, or had fallen again into the possession of the Philistines. As Jerusalem was not far off, the conqueror was led to attack it next, but he was induced, by the surrender of the treasures, to withdraw. It is certain that 2Ch 24:23 sq. does not refer to another, earlier expedition, as Thenius asserts. That account does not contradict the one before us; on the contrary it supplements it most fittingly, for it is very improbable priori that Jehoash purchased peace by this heavy sacrifice, until after he had suffered the shameful defeat of which the Chronicler gives an account. Moreover, the fact that the Syrians withdrew without prosecuting their victory farther is explained by this peace thus purchased (Bertheau).
2Ki 12:18. And Jehoash. took all the hallowed things, &c. Clericus answers the question why, if there was such a store of these valuable articles, they were not used for the repairs, instead of collecting taxes and offerings, as follows: Credibile est, res consecratas, quarum hic fit mentio, vasa fuisse sacra, quae vendere aut in monetam constare et cudere nolebant, ut servarentur in extrem necessitatis casus, qualis hic erat, ubi Jerosolym et totius regni agebatur. In regard to the implied statement that offerings had been dedicated by Jehoram and Ahaziah, who walked in the way of the house of Ahab (2Ki 8:18; 2Ki 8:27), let it be observed that these kings did not formally abolish the worship of Jehovah, but only introduced the worship of Baal by the side of it, and, in order not to come into an open conflict with the people and the influential priesthood, they even made offerings to the temple of Jehovah. The utensils which, according to 2Ch 24:7, Athaliah and her sons had taken from the temple, and misappropriated to the service of Baal, had no doubt been restored to their original purpose before the occasion mentioned in 2Ki 11:18 (Thenius).
2Ki 12:20. And his servants arose, &c. The Chronicler here gives a very essential addition to the narrative. He states in detail the reasons for the conspiracy, and the occasion of it. The conspirators murdered the king in his bed, where he was confined by wounds, probably by those received in the war with the Syrians. Thenius translates: In the castle-palace. Millo was a castle or tower, it is true (see above, note on 1Ki 9:15; cf. 2Sa 5:9), but can hardly refer to a particular building inside this castle. If it did, we should need to have , with the article, as in the other places. As a complete fortress in itself, Millo might be called . The more definite description is itself obscure. No one of the explanations proposed deserves decided preference to the others. All the old versions take as a proper name, and this certainly seems more correct than to consider it identical with , a street, as Grotius and Thenius do, or with , slope or ascent, as Ewald does.In 2Ki 12:21, instead of: Jozachar, the son of Shimeath, and Jehozabad, the son of Shomer, the Chronicler has: Zabad, the son of Shimeath, an Ammonitess, and Jehozabad, the son of Shimrith, a Moabitess. We must give the preference to this latter statement as the more complete, for the designation of the two mothers instead of the two fathers, as an Ammonitess and a Moabitess, cannot be an invention of the Chronicler, but is taken from the original document. Perhaps it is stated to show that the murderers were not of Jewish descent, but came from foreign mothers. is a mistake for , and this is a shorter form for (Keil), and may have arisen from the defective form by dropping the . [Although the names (as given in Kings) are certainly historical, yet it is very remarkable that the etymology of them, Jehovah-remembers, son of Hearing, and Jehovah-awards, son of Watcher, suggests the last words of Zechariah: Jehovah sees it and will requite it (Thenius).] The further statement of the Chronicler: and they buried him in the city of David, but they buried him not in the sepulchres of the kings, does not contradict this record. He was buried in the city of David, where his fathers were buried, but not in the sepulchres of the kings (Bertheau), probably on account of the action mentioned in 2Ch 24:17 sq.
HISTORICAL AND ETHICAL
1. The author chooses out of the history of the forty years reign of Jehoash the restoration of the temple, of which he speaks particularly, and passes over the other incidents which the Chronicler narrates. He would hardly have done this if he had seen in this restoration nothing more than a matter of ordinary business routine, a necessity which had arisen in the course of time. The temple, as the dwelling of Jehovah in the midst of His people, is the visible sign and pledge of the covenant (see note on the Temple after the Exeg. section on 1 Kings 6). The covenant of Jehovah was solemnly restored and renewed at the elevation of the rescued scion of the house of David to the throne, and the temple, the sign and pledge of this covenant, which had become dilapidated, and had been plundered, under Jehoram, Ahaziah, and Athaliah, could not be left in that condition. On the contrary, it must be the chief task of the new king of the dynasty of David, who had sworn to the covenant on his accession, to restore the temple during his reign. As David was the founder, and Solomon the builder, of the House of Jehovah, so Jehoash, with whom the House of David recommenced, as it were, was the restorer of the sanctuary. We have here, therefore, a theocratic action, a physical confession of faith, and a seal upon the renewal and restoration of the covenant. This is why it is so especially mentioned as the most important incident in the reign of Jehoash. The reason why Jehoash, when he undertook the restoration of the temple, unquestionably at the instigation of Jehoiada, did not carry out the work at the expense of the royal treasury, but called upon the whole people to contribute, as Moses had once done for the tabernacle (Exo 25:2-9), was not that the crown was not then by any means able, as it had been in Solomons time, to carry out such, works by itself (Ewald), but rather, in order that the entire people might give a physical proof that it had renewed the covenant with Jehovah (2Ki 11:17).
2. King Jehoash was not by any means a ruler who was distinguished for intellect and strength. Lack of independence, and moral weakness, were the most noticeable features of his character. He had in Jehoiada the support which he needed. After the death of this counsellor and guide, he became, although he was already advanced in life, vacillating, and fell into evil courses. It was a great weakness on the part of one who had renewed the covenant with Jehovah, and rebuilt the temple, to yield to the entreaties of the chiefs of Judah, who flattered him by their cringing sub-missiveness, and to allow them (2Ch 24:17 sq.) the forbidden, lascivious worship of Astarte (see Exeg. on 1Ki 11:5). It was something more than weakness that he caused Zechariah, the son of his former counsellor, to be stoned, when he condemned this mistaken course, and predicted calamity (2Ch 24:20 sq.). No less weak was his conduct in his dealings with Hazael. Instead of making a vigorous opposition to him, trusting in God, as Hezekiah did (chap. 19), he surrendered to him, although he had only a small force, all the consecrated offerings which his ancestors had made to the temple, and all those which he himself had dedicated up to this point in his reign, in order to induce him to withdraw (2Ki 12:18 sq.; 2Ch 24:24). [Observe, however, the Exegetical note on 2Ki 12:17, quotation from Bertheau, at the end.W. G. S.] It is very possible that he had embittered the people against him by all this, and thus given occasion for the conspiracy, as a result of which he fell. He was the first king of Judah who came to a violent end at the hands of his own subjects, and the discontent was so great that he was not even buried in the royal sepulchres. Such was the disgraceful end of one whose childhood was marked by such wonderful providences (Schlier). He shows us, by his example, whither weakness in a prince may lead. It is not only a something wanting, but it is the weightiest sin. Ewald contradicts himself when he says, basing the statement upon , 2Ki 12:2 : He adopted the principles of his teacher with such docility that he remained true to them even after he came of age, and then says again, a few pages further on: Heathenism may indeed have gained a footing again under his weak rule. This view also contradicts the statement in 2Ch 24:22, whose historical truth is admitted. Thenius also forces the words in such a way that he calls Jehoash a praiseworthy king, and speaks of his good reign, and of his continuous good conduct. In regard to the narrative of the Chronicler, which is inconsistent with this view, he remarks, giving it a strained and unnatural construction: Probably this command (to stone Zechariah) was given by Jehoash in a moment of rage, and was forced from him, as it were, by Zechariahs enemies. But, even if we let this pass, the purchase of a peace from Hazael by a shameful surrender was not the act of a. praiseworthy king; and the murder of Jehoash was not a mere act of revenge. The pains which are taken to present this king in any other light than that in which he appears in these two biblical records, are all spent in vain. The opinion that Psalms 51 contains a prayer of Jehoash in deep penitence for his error (Thenius), must be regarded as very mistaken. Neither can it be inferred from these historical records, as it is by Vaihinger (in Herzog, Realencyc., vi. s. 717), that the prophet Joel belongs to the time of this king, and that his prophecies apply to the events of this reign.
3. In regard to the conduct of the priests in reference to the restoration of the temple which the king had commanded, the opinions are very divergent. The assertion of J. D. Michaelis and De Wette, that the priests had embezzled the funds collected for this object, is to be summarily dismissed. Thenius goes still further, and says: They (the priests) did nothing towards carrying out the project, because the royal command appropriated a part, probably no insignificant part, of the revenues of the priests, in the intention of diminishing their arrogance. The priesthood may have fallen greatly in a moral point of view since Athaliahs influence had brought the Jehovah-religion into neglect, and their attention may have been exclusively directed to their own selfish interest. Probably the priests had kept the free-will offerings, which were intended for the repairs of the temple, entirely for their own use, contrary to law. But the text does not say that the king intended to restrict the revenues of the priests; on the contrary, it is expressly stated (2Ki 12:16) that this was not done. Neither is there any hint of any moral decay in the priesthood. [The idea that the priests were guilty of any arrogance which needed curbing is certainly imported into the case. It is priori very unlikely that they would be guilty of this fault on emerging from the circumstances in which they had been during the previous years. Arrogance is the sin of long and great prosperity. The priori probability that the priesthood had suffered in morale during the prevalence of idolatry is great, also that their revenues had been greatly impaired.W. G. S.] The king would never have commissioned them to undertake the management of this work, if they had had the reputation of being dishonest in money matters. Still less, if unfaithfulness and cheating on their part had been the cause that the contributions did not flow in in sufficient abundance, would he have asked these priests for their consent (2Ki 12:8) to the change of his first arrangements, and to the new measures which he proposed. Moreover, he would not have charged the priests who guarded the door to receive the money and put it in the chest, which arrangement still left them an opportunity for dishonesty (Keil). [The circumstantial description of the box, its arrangement and position, show that it was intended to free the priests from any suspicion, just or not, which attached to them. If the suspicion was unjust, they were most interested in a public arrangement for the reception of these contributions which should free them from it. It is enough to suppose that, when all the money, that intended for themselves and that intended for the repairs, came into their hands, the distribution of it according to the intentions of the givers may have been uncertain and imperfect. At any rate, the givers could not be certain that their money would reach its destined object. Any such popular distrust would, according to all experience, speedily reduce the contributions to a very languid flow. The chest-arrangement now accomplished two objects. It permitted the giver to divide his offering for the temple from the offering for the priests, and to see for himself that it was at once put where it could not be applied otherwise than as he intended. The true force of 2Ki 12:16 is that, at this time, the revenues of the temple were divided and definitely appropriated, and that the sorts of revenue there mentioned were specifically set apart for the support of the priests. When the priests share in the transaction was limited to the reception of the money and its immediate deposition in a receptacle, which is expressly declared to have been in the most public place in the temple enclosure, it was impossible to suspect them any longer of dishonesty, unless they were most accomplished rogues. There is no express mention of any dishonesty in the record, but this arrangement with the chest has unquestionably suggested a suspicion which has always been felt by readers of the passage. See also bracketed note under Exegetical on 2Ki 12:8.W. G. S.] On the other hand, the reason for the new scheme was not simply this, that the first plan had proved inadequate for the purpose, because the king had not appropriated any definite sum for the repairs of the temple, but had left it to the priests to pay for the repairs out of the gross sum received (Keil). The text itself gives the true reason in clear and definite words (2Ch 24:5): The levites hastened it not, as the king had commanded them. [If this were the only reason, the pertinency of the arrangement with the chest would not be apparent.W. G. S.] The reason was not, therefore, dishonesty and embezzlement on the part of the priests and levites, but their lack of zeal, their indifference and neglect in an affair in which they, as servants of the sanctuary, ought to have been most interested. It is as impossible to acquit them of all blame as it is to convict them of dishonesty. When a chest was placed in the temple for the sole purpose of receiving the offerings for this purpose, and when particular officers were designated to take charge of the fund, there was an end of the languid activity of the priests and levites in the collection of the contributions. Each one who came to the temple brought his gift cheerfully, as is distinctly stated in 2Ch 24:10. De Wettes assertion that the Chronicler smoothed over the matter, out of his well-known affection for the priesthood, is entirely arbitrary, for the record does not contain a syllable about unfaithfulness; it states, on the contrary, that it was the priests who received the money and placed it in the chest, under the second plan.
[From the note on 2Ki 12:8 and the inserted remarks in the above section, it will be seen that this delineation of the conduct of the priests in this matter is not satisfactory. If we look at the record without unfair partisan feeling either against or in behalf of the priests, we cannot avoid the conviction that their fault was not limited to a want of zeal in the collection of funds, but that it was connected with their administration of the money. In 2Ki 12:4 the king charged them to take certain moneys and use them for the repairs of the temple. He addressed them because they were the proper parties to be commissioned to do this work. It was not until they proved incompetent, in some way or other, that it was taken out of their hands, or that they gave it up. The revenues which are specified in 2Ki 12:4 are, 1, that at which every man is set, which is to us very obscure, but is probably correctly explained in the Exegetical note on the verse; and 2, free-will offerings which the priests were to solicit of their acquaintances. In the kings twenty-third year the work had not been done. There was fault somewhere. In 2Ki 12:7 the kings address distinctly implies that the work had not been done because the money which had been received from the acquaintances of the priests had not been appropriated to this purpose. Various reasons for this are suggested in the translators note on 2Ki 12:7, which are sufficient without assuming that the priests had dishonestly taken for themselves what had been intended for another use. It is very probable that the revenues had never been distinguished in a manner sufficiently definite, or that, if they had formerly been definitely distinguished and appropriated, they had been used indiscriminately for the support of the priests, during the troubles of the last two reigns, and had not all together more than sufficed for this purpose. 2Ki 12:16 implies that the various revenues were now definitely appropriated, and one of the advantages of the chest-plan was that it served to distinguish them. The reply of the priests to this reproach and command (2Ki 12:7) is not given, but they consented to yield up the entire work and the entire responsibility. This gap between 2Ki 12:7-8 is the place at which the various inventions, more or less derogatory to the priests, find entrance. It is as fair as any supposition which can be made, and accords as well with 2Ki 12:8, to suppose that they denied the imputation, pointed out the difficulty in distinguishing the revenues intended for the temple from those intended for the priests, and surrendered the responsibility both for the money and for the work. The plan then adopted, which put this money by itself, and out of the control of the priests, proves conclusively that the work had not been accomplished because the money intended for it passed through their hands. Their administration of it had been defective, to say the least; it is not necessary to conclude that it had been intentionally dishonest.W. G. S.]
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
(2 Chronicles 24 is to be compared throughout as a supplementary record.) 2Ki 12:1-21. The Reign of King Jehoash. (a) During Jehoiadas life-time, 2Ki 12:1-16; (b) after his death, 2Ki 12:17-21.
2Ki 12:1-4. Kyburz: Woe to thee, O land, when thy king is a child! (Ecc 10:16) but blessed is the nation, the youth of whose prince is in just and holy guidance. Such good fortune had Judah under the guardian care of the wise and experienced Jehoiada.That which appears to be the greatest misfortune for a child, to be left fatherless and motherless at an early age, often becomes a great blessing in the gracious Providence of God. What would have become of Jehoash if he had been brought up at the court of his idolatrous father and his depraved mother? God gave him in Jehoiada far more than he had lost in his father and his mother.There is no greater blessing possible for a young prince, who comes to the throne in his youth, than to have a wise counsellor. Would that God might give to every prince a Jehoiada! The first duty of a prince is to pray God for such an one, and to listen to his counsel.None need instruction more than those who are called to govern; there is no more responsible calling than that of instructing those who will have to rule. Unfortunately this task is rarely entrusted to those who, like Jehoiada, are fitted for it by age, learning, experience, and piety. Wrt. Summ.: We ought to pray to God for wise counsellors, to thank Him for them, to pray for long life for them, and to regard it as a heavy divine punishment when He takes them away (Jer 3:4).
2Ki 12:3. The same: Rulers ought not to allow themselves to be restrained from carrying out what is good and right from any fear of persons, lest they may possibly incur the disfavor of the people. There never was a prince who was not himself guilty of faults and errors, as we see here from the example of Jehoash, who did not abolish the sacrifices on the high places.
2Ki 12:4-16. The Restoration of the Sanctuary. (a) The kings command to undertake it; (b) the conduct of the priests in the matter (see Historical, 3). It is true that God does not dwell in temples made with hands (1Ki 8:27; Act 7:48); we can worship Him as well in a ruin as in the most magnificent church. But when the building, in which a congregation assembles to worship God, to hear His word, and to receive the means of grace, is left ruinous, God does not receive the honor which belongs to Him. Where the churches fall to ruins, there religion and piety also fall into decay; but where there is love of God and joy in His word, there no ruinous churches are seen. A time in which magnificent palaces, theatres, and ball-rooms are repaired or built at great expense, but in which the houses of God are left small, wretched, dirty, and ruinous, is a time of religious decay, and resembles the time of Athaliah in Judah.The apostle says of the Christian church: For ye are the temple of the living God (2Co 6:16). This temple also may in time become ruinous through unbelief, worldly life and behavior, and immorality. Where are the congregations in which there is nothing ruinous or decayed, in which nothing could be improved? How many are in ruins and are ready to fall! He who destroys the temple of God, or allows it to be destroyed, him will God destroy (1Co 3:17). We cannot indeed repair those breaches by money. They can only be repaired by coming to the living stone, which is rejected of men, but which is chosen of God (1Pe 2:4-6).
2Ki 12:4-5. The congregation ought to be called upon to contribute to religious objects, which can only be accomplished by expending money. How long a time often elapses before means enough are collected even for the most necessary objects, not to mention that many give unwillingly (2Co 9:7).
2Ki 12:6-8. Works which are pleasing to God cannot be accomplished by careless hands. They are only accomplished where zeal is united with perseverance, patience, and fidelity.There have always been such careless, indifferent priests and pastors, and there are such yet. They execute their traditional, official duties, but only by routine, and from a sense of duty, not with zeal and enthusiasm. No zeal for the kingdom of God (Joh 2:17) and for the salvation of souls can be noticed in them. How many a congregation has fallen into decay and remained so, because those who were appointed to be the builders of it, who ought to have repaired and built it, have not raised their negligent hands (Heb 12:12). Cursed be he that doeth the work of the Lord deceitfully (Jer 48:10). Although no earthly king may ever call them to account, yet the heavenly king, before whose judgment-seat they must appear to give an account of their office, will ask: Why repair ye not the breaches of the house?
2Ki 12:10 sq. Wrt Summ.: In former times, under the papacy, the church authorities excluded all secular persons from the affairs which belonged to the clergy: under the gospel, in some places, secular persons aim to exclude the clergy from all participation in church affairs, and claim to rule alone; so the matter is always wrongly treated, and men go from one mistake to another; this should not be so.Public account should be rendered of all moneys and gifts which are collected for religious or benevolent purposes, in order that it may be known that they are applied as was designed, and that the giver may be encouraged to further liberality.
2Ki 12:11-12. The laborer is worthy of his hire. Wages ought to be given punctually to diligent and faithful workmen (Jer 22:13; Lev 19:13).
2Ki 12:13-14. What is necessary and useful is always to be preferred to what is beautiful; only when the former is provided may the latter be thought of. How often the contrary course is pursued.
2Ki 12:15. What a proud thing it is for builders and workmen when they can be trusted, and it is not necessary to oversee them. When work is carried on honestly and faithfully, then Gods blessing follows.
2Ki 12:16. Starke: To every one his own, to God what is Gods, to the priests what is theirs (Sir 7:32; 1Co 9:11).Let not anything which justly belongs to any one be taken from him.
2Ki 12:17-21. The Pall of King Jehoash and its Consequences, (a) As long as Jehoiada lived, Jehoash did what was right: when he had lost this support he fell (2Ch 24:15-22). Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall (1Co 10:12). It is a good thing that the heart be established with grace (Heb 13:9). How many have begun in the spirit and ended in the flesh (Gal 3:3). The best instruction cannot preserve against a fall, if the heart is not firm and strong. Only he who endures unto the end shall be saved, therefore: Be thou faithful, &c. (Rev 2:10). The noblest commencement is vain, if the end is perverse and wicked; on the contrary: All is well that ends well. (b) At the time when Jehoash had sinned so grievously, one calamity after another came upon him; first, the great defeat (2Ki 12:17-18), by which he lost all his treasures, then, the conspiracy which cost him his life (2Ki 12:20-21). So the words of the dying prophet (2Ch 24:22) were fulfilled: The Lord look upon it and require it! (2Ch 24:22). So Jehoash was taught what calamities it brings to abandon the Lord God (Jer 2:19). The Lord rewards every one according to his works, whether in this or the next world. What a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Jehoash was marvellously preserved as an infant (2Ki 11:2-3), he ends his life wretchedly.Starke: This is an example how near the ruin of a man is when he abandons the good to which he was educated from his youth up, nay, even is glad to be rid of those who annoy him by their warnings.
2Ki 12:18. A man may buy with money his acquittal from a human tribunal, but not from the just judgment of God; nothing helps here but repentance and a new life (Eze 18:26-28).
2Ki 12:20-21. All the people shouted to the child-king: Long live the king! and rejoiced and blew the trumpets. Conspiracy and murder were the end of his forty-years reign. Sic transit gloria mundi.
Footnotes:
[11]2Ki 12:5 (6 of the Hebrew text).[ at the end is a predicate defining , all which shall be found defective, i.e., all the defective places which shall be found. Cf. 2Ki 8:12.]
[12]2Ki 12:8 (9).[ for , the fem. inf. shortened before makkeph. Cf. Ewald, 213, a.]
[13]2Ki 12:9 (10).[ is commonly adjective, but is sometimes used as a dependent substantive, as here. Ew. 286, d.]
[14]2Ki 12:12 (13).[, fem. abstract subst. In verbs which denote a state we find that the infin. is often supplanted by the subst. which expresses the abstract of the verbal idea. For repairs = to repair, with which, however, the object must be supplied (Bttcher, 277, 8).W. G. S.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
This chapter contains the history of Jehoash’s reign and death. He governed well during the life of Jehoiada, but after was led away from his uprightness. His death was induced by the treachery of his servants.
2Ki 12:1
Whether the reign of Jehoash is reckoned from the seventh year of his life, when Jehoiada brought him forth to the people and anointed him king, is not said, but seems likely. And if so, he died in the prime of life, at the age of 47.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
IX
ELISHA, THE SUCCESSOR OF ELIJAH
2Ki 2:13-13:21
For the sake of unity, this chapter, like the one on Elijah, will be confined to a single person, Elisha, who was the minister, the disciple, and the successor of the prophet Elijah. “Minister” means an attendant who serves another generally a younger man accompanying and helping an older man. A passage illustrating this service 2Ki 3:11 : “Elisha, who poured water on the hands of Elijah.” We may here recall a situation when no wash basin was convenient, and the water was poured on our hands for our morning ablutions. A corresponding New Testament passage is Act 13:5 : “Paul and Barnabas had John Mark to their minister,” that is, the young man, John Mark, attended the two older preachers, and rendered what service he could. Elisha was also a disciple of Elijah. A disciple is a student studying under a teacher. In the Latin we call the teacher magister. Elijah was Elisha’s teacher in holy things. Then Elisha was a successor to Elijah. Elijah held the great office of prophet to Israel, and in view of his speedy departure, God told him to anoint Elisha to be his successor, that is, successor as prophet to the ten tribes.
About four years before the death of Ahab, 800 B.C., Elijah, acting under a commission from God, found Elisha plowing, and the record says, “with twelve yoke of oxen.” I heard a cowman once say that it was sufficient evidence of a man’s fitness to preach when he could plow twelve yoke of oxen and not swear. But the text may mean that Elisha himself plowed with one yoke, and superintended eleven other plowmen. Anyhow, Elijah approached him and dropped his mantle around him. That was a symbolic action, signifying, “When I pass away you must take my mantle and be my successor.” Elisha asked permission to attend to a few household affairs. He called together all the family, and announced that God had called him to a work so life-filling he must give up the farm life and devote himself to the higher business. To symbolize the great change in vocation he killed his own yoke of oxen and roasted them with his implements of husbandry; and had a feast of the family to celebrate his going into the ministry. It is a great thing when the preacher knows how to burn the bridges behind him, and when the family of the preacher recognizes the fulness and completeness of the call to the service of God.
The lesson of this and other calls is that no man can anticipate whom God will call to be his preacher. He called this man from the plow handles. He called Amos from the gathering of sycomore fruit; he called Matthew from the receipt of custom; he called the fishermen from their nets; he called a doctor in the person of Luke. We cannot foretell; the whole matter must be left to God and to God alone, for he alone may put a man into the ministry. I heard Dr. Broadus preach a great sermon on that once: “I thank Christ Jesus, my Lord, for that he hath enabled me and counted me faithful, putting me into this ministry, who was before a blasphemer.”
Elijah served as a prophet fifty-five years. That is a long ministry. There were six kings of Israel before he passed away, as follows: Ahab, Ahaziah, Jehoram, Jehu, Jehoahaz, and Joash. There were five sovereigns of Judah, to wit: Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Athaliah (this one a woman) and Joash. Athaliah was queen by usurpation.
God said to Elijah, “Anoint Elisha to be thy successor; anoint Jehu to be king of Israel, and anoint Hazael to be king of Syria.” Now here were two men God-appointed to the position of king, as this man was to the position of prophet, and we distinguish them in this way: It does not follow that because the providence of God makes a man to be king, that the man is conscious of his divine call, like the one who is called to be a preacher. For instance, he says, “I called Cyrus to do what I wanted done: I know him, though he does not know me.” The lesson is that God’s rule is supreme over all offices. Even the most wicked are overruled to serve his general purposes in the government of the world.
The biblical material for a sketch of Elisha’s life 1Ki 19:16 to 2Ki 13:21 . Elisha means, “God the Saviour.” The Greek form is Elisaios; we find it in the Greek text of Luk 4:27 , where our Lord says, “There were many widows in Israel in the days of Elisaios. ” “Elijah” is Hebrew, and “Elias” is the corresponding Greek word; “Elisha” is Hebrew, and “Elisaios” is the corresponding Greek form.
We will now distinguish between the work of Elijah and Elisha, giving some likenesses and some unlikenesses. In the chapter on Elijah attention has already been called to the one great unlikeness, viz: that Elijah did not live in public sight; he appeared only occasionally for a very short time. Elisha’s whole life was in the sight of the public; he had a residence in the city of Samaria, and a residence at Gilgal; he was continually passing from one theological seminary to another; he was in the palaces of the kings, and they always knew where to find him. He had a great deal to do with the home life of the people, with the public life of the people and with the governmental life of the people. There were some points of likeness in their work, so obvious I need not now stop to enumerate them. Elijah’s life was more ascetic, and his ministry was mainly a ministry of judgment, while Elisha’s was one of mercy.
The New Testament likenesses of these two prophets are as follows: Elijah corresponds to John the Baptist, and Elisha’s ministry is very much like the ministry of Jesus in many respects.
There were many schools of the prophets in the days of Elijah and Elisha. Commencing with Jericho we have one; the next was at Bethel; the third at Gilgal not the Gilgal near Jericho but the one in the hill country of Ephraim and there was one at Mount Carmel. These stretched across the whole width of the country four theological seminaries. The history shows us that Elijah, just before his translation, visited every one of them in order, and that Elisha, as soon as Elijah was translated, visited the same ones in reverse order, and there is one passage in the text that tells us that he was continually doing this.
I think the greatest work of Elisha’s life was this instruction work; it was the most far-reaching; it provided a great number of men to take up the work after he passed away. Indeed the schools of the prophets were the great bulwarks of the kingdom of God for 500 years during the Hebrew monarchy. We cannot put the finger on a reformation, except one, in that five hundred years that the prophets did not start. One priest carried on a reformation we will come to it later. But the historians, the poets, the orators, the reformers, and the revivalists, all came from the prophets. Every book in the Bible is written by a man that had the prophetic spirit. Elisha was the voice of God to the conscience of the kings and the people, and when we study the details of his life we will see that as the government heard and obeyed Elisha it prospered, and as it went against his counsel it met disaster.
We have two beautiful stories that show his work in the homes. One of them is the greatest lesson on hospitality that I know of in the Bible. A wealthy family lived right on the path between the Gilgal seminary and the Mount Carmel seminary. The woman of the house called her husband’s attention to the fact that the man of God, Elisha, was continually passing to and fro by their house; that he was a good man, and that they should build a little chamber on the wall to be the prophet’s chamber. “We will put a little table in it, and a chair, and a bed, and we will say to him, Let this be your home when you are passing through.” Elisha was very much impressed with this woman’s thoughtfulness, and the reason for it. He asked her what he could do for her. But she lived among her own people, wanted no favor from the king nor the general of the army. Elisha’s servant suggested that she was childless, so he prophesied to her that within a year she would be the mother of a son. The son was born and grew up to be a bright boy, and, like other boys, followed his father to the field. One hot day when they were reaping and it was very hot in reaping time over there he had a sunstroke and said, “My head! My head!” The father told his servant to take him to his mother as usual, let a child get sick and the daddy is sure to say, “Take him to his mother.” I don’t know what would become of the children if the mothers did not take care of them when they are sick. But the boy died. The woman had a beast saddled and went to the seminary at Mount Carmel. She knew Elisha was there for he had not passed back. It was a very touching story. Anyhow, Elisha restored the boy to life, and to show how it lingered in his mind, years afterward he sent word to her that there would be a famine of seven years, and she had better migrate until the famine was over. She went away for seven years, and when she came back a land-grabber had captured her home and her inheritance. She appealed the case to Elisha, and Elisha appealed the case to the king, and then the kin said, “Tell me, I pray thee, all the great things that Elisha hath done.” When he had heard the full story of this man’s work he said, “Let this woman have her home back again, and interest for all the time it has been used by another.” This is a very sweet story of family life.
There is another story. One of the “theologs ” I do not know how young he was, for he had married and had children the famine pressed so debt was incurred, and they had a law then we find it in the Mosaic code that they might make a bondman of the one who would not pay his debts. The wife of this “theolog” came to Elisha and said, “My husband is one of the prophets; the famine has brought very hard times, and my boys are about to be enslaved because we cannot pay the debt.” Then he wrought the miracle that we will consider a little later, and provided for the payment of the debt of that wife of the prophet and for the sustenance of them until the famine passed away.
These two stories show how this man in going through the country affected the family life of the people; there may have been hundreds of others. I want to say that I have traveled around a good deal in my days, over every county in this state. It may be God’s particular providence, but I have never been anywhere that I did not find good people. In the retrospect of every trip of my life there is a precious memory of godly men that I met on the trip. I found one in the brush in Parker County, where it looked like a “razor-back” hog could not make a living, and they were very poor. I was on my way to an association, and must needs pass through this jungle, and stopped about noon at a small house in the brush, where I received the kindest hospitality in my life. They were God’s children. They fixed the best they had to eat, and it was good, too the best sausage I ever did eat. So this work of Elisha among the families pleases me. I have been over such ground, and I do know that the preacher who is unable to find good, homes and good people, and who is unable to leave a blessing behind him in the homes, is a very poor preacher. I have been entertained by the great governors of the state and the generals of armies, but I have never enjoyed any hospitality anywhere more precious than in that log cabin in the jungle.
The next great work of Elisha was the miracles wrought by him. There were two miracles of judgment. One was when he cursed the lads of Bethel that place of idolatry and turned two she-bears loose that tore up about forty of them. That is one judgment) and I will discuss that in the next chapter. Just now I am simply outlining the man’s whole life for the sake of unity.
The second miracle of judgment was the inflicting on Gehazi the leprosy of Naaman. The rest of his miracles were miracles of patriotism or of mercy. The following is a list (not of every one, for every time he prophesied it was a miracle): 2Ki 2:14 tells us that he divided the Jordan with the mantle of Elijah; 2Ki 2:19 , that he healed the bad springs of Jericho, the water that made the people sick and made the land barren, which was evidently a miracle of mercy. The third miracle recorded is in 2Ki 2:23 , his sending of the she-bears (referred to above) ; the fourth is recorded in 2Ki 3:16 , the miracle of the waters. Three armies led by three kings were in the mountains of Edom, on their way to attack Moab. There was no water, and they were about to perish, and they appealed to Elisha. He told them to go out to the dry torrent bed and dig trenches saying, “To-morrow all of those trenches will be full of water, and you won’t see a cloud nor hear it thunder.” It was a miracle in the sense that he foresaw how that water would come from rain in the mountains. I have seen that very thing happen. Away off in the mountains there may be rain one can’t see it nor hear it from where he is in the valley. The river bed is as dry as a powder horn, and it looks as if there never will be any rain. I was standing in a river bed in West Texas once, heard a roaring, looked up and saw a wave coming down that looked to me to be about ten feet high the first wave and it was carrying rocks before it that seemed as big as a house, and rolling them just as one would roll a marble.. So his miracle consisted in his knowledge of that storm which they could not see nor hear. If they had not dug the trenches they would have still had no water for a mountain torrent is very swift to fall. In that place where I was, in fifteen minutes there was a river, and in two or three hours it had all passed away. But the trenches of Elisha were filled from the passing flood.
The fifth miracle is recorded in 2Ki 4:2-7 , the multiplying of the widow’s oil, that prophet’s wife that I have already referred to. The sixth miracle is recorded in 2Ki 4:8-37 , first the giving and then the restoring to life of the son of the Shunamite. The seventh is given in 2Ki 4:38 , the healing of the poisonous porridge: “Ah, man of God! there is death in the pot,” or “theological seminaries and wild gourds.” The eighth miracle is found in 2Ki 5:1-4 , the multiplying of the twenty loaves so as to feed 100 men. The ninth, 2Ki 5:1-4 , the healing of Naaman’s leprosy, and the tenth, 2Ki 5:26-27 , the inflicting on Gehazi the leprosy of which Naaman was healed.
The eleventh miracle is found in 2Ki 6:1-7 , his making the ax to swim. One of the prophets borrowed an ax to increase the quarters; the seminary was growing and the place was too straight for them, and they had to enlarge it. They did not have axes enough, and one of them borrowed an ax. In going down to the stream to cut the wood, the head of the ax slipped off and fell into the water and there is a text: “Alas, my master, for it was borrowed.” The miracle in this case was his suspension of the law of gravity, and making that ax head to swim, so that the man who lost it could just reach out and get it.
Twelfth, 2Ki 6:8-12 , the revealing of the secret thought of the Syrian king, even the thoughts of his bedchamber. No matter what, at night, the Syrian king thought out for the next day, Elisha knew it by the time he thought it, and would safeguard the attack at that point.
Thirteenth, 2Ki 6:15 , his giving vision to his doubtful servant when the great host came to capture them. The servant was scared. Elisha said, “Open this young man’s eyes, and let him see that they who are for us are more than those who are against us.” What a text! His eyes were opened, and he saw that hilltop guarded with the chariots of God and his angels. We need these eye openers when we get scared.
Fourteenth, the blinding of that Syrian host that came to take him. He took them and prayed to the Lord to open their eyes again. An Irishman reported at the first battle of Manasseh, thus: “I surrounded six Yankees and captured them.” Well, Elisha surrounded a little army and led them into captivity.
Fifteenth, 2Ki 7:6 , a mighty host of Syrians was besieging Samaria, until the women were eating their own children, the famine was so great. Elisha took the case to God, and that night, right over the Syrian camp was heard the sound of bugles and shouting, and the racing of chariots, and it scared them nearly to death. They thought a great army had been brought up, and a panic seized them, as a stampede seizes a herd of cattle, and they fled. They left their tents and their baggage: their provisions, their jewels, and the further they went the more things they dropped, all the way to the Jordan River, until they left a trail behind them of the cast-off incumbrances. The word “panic” comes from the heathen god, “Pan,” and the conception is that these sudden demoralizations must come from deity. I once saw sixteen steers put an army of 4,000 to flight, and I was one of the men. We were in a lane with a high fence on one side and a bayou on the other side, and suddenly, up the lane we heard the most awful clatter, and saw the biggest cloud of dust, and one of the men shouted, “The cavalry is on us! The cavalry is on us!” and without thinking everybody got scared. A lot of the men were found standing in the bayou up to their necks, others had gone over the fence and clear across the field without stopping. I did not get that far, but I got over the fence.
Sixteenth, 2Ki 8:2-6 , the foreseeing and foretelling of the seven years of famine.
Seventeenth, 2Ki 8:11 , the revelation of the very heart of Hazael to himself. He did not believe himself to be so bad a man. Elisha just looked at him and commenced weeping. Hazael could not understand. Elisha says, “I see how you are going to sweep over my country with fire and sword; I see the children that you will slay; I see the bloody trail behind you.” Hazael says, “Am I a dog, that I should do these things?” But Elisha under inspiration read the real man) and saw what there was in the man. One of the best sermons that I ever heard was by a distinguished English clergyman on this subject.
Eighteenth, 2Ki 13:14 , his dying prophecy.
Nineteenth, the miracle from his bones after he was buried. We will discuss that more particularly later.
We have thus seen his great teaching work, his relation to the government, and his miracles.
Now, let us consider some of his miracles more particularly. The Romanists misuse the miracle of the bones of Elisha, and that passage in Act 19:11-12 , where Paul sent out handkerchiefs and aprons, and miracles were wrought by them. On these two passages they found all their teachings of the relics of the saints, attributing miraculous power to a bit of the cross, and they have splinters enough of that “true cross” now scattered about to make a forest of crosses. In New Orleans an’ auctioneer said, “Today I have sold to seventeen men the cannon ball that killed Sir Edward Packenham.” The greatest superstition and fraud of the ages is the Romanist theory of the miracle working power of the reputed relics of the saints. Some of Elisha’s miracles were like some of our Lord’s. The enlargement of the twenty loaves to suffice for 100 men reminds us of two miracles of our Lord, and his curing a case of leprosy reminds us of many miracles of our Lord like that. In the Bible, miracles are always numerous in the great religious crises, where credentials are needed for God’s people, such as the great series of miracles in Egypt by Moses, the series of miracles in the days of Elisha and the miracles in the days of our Lord.
The greatest of Elisha’s work is his teaching work, greater than his work in relation to the government, his work in the families, or his miracles. I think the more far-reaching power of his work was in his teaching. There were spoken similar words at the exodus of Elijah and Elisha. When Elijah went up, Elisha said, “My Father! My Father! The chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof!” The same words are used when Elisha died. What does it mean? It pays the greatest compliment to the departed: that they alone were worth more to Israel than all its chariots, and its cavalry; that they were the real defenders of the nation.
At one point his work touched the Southern Kingdom, viz: When Moab was invaded, and he wrought that miracle of the waters, filled the trenches and supplied the thirsty armies. Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah was along, and for his sake Elisha saved them.
There are many great pulpit themes in connection with Elisha’s history. I suggest merely a few: First, “Let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me” that was his prayer when Elijah was leaving him; second, “The chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof”; third, when he came to the Jordan he did not say, “Where is Elijah?” but he smote the Jordan and said, “Where is the Lord God of Elijah?” for it made no difference if Elijah was gone, God was there yet; fourth, “The oil stayed” not as long as the woman has a vessel to put it in; fifth, the little chamber on the wall; sixth, “Ah, man of God! There is death in the pot” or “theological seminaries and wild gourds” radical criticism, for instance there is death in the pot whenever preachers are fed on that sort of food; seventh, “Is it well with thy husband?” “Is it well?” and I will have frequently commenced a meeting with that text; eighth, Elisha’s staff in the hands of Gehazi, who was an unworthy man and the unworthy cannot wield the staff of the prophets; ninth, “Alas, my master, it was borrowed!”; tenth, the Growing Seminary “The place is too straight for us”; eleventh, “Make this valley full of trenches,” that is, the Lord will send the water, but there is something for us to do; let us have a place for it when it comes; twelfth, the secret thoughts of the bedchamber are known to God; thirteenth, “They that be with us are more than those that be against us”; fourteenth, “Tell me, I pray thee, all the great works done by Elisha.”
These are just a few in the great mine of Elijah or Elisha where we may dig down for sermons. The sermons ought to be full of meat; that is why we preach to feed the hungry. We should let our buckets down often into the well of salvation, for we cannot lower the well, and we may draw up a fresh sermon every Sunday. We should not keep on preaching the same sermon; it is first a dinner roast, then we give it cold for supper, then hash its fragments for breakfast, and make soup out of the bones for the next dinner, and next time we hold it over the pot and boil the shadow, and so the diet gets thinner and thinner. Let’s get a fresh one every time.
QUESTIONS
1. Who was Elisha?
2. What is the meaning of “minister to Elijah”? Illustrate and give corresponding passage in the New Testament.
3. What is the meaning of “Elisha, a disciple of Elijah”?
4. What is the meaning of “Elisha, a successor to Elijah”?
5. Give the date, author, manner, and nature of Elisha’s call, his response and how he celebrated the event.
6. What is the lesson of this and other calls? Illustrate.
7. How long his prophetic term of office and what kings of Israel and Judah were his contemporaries?
8. What secular calls accompanied his, how do you distinguish between his and the call of the others and what is the lesson therefrom?
9. What is the biblical material for a sketch of Elisha’s life?
10. What is the meaning of his name?
11. What is the Greek and Hebrew forms of his name? Give other examples.
12. What likenesses and unlikenesses of the work of Elijah and Elisha?
13. What New Testament likenesses of these two prophets?
14. How many schools of the prophets in the days of Elijah and Elisha, and where were they located?
15. What was Elisha’s great teaching work in the seminaries? Discuss.
16. What was Elisha’s part in governmental affairs?
17. What of his work in the families? Illustrate.
18. What two classes of his miracles and what miracles of each class?
19. What is the Romanist misuse of the miracle of Elisha’s bones and Act 19:11-12 ?
20. What miracles were like some of our Lord’s?
21. When and why were Bible miracles numerous?
22. Which of Elisha’s works was the greatest?
23. What words spoken at the exodus of Elijah and Elisha and what their meaning?
24. At what point did Elisha’s work touch the Southern Kingdom?
25. What New Testament lesson from the life of Elisha?
26. Give several pulpit themes from this section not given by the
27. What is the author’s exhortation relative to preaching growing out of this discussion of Elisha?
X
GATHERING UP THE FRAGMENTS THAT NOTHING BE LOST
The title of this chapter is a New Testament text for an Old Testament discussion. For the sake of unity the last two chapters were devoted exclusively to Elijah and Elisha. It is the purpose of this discussion to call attention to some matters worthy of note that could not very well be incorporated in those personal matters, and yet should not be omitted altogether.
It is true, however, that the heart of the history is in the lives of these two great prophets of the Northern Kingdom. In bringing up the record we will follow the chronological order of the scriptures calling for exposition.
Jehoshaphat’s Shipping Alliance with Ahaziah. We have two accounts of this: first, in 1Ki 22:47-49 , and second, in 2Ch 20:35-37 . I wish to explain, first of all, the locality of certain places named in these accounts. Tarshish, as a place, is in Spain. About that there can be no question. About Ophir, no man can be so confident. There was an Ophir in the southern part of Arabia; a man named Ophir settled there, but I do not think that to be the Ophir of this section. The Ophir referred to here is distinguished for the abundance and fine quality of its gold. Several books in the Bible refer to the excellency of “the gold of Ophir,” and to the abundance of it. Quite a number of distinguished scholars would locate it in the eastern part of Africa. Some others would locate it in India, and still others as the Arabian Ophir. My own opinion is, and I give it as more than probable, that the southeastern coast of Africa is the right place for Ophir. Many traditions put it there, the romance of Rider Haggard, “King Solomon’s Mines,” follows the traditions. The now well-known conditions of the Transvaal would meet the case in some respects.
Ezion-geber is a seaport at the head of the Gulf of Akaba, which is a projection of the Red Sea. What is here attempted by these men is to re-establish the famous commerce of Solomon. I cite the passages in the history of Solomon that tell about this commerce. In 1Ki 9:26 we have this record: “And King Solomon made a navy of ships in Eziongeber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom. And Hiram (king of Tyre) sent in the navy his servants, shipmen that had knowledge of the sea, with the servants of Solomon. And they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to King Solomon.” Now, 1Ki 10:11 reads: “And the navy also of Hiram, that brought gold from Ophir, brought in from Ophir great plenty of Almug trees and precious stones.” This “almug-trees” is supposed to be the famous sweet-scented sandalwood. The precious stones would agree particularly with the diamond mines at Kimberly in the Transvaal.
Then1Ki_10:22 reads: “For the king had at sea a navy of Tarshish with the navy of Hiram: Once every three years came the navy of Tarshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks.” The ivory and apes would fit very well with the African coast, but we would have to go to India to get the spices, which are mentioned elsewhere, and the peacocks. A three years’ voyage for this traffic seems to forbid the near-by Arabian Ophir, and does make it reasonable that the merchant fleet touched many points Arabia, Africa, and the East Indies. It is, therefore, not necessary to find one place notable for all these products gold, jewels, sandalwood, ivory, apes, spices, and peacocks. Solomon, then, established as his only seaport on the south Eziongeber, a navy, manned partly by experienced seamen of Tyre, and these ships would make a voyage every three years. That is a long voyage and they might well go to Africa and to India to get these varied products, some at one point and some at another.
Now Jehoshaphat and Ahaziah (king of Israel) made an alliance to re-establish that commerce. The first difficulty, however, is that the Chronicles account says that these ships were to go to Tarshish, and the Kings account says that they were ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir. My explanation of that difficulty is this: It is quite evident that no navy established at Eziongeber would try to reach Spain by circumnavigating Africa, when it would be so much easier to go from Joppa, Tyre, or Sidon over the Mediterranean Sea to Spain. “Tarshish ships” refers, not to the destination of the ships, but to the kind of ships, that is, the trade of the Mediterranean had given that name to a kind of merchant vessel, called “Ships of Tarshish.” And the ships built for the Tarshish trade, as the name “lndianman” was rather loosely applied to certain great English and Dutch merchant vessels. It is an error in the text of Chronicles that these ships were to go to Tarshish. They were Tarshish ships, that is, built after the model of Tarshish ships, but these ships were built at Eziongeber for trade with Ophir, Africa, and India.
1Ki 22:47 of the Kings account needs explanation: “And there was no king in Edom; a deputy was king.” The relevancy of that verse is very pointed. If Edom had been free and had its own king, inasmuch as Eziongeber was in Edom, Judah never could have gone there to build a navy. But Edom at this time was subject to Judah, and a Judean deputy ruled over it. That explains why they could come to Eziongeber.
One other matter needs explanation. The account in Kings says, “Then said Ahaziah the son of Ahab unto Jehoshaphat, Let my servants go with thy servants in the ships. But Jehoshaphat would not.” Ahaziah attributed the shipwreck of that fleet to the incompetency of the Judean seamen. He did not believe that there would have been a shipwreck if he had been allowed to furnish experienced mariners, as Hiram did. So Kings gives us what seems to be the human account of that shipwreck, viz: the incompetency of the mariners; but Chronicles gives us the divine account, thus: “Because thou hast joined thyself with Ahaziah, the Lord hath destroyed thy works. And the ships were broken.” How often do we see these two things: the human explanation of the thing, and the divine explanation of the same thing. Ahaziah had no true conception of God, and he would at once attribute that shipwreck to human incompetency, but Jehoshaphat knew better; he knew that shipwreck came because he had done wickedly in keeping up this alliance with the idolatrous kings of the ten tribes.
THE TRANSLATION OF ELIJAH Let us consider several important matters in connection with the translation of Elijah, 2Ki 2:1-18 . First, why the course followed by Elijah? Why does he go from Carmel to Gilgal and try to leave Elisha there, and from Gilgal to Bethel and try to leave Elisha there, and from Bethel to Jericho and try to leave Elisha there? The explanation is that the old prophet, having been warned of God that his ministry was ended and that the time of his exodus was at hand, wished to revisit in succession all of these seminaries. These were his stopping places, and he goes from one seminary to another. It must have been a very solemn thing for each of these schools of the prophets, when Elisha and Elijah came up to them, for by the inspiration of God as we see from the record, each school of the prophets knew what was going to happen. At two different places they say to Elisha, “Do you know that your master will be taken away to-day?” Now, the same Spirit of God that notified Elijah that his time of departure was at hand, also notified Elisha, also notified each school of the prophets; they knew.
But why keep saying to Elisha, “You stay here at Gilgal; the Lord hath sent me to Bethel,” and, “You stay here at Bethel; the Lord hath sent me to Jericho,” and “You stay here at Jericho; the Lord hath sent me to the Jordan”? It was a test of the faith of Elisha. Ruth said to Naomi, “Entreat me not to leave thee, nor to forsake thee; for where thou goest, I will go; and God do so to me, if thy God be my God, and thy people my people, and where thou diest there will I die also.” With such spirit as that, Elisha, as the minister to Elijah, and as the disciple of Elijah, and wishing to qualify himself to be the successor of Elijah, steadfastly replied: “As the Lord liveth and thy soul liveth, I will not forsake thee.” “I am going with you just as far as I can go; we may come to a point of separation, but I will go with you to that point.” All of us, when we leave this world, find a place where the departing soul must be without human companionship. Friends may attend us to that border line but they cannot pass over with us.
We have already discussed the miracle of the crossing of the Jordan. Elijah smote the Jordan with his mantle and it divided; that was doubtless his lesson to Elisha, and we will see that he learned the lesson. I heard a Methodist preacher once, taking that as a text, say, “We oftentimes complain that our cross is too heavy for us, and groan under it, and wish to be relieved from it.” “But,” says he, “brethren, when we come to the Jordan of death, with that cross that we groaned under we will smite that river, and we will pass over dry-shod, and leave the cross behind forever, and go home to a crown to wear.”
The next notable thing in this account is Elijah’s question to Elisha: “Have you anything to ask from me?” “Now, this is the last time; what do you want me to do for you?” And he says, “I pray thee leave a double portion of thy spirit on me.” We see that he is seeking qualification to be the successor. “Double” here does not mean twice as much as Elijah had, but the reference is probably to the first-born share of an inheritance. The first-born always gets a double share, and Elisha means by asking a double portion of his spirit that it may accredit him as successor. Or possibly “double” may be rendered “duplicate,” for the same purpose of attenuation. The other prophets would get one share, but Elisha asks for the first-born portion. Elijah suggests a difficulty, not in himself, but in Elisha ; he said, “You ask a hard thing of me, yet if you see me when I go away, you will get the double portion of my spirit,” that is, it was a matter depending on the faith of the petitioner, his power of personal perception. “When I go up, if your eyes are open enough to see my transit from this world to a higher, that will show that you are qualified to have this double portion of my spirit.” We have something similar in the life of our Lord. The father of the demoniac boy says to our Lord, “If thou canst do anything, have compassion on us and help us.” Jesus replied, “If thou canst! All things are possible to him that believeth.” It was not a question of Christ’s ability, but of the supplicant’s faith.
The next thing is the translation itself. What is meant by it? In the Old Testament history two men never died; they passed into the other world, soul and body without death: Enoch and Elijah. And at the second coming of Christ every Christian living at that time will do the same thing. “In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, they shall be changed.” Now, what is that change of the body by virtue of which without death, it may ascend into heaven? It is a spiritualization of the body eliminating its mortality, equivalent to what takes place in the resurrection and glorification of the dead bodies. I preached a sermon once on “How Death [personified] Was Twice Startled.” In the account of Adam it is said, “And he died” and so of every other man, “and he died.” Methuselah lived 969 years, but he died. And death pursuing all the members of the race, strikes them down, whether king or pauper, whether prophet or priest. But when he comes to Enoch his dart missed the mark and he did not get him. And when he came to Elijah he missed again. Now the translations of Enoch and Elijah are an absolute demonstration of two things: First, the immortality of the soul, the continuance of life; that death makes no break in the continuity of being. Second, that God intended from the beginning to save the body. The tree of life was put in the garden of Eden, that by eating of it the mortality of the body might be eliminated. Sin separated man from that tree of life, but it is the purpose of God that the normal man, soul and body, shall be saved. The tradition of the Jews is very rich on the spiritual significance of the translation of Enoch and Elijah. In Enoch’s case it is said, “He was not found because God took him,” and in this case fifty of the sons of the prophets went out to see if when Elijah went to heaven his body was not left behind, and they looked all over the country to find his body. Elisha knew; he saw the body go up.
Now, in Revelation we have the Cherubim as the chariot of God. This chariot that met Elijah at the death station was the chariot of God, the Cherubim. Just as the angels met Lazarus and took his soul up to heaven, and it is to this wonderful passage that the Negro hymn belongs: “Swing Low, Sweet Chariot.”
Elisha cried as the great prophet ascended, “My Father! My rather I The chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof,” the meaning of which is that thus had gone up to heaven he who in his life had been the defense of Israel, worth more than all of its chariots and all of its cavalry. Now these very words “were used when Elisha died. “My Father! My Father! The chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof,” signifying that he had been the bulwark of the nation as Elijah had been before him.
ELISHA’S MINISTRY, 2Ki 2:19-25 As Elijah went up something dropped not his body, but just his mantle his mantle fell, and it fell on Elisha, symbolic of the transfer of prophetic leadership from one to the other. Now, he wants to test it, a test that will accredit him; so he goes back to the same Jordan, folds that same mantle up just as Elijah had done, and smites the Jordan. But, mark you, he did not say, “Where is Elijah” the man, Elijah, was gone, but, “Where is the Lord God of Elijah?” and the waters divided and he came over. There he stood accredited with a repetition of the miracle just a little before performed by Elijah, which demonstrated that he was to be to the people what Elijah had been. And this was so evident that the sons of the prophets recognized it and remarked on it: “The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha.” It is a touching thing to me, this account of more than fifty of these prophets, as the president of their seminary is about to disappear, came down the last hill that overlooks the Jordan, watching to see what became of him. And they witness the passage of the Jordan they may have seen the illumination of the descent of the chariot of fire. They wanted to go and get the body the idea of his body going up they had not taken in, and they could not be content until Elisha, grieved at their persistence) finally let them go and find out for themselves that the body had gone to heaven.
I have just two things to say on the healing of the noxious waters at Jericho. The first is that neither the new cruse nor the salt put in it healed the water. It was a symbolic act to indicate that the healing would be by the power of God. Just as when Moses cast a branch into the bitter waters of Marah, as a symbolic act. The healing power comes from God. The other re-mark is on that expression, “unto this day,” which we so frequently meet in these books. Its frequent recurrence is positive proof that the compiler of Kings and the compiler of Chronicles are quoting from the original documents. “Unto this day” means the day of the original writer. It does not mean unto the day of Ezra wherever it appears in Chronicles, but it means unto the day of the writer of the part of history that he is quoting from. More than one great conservative scholar has called attention to this as proof that whoever compiled these histories is quoting the inspired documents of the prophets.
THE CHILDREN OF BETHEL AND THE SHE-BEARS Perhaps a thousand infidels have referred Elisha’s curse to vindictiveness and inhumanity. The word rendered “little children” is precisely the word Solomon uses in his prayer at Gibeon when he says, “I am a little child” he was then a grown man. Childhood with the Hebrews extended over a much greater period of time than it does with us. The word may signify “young men” in our modern use of the term. And notice the place was Bethel, the place of calf worship, where the spirit of the city was against the schools of the prophets, and these young fellows call them “street Arabs,” “toughs,” whom it suited to follow this man and mock him: “Go up, thou bald bead; go up, thou bald head.” Elisha did not resent an indignity against himself, but here is the point: these hostile idolaters at Bethel, through their children are challenging the act of God in making Elisha the head of the prophetic line. He turned and looked at them and he saw the spirit that animated them saw that it was an issue between Bethel calf worship and Bethel, the school of the prophets, and that the parents of these children doubtless sympathized in the mockery, and saw it to be necessary that they should learn that sacrilege and blasphemy against God should not go unpunished. So, in the name of the Lord he pronounces a curse on them had it been his curse, no result would have followed. One man asks, “What were these she-bears doing so close to Bethel?” The answer is that in several places in the history is noted the prevalence of wild animals in Israel. We have seen how the old prophet who went to this very Bethel to rebuke Jeroboam and turned back to visit the other prophet, was killed by a lion close to the city.
Another infidel question is, “How could God make a she bear obey him?” Well, let the infidel answer how God’s Spirit could influence a single pair of all the animals to go into the ark. Over and over again in the Bible the dominance of the Spirit of God over inanimate things and over the brute creation is repeatedly affirmed. The bears could not understand, but they would follow an impulse of their own anger without attempting to account for it.
THE INCREASE IN THE WIDOW’S OIL, 2Ki 4:1-7
We have already considered this miracle somewhat in the chapter on Elisha, and now note particularly:
1. It often happens that the widow of a man of God, whether prophet or preacher, is left in destitution. Sometimes the fault lies in the imprudence of the preacher or in the extravagance of his family, but more frequently, perhaps, in the inadequate provision for ministerial support. This destitution is greatly aggravated if there be debt. The influence of a preacher is handicapped to a painful degree, when, from any cause, he fails to meet his financial obligations promptly. In a commercial age this handicap becomes much more serious.
2. The Mosaic Law (Lev 25:39-41 ; see allusion, Mat 18:25 ) permitted a creditor to make bond-servant of a debtor and his children. For a long time the English law permitted imprisonment for debt. This widow of a prophet appeals to Elisha, the head of the prophetic school, for relief, affirming that her husband did fear God. In other words, he was faultless in the matter of debt. The enforcement of the law by the creditor under such circumstances indicates a merciless heart.
3. The one great lesson of the miracle is that the flow of the increased oil never stayed as long as there was a vessel to receive it. God wastes not his grace if we have no place to put it: according to our faith in preparation is his blessing. He will fill all the vessels we set before him.
DEATH IN THE POT, 2Ki 4:38-41 We recall this miracle to deepen a lesson barely alluded to in the chapter on Elisha. The seminaries at that time lived a much more simple life than the seminaries of the present time; it did not take such a large fund to keep them up. Elisha said, “Set on the great pot,” and one of the sons of the prophets went out to gather vegetables. He got some wild vegetables he knew nothing about here called wild gourd and shred them into the pot, not knowing they were poisonous. Hence the text: “O man of God, there is death in the pot.” I once took that as the text for a sermon on “Theological Seminaries and Wild Gourds,” showing that the power of seminaries depends much on the kind of food the teachers give them. If they teach them that the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory, then they might just as well make the second Adam an allegory, for his mission is dependent on the failure of the first. If they teach them the radical criticism; if they teach anything that takes away from inspiration and infallibility of the divine Word of God or from any of its great doctrines then, “O man of God, there is death in the pot” that will be a sick seminary.
In a conversation once with a radical critic I submitted for his criticism, without naming the author, the exact words of Tom Paine in his “Age of Reason,” denying that the story of Adam and Eve was history. He accepted it as eminently correct. Then I gave the author, and inquired if it would be well for preachers and commentators to revert to such authorities on biblical interpretation. He made no reply. We find Paine’s words not only in the first part of the “Age of Reason,” written in a French prison without a Bible before him, but repeated in the second part after he was free and had access to Bibles. I gave this man a practical illustration, saying, “You may take the three thousand published sermons of Spurgeon, two sets of them, and arrange them, one set according to the books from which the texts are taken Gen 1:2 , Gen 1:3 , etc., and make a commentary on the Bible. By arranging the other set of them in topical order, you have a body of systematic theology.” Now this man Spurgeon believed in the historical integrity and infallibility of the Bible, in its inspiration of God, and he preached that, just that. As the old saying goes, “The proof of the pudding is in the chewing of the bag.” He preached just that, and what was the result? Thousands and thousands of converts wherever he preached, no matter what part of the Bible he was preaching from; preachers felt called to enter the ministry, orphan homes rose up, almshouses for aged widows, colportage systems established, missionaries sent out, and all over the wide world his missionaries die in the cause. One man was found in the Alps, frozen to death, with a sermon of Spurgeon in his hand. One man was found shot through the heart by bush rangers of Australia, and the bullet passed through Spurgeon’s sermon on “The Blood of Jesus.” Now, I said to this man, “Get all your radical critics together, and let them preach three thousand sermons on your line of teaching. How many will be converted? How many backsliders will be reclaimed? How many almshouses and orphanages will be opened? How many colportage systems established? Ah! the proof of the pudding is in the chewing of the bag. If what you say is the best thing to teach about the Bible is true, then when you preach, it will have the best results. But does it?”
We have considered Elisha’s miracle for providing water for the allied armies of Israel, Judah, and Edom, when invading Moab (2Ki 3:10-19 ). We revert to it to note partakelarly this passage: “And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew sword, to break through unto the king of Edom: but they could not. Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great wrath against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land” (2Ki 3:26-27 ). On this passage I submit two observations:
1. Not long after this time the prophet Micah indignantly inquires, “Shall I give my firstborn for my transgressions, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” The context is a strong denunciation of the offering of human sacrifices to appease an angry deity. The Mosaic law strongly condemned the heathen custom of causing their children to pass through the fire of Molech. Both this book of Kings and Jeremiah denounce judgment on those guilty of this horrible practice. The Greek and Roman classics, and the histories of Egypt and Phoenicia, show how widespread was this awful custom.
2. But our chief difficulty is to expound the words, “There was great wrath against Israel.” But what was its connection with the impious sacrifice of the king of Moab? Whose the wrath? The questions are not easy to answer. It is probable that the armies of Edom and Judah were angry at Israel for pressing the king of Moab to such dire extremity, and so horrified at the sacrifice that they refused longer to co-operate in the campaign. This explanation, while not altogether satisfactory, is preferred to others more improbable. It cannot mean the wrath of God, nor the wrath of the Moabites against Israel. It must mean, therefore, the wrath of the men of Judah and Edom against Israel for pressing Mesha to such an extent that he would offer his own son as a sacrifice.
QUESTIONS
I. On the two accounts of Jehoshaphat’s shipping alliance with Ahaziah, 2Ki 22 ; 2Ch 20 , answer:
1. Where is Tarshish?
2. Where is Ophir?
3. Where is Ezion-geber?
4. What is the relevance of 1Ki 22:47 ?
5. Explain “ships of Tarshish” in Kings, and “to go to Tarshish” in Chronicles.
6. What commerce were they seeking to revive, and what passage from 1 Kings bearing thereon?
7. How does the book of Kings seem to account for the wreck of the fleet, and how does Chronicles give a better reason?
II. On the account of Elijah’s translation (2Ki 2:1-18 ) answer:
1. Why the course taken by Elijah by way of Gilgal, Bethel, and Jericho?
2. How did both Elisha and the schools of the prophets know about the impending event?
3. What was the object of Elijah in telling Elisha to tarry at each stopping place while he went on?
4. What was the meaning of Elisha’s request for “a double portion” of Elijah’s spirit and why was this a hard thing to ask, i.e., wherein the difficulty? Illustrate by a New Testament lesson.
5. What was the meaning of Elijah’s translation, and what other cases, past or prospective?
6. What was the meaning of Elisha’s expression, “My Father! My Father! The chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof,” and who and when applied the same language to Elisha?
7. How does Elisha seek a test of his succession to Elijah and how do others recognize the credentials?
III. How do you explain the seeming inhumanity of Elisha’s cursing the children of Bethel?
IV. On the widow’s oil (2Ki 4:1-7 ), answer:
1. What often happens to the widow of a prophet or preacher, and what circumstance greatly aggravates the trouble?
2. What is the Mosaic law relative to debtors and creditors?
3. What one great lesson of the miracle?
V. On “Death in the Pot” answer:
1. What the incident of the wild gourds?
2. What application does the author make of this?
3. What comparison does the author make between Spurgeon and the Radical Critics?
VI. On Elisha’s miracle, the water supply, answer:
1. What is the allusion in Micah’s words, “Shall I give my first-born,” etc.?
2. What the meaning of “There was great wrath against Israel”?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
XIII
FROM THE RISE OF JEHU TO THE REIGN OF JEHOASH AND THE CORRESPONDING HISTORY OF JUDAH
2Ki 10:18-13:9
Israel is now on a rapid decline, while Judah is under the sway of a wicked woman. There are some antecedent facts which relate to the Southern Kingdom, Judah, and the story of her fortunes which we need to review here. In previous chapters we have considered the character and reign of Jehoshaphat. He is described as a good man, a great king, an eminently righteous and successful king, one of the best kings that Judah ever had, and the record tells of the various reforms which he instituted, the cities which he built, the new system of judiciary which he established and the various other great improvements in his kingdom. But Jehoshaphat made three mistakes in his reign:
First, he married his son to the daughter of Jezebel. It was the cause of great disaster to his realm, almost to the extinction of his dynasty and the wrecking of his kingdom. Second, he made an alliance with Ahab to reconquer Ramothgilead, and take it from Syria. The 400 false prophets all promised him victory, but Micaiah prophesied failure, and that prophecy came true as they failed to take Ramothgilead and Ahab was slain, and Jehoshaphat returned home to Jerusalem in partial disgrace. There is no question but that Jehoshaphat lost a great deal of popularity by that mistake and failure.
Third, he made an alliance with Jehoram, son of Ahab, in an attempt to reconquer and subject Moab to the northern realm. But for Elisha who told them to make the valley full of trenches and thus make room for water to flow down that their hosts might have drink he would there have suffered probably an ignominious defeat. Through Elisha and the providence of God he was saved but the expedition proved fruitless. The king of Moab sacrificed his first-born son and great wrath came upon Israel and they retired from the siege and went home and left King Mesha still master of his own country. Shortly before his death we find Jehoshaphat appoints his son Jehoram as king with him and they are joint kings over southern Israel. Jehoram becomes co-regent with Jehoshaphat when thirty-two years of age. Very soon we find the influence of Athaliah his wife. She had him under her control even more than Jezebel had Ahab under her control. She was a vicious, strong-minded, self-willed, determined, and depraved woman. Here is Athaliah’s influence. We can almost see Jezebel herself here. Under the influence of this northern woman Jehoram begins his murderous work by shedding the blood of six of his brothers. We find his character described thus: “He had the daughter of Ahab to wife, and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.” Notice further: “Moreover he made high places in the mountains of Judah, and made the inhabitants of Jerusalem to go a whoring, and led Judah astray.” That is, he attempted to lead all southern Israel after the worship of Baal, just as Jezebel had tried to lead all northern Israel after the worship of Baal. Athaliah is her mother’s daughter.
All this leads to great troubles. His dynasty is in danger. The first thing we read is that disaster befalls the kingdom. In the same account we have the story of the revolt of Edom, one of his provinces which paid him heavy tribute. He undertakes to put down the rebellion, and, in a desperate conflict the Edomites with their chariots and horsemen having surrounded him, he rises up at night and breaks through the rank of the enemy and saves himself, but Edom passes out of his hands and is lost to his realm, and a large revenue is, of course, lost with it. This is the first stage of the downfall of himself and kingdom.
The next stage is the revolt of Libnah. This Philistine city had been paying tribute no doubt and now revolts against him and secures its freedom and thus another stronghold is cut off from his kingdom. This added to his unpopularity still more.
Shortly after this we have the story of the posthumous message from Elijah the prophet written before the going away of the great servant of God, doubtless preserved by Elisha and now sent to Jehoram. It is the prophet Elijah’s message of doom to this wicked king: “Behold, the Lord will smite with a great plague thy people, and thy children and thy wives, and all thy substance,” and Jehoram is to be smitten with a horrible and loathsome disease, too loathsome to be mentioned. We don’t know what that plague was nor how many people perished because of it. These things would add greatly to the unpopularity of Jehoram throughout his realm.
Another invasion takes place: “And the Lord stirred up against Jehoram the spirit of the Philistines, and of the Arabians, which are beside the Ethiopians: and they came up against Judah, and brake into it, and carried away all the substance that was found in the king’s house, and his sons also, and his wives; so that there was never a son left him, save Jehoahaz, the youngest of the sons.” They invaded his capital, took his treasures, and his harem, and carried them away, only one son left, Jehoahaz, known more correctly as Ahaziah.
Shortly after this Jehoram falls a prey to his sickness or disease and dies, unlamented, undesired. In some respects a blessed death, that is, to those who were left. He is refused burial in the sepulchers of the kings. They buried him in the City of David but not in the sepulchers of the kings. He is too loathsome to be buried in the sacred burying grounds of the kings of Israel where David was buried. This reign is one of the first fruitages of that ill-fated alliance of Jehoshaphat with the house of Ahab.
Then follows the reign of Ahaziah his son, which lasts about one year. He is a worthy son of his unspeakable mother. We find his record very short and is all a failure and ends in disgrace and murder. The record says that he entered into an alliance with Jehoram, his uncle, of northern Israel to fight against Ramothgilead, and bring it back into subjection out of the hands of Syria. Evidently their onslaught is successful. Ramothgilead is captured and Jehu left in charge of it. Jehoram is wounded and has to return to Jezreel in order that he might be healed, and while he is recovering Ahaziah goes back to Jerusalem, then pays a visit to Jehoram at Jezreel, and while they are at Jezreel we have enacted a scene which we discussed in a previous chapter. Jehoram is slain by an arrow shot from the bow of Jehu. Ahaziah flees for his life and is pursued by Jehu’s men, wounded in his chariot, escapes to Megiddo, and there dies. This is the end of the second of the kings of Judah that came under the influence of this unholy alliance of northern Israel.
Now we take up the reign of Athaliah. As soon as Athaliah heard of the death of Ahaziah her son, and knowing that all of Ahaziah’s brothers had been captured and taken away by the Arabians and Philistines, and there was no proper heir to the throne excepting her grandsons, the narrative says that she arose and destroyed all the seed royal, that is, all her own grandsons. A woman that would do that is a monster rather than a woman. Fortunately, however, providence interposes. The chief priest of the nation, Jehoiada, a man of great influence and power, had married a sister of Ahaziah, and daughter of Athaliah, and by means of intimacy which this relationship permitted, took the only son of Ahaziah, just one year old, and hid him. Thus the dynasty is preserved.
Now let us look at Jehu’s reign. The first great act which he performs is the destruction of Baal and Baal -worshipers, and he does it under false pretense. He does it in a most treacherous manner under the guise of zeal for their religion and he deceives them. He says, “Ahab served Baal little, Jehu shall serve him much,” and in that way gains the popularity of all those in favor of Baal worship. In that way he manages to secure the presence of a great host of Baal worshipers, but took pains to see that none of the Jehovah worshipers were there. All the priests of Baal are butchered. That is different from the death of the 450 prophets of Baal and the 450 prophets of Asherah by Elijah at Mount Carmel. That was a fair teat by Elijah, but they failed, and therefore deserved death. This was treachery on the part of Jehu, treachery that was inexcusable, and having done that, he breaks down the altars of Baal, destroys all the Baal worshipers in the capital of Samaria. But that does not imply that there were no Baal worshipers anywhere else in the kingdom for there were Baal cults in various sections still. Although Jehu had destroyed Baal worship as a state religion he institutes one very little better. He is a worshiper of Jehovah but it is a corrupt worship of the calves of Dan and Bethel and he follows in the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat who made Israel to sin. It is awful how all of these men are said to have followed Jeroboam the son of Nebat in that he made Israel to sin. Every one of them does the same thing. There is a sermon on that statement entitled, “The Monotony of Sin.” All for generations doing the same thing and they are doing the same thing now; they have been doing the same thing for thousands of years. Jehu’s reign is on the whole an evil reign. The religion of Jehovah made little progress under his rule.
Now Athaliah reigns and we have the strange spectacle of a woman on the throne of Judah, the daughter of Jezebel with Phoenician blood in her veins. We would expect that she would try to do what Jezebel did, viz: install, as the state religion of Judah, the worship of Baal, and so she did. There was no persecution of the prophets in southern Israel. She evidently could not do that, but she partly destroyed the Temple, took the sacred vessels out of it, established priests in her own temple of Baal and set up Baal worship, using the vessels that had been dedicated to Jehovah. Shrines were built throughout the whole kingdom, and now southern Judah is in danger of being brought under the sway of Baal as northern Israel was before Elijah appeared upon the scene. But there was one man in the realm raised up by divine providence to save the situation. Jehoiada is the son-in-law of Athaliah, a -man of influence and power, and evidently a man of great wisdom and piety, the foremost counsellor in the realm, the wisest and best man in the kingdom, the high priest. Six years of silence passes, and Jehoiada is wise enough to know how to hold his tongue and hold his wife’s tongue all that time. It is something for a man to be able to hold his tongue on such a great secret as he possessed, for six years. When little Joash had grown to be seven years old we find that Jehoiada began to strengthen himself in the kingdom and to mature his plans to set Joash upon the throne and destroy his mother-in-law, Athaliah. The time is ripe for action, the people are evidently dissatisfied with the reign of Athaliah, and are ready for the change. Jehoiada matures his plans with great deliberation, extreme caution and great shrewdness. We can’t understand all the details of the situation, the exact relation of the house and the Temple, but we find that he divides the Temple guards and palace guards into three companies, and stations them in separate places surrounding the king, so that he is perfectly safe, and no enemies can get to him. A way is left open by which Athaliah may come into the Temple and any who may follow her, but they will at once be slain as they attempt to pass through. At a given time and a given signal, all the soldiers in their places, the people throng around and raise the shout, Joash is set upon the throne; he is handed the testimony of the law according to the command of Moses, the crown is placed upon his head, and Joash is proclaimed king. Athaliah does not know what is taking place, she hears the noise, rushes forth and pretends to be horrified, tears her clothes and shouts, “Treason! Treason!” Was it treason? How many people there are who know they are in the wrong, and yet when the people turn against them, are ready to cry out like that. They put on an air of injured innocence. Hypocrites! This avails her nothing. She is in the Temple courts and they will not spill Phoenician blood there. “Have her forth between the ranks,” says Jehoiada, and as they made way for her she went to the entry of the horse gate and there she is slain. Jehoiada matured his plans as perfectly as Jehu and carried them out almost as quickly and successfully. That ends the reign of Phoenician blood upon the throne of Israel. There is no doubt that most of the people of Israel felt that a great crisis had passed.
Now let us look at the reign of Joash. He reigned for forty years beginning when a boy only seven. Joash was a grandson of Athaliah on his father’s side, so there was a little of the Phoenician blood in his veins. It is not all pure Hebrew blood, and as blood will tell sooner or later, we find that his Phoenician, corrupt, heathen blood manifests itself in the life of Joash afterward.
His great religious revolutions and reforms were instituted by Jehoiada. As soon as Joash is made king, Jehoiada renews the covenant thus: “And Jehoiada made a covenant between himself and all the people, and the king, that they should be the Lord’s people.” That covenant had been broken through Athaliah’s introduction of Baal worship, through the breaking up of the Temple services and the defection of the people to Baal. Now Jehoiada must renew the covenant between God and Judah. The covenant made at Sinai had been broken more than once, and had been renewed. He establishes a covenant between the king and the people, and between the king and Jehovah on the basis of the law of Moses. The king is to be representative of Jehovah and must rule as Jehovah directs through his prophets. Now there is a revival of true religion and a reformation is begun. The first thing to be done is to destroy Baal: “And all the people of the land went to the house of Baal, and brake it down; his altars and his images brake they in pieces thoroughly, and slew Mattan the priest of Baal before the altars. And the priest appointed officers over the house of the Lord.” They carried out a work in southern Israel almost similar to what Jehu did-in northern Israel: the priests of Baal are slain, the temple of Baal is broken down, and the shrines of Baal destroyed, and Baal worship is given a severe blow in southern Israel, but it is not extinguished; there are still Baal worshipers in high places, shrines here and there throughout the country where they carry on this vile and licentious worship of their deity.
The next thing was to reorganize the Temple service: “And Jehoiada appointed the officers of the house of the Lord under the hand of the priests and Levites whom David had distributed in the house of the Lord, to offer the burnt sacrifices of the Lord, as it is written in the law of Moses, with rejoicing and with singing, according to the order of David.” The reorganization of the Temple service, a reinstitution of the sacrifices of the burnt offerings and thus once more the nation is brought back to the worship of the true God, Jehovah. Again, it is said, “So all the people of the land rejoiced, and the city was quiet.” A brief pointed statement, but there is a history behind it. There must have been turmoil, strife, confusion, bloodshed, and unrest in the city of Jerusalem as this revolution in religion was going on, but Jehoiada’s hands have hold of the reigns of power and the city calms down and is quiet. Joash is a good and faithful king so long as he is under the influence of Jehoiada, who did the strange thing to take two wives for Joash, which is very hard to account for.
There were great reforms instituted by Joash. Notice what the king himself institutes. He begins first to repair the Temple that had been broken down during the reign of Athaliah and Jehoram, and in order to do that he must raise money, and to raise money he commands the priests to bring in the revenue which they receive from the people. Under the law of Moses every man of Israel had to pay a shekel or a half-shekel every year. Now the priests or Levites were to receive that money and bring it to the king to be utilized in repairing the Temple. Joash depends upon the honesty of the priests. We see here a very inefficient organization, and it doesn’t work. “Howbeit the Levites hastened it not.” They pocketed the money. It didn’t go into the treasury and therefore the house of the Lord could not be repaired. That scheme failed because the priests lacked honesty and integrity.
Now let us look at Jehu’s political relations. We find by consulting Price’s The Monuments and the Old Testament, that Jehu was forced to pay heavy tribute to Shalmaneser, king of Assyria. Shalmaneser says himself at that time, “I received tribute of the Tyreans and the Sidonians and of Jehu the son of Omri,” in one of his inscriptions and on the back of an obelisk left by Shalmaneser we have pictures of Jehu bringing to him presents of gold, basins of gold, bowls of gold, cups of gold, lead, a royal scepter and staves. Thus we see that Jehu had to pay heavy tribute in order to maintain the integrity of his kingdom after thus securing it. We have no record that Jehu ever fought against Shalmaneser or that Shalmaneser ever fought against Jehu; but Shalmaneser had gained a great victory over Damascus and Syria, and Jehu had to pay him this heavy tribute to keep him away from Israel. Thus Jehu’s reign was not all peace and prosperity. He is in a sense under the iron heel of Assyria. We also see from 2Ki 10:32-33 that Jehu lost all eastern Palestine, which was smitten by Hazael, king of Syria, and thus his kingdom was stripped and there was left to him only a small portion of western Palestine: “In those days the Lord began to cut Israel short; and Hazael smote them in all the coasts of Israel; from Jordan eastward, all the land of Gilead, the Gadites, and the Reubenites, and the Manassites, from Aroer, which is by the valley of Arnon, even Gilead and Bashan.” Thus Jehu is stripped of all of his possessions east of the Jordan. Though one of the ablest of the monarchs of northern Israel, Jehu was also the one that led Israel into sin, and his kingdom was in worse condition at the end than it was at the beginning.
Now let us take up the reign of Jehoahaz. Jehu reigned twenty-eight years, and was succeeded by Jehoahaz his son, who reigned only seventeen years, and followed in the footsteps of his father and Jeroboam the son of Nebat which made Israel to sin. In the reign of Jehoahaz we read: “And Hazael king of Syria oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel and he delivered them into the hand of Hazael king of Syria, and into the hand of Benhadad the son of Hazael, continually “That means that they were compelled to pay tribute, heavy tribute to their conquerors, which drained them of all their resources and left them little better than slaves.
Jehoiada brings forth a new scheme. He is a wise man, and when he finds this other plan of Joash will not work, he suggests that they make a great chest, or box, and bore a hole in the top of it so that no man can get his hand into it, and place this box beside the altar near the entrance to the house of the Lord where the people come and go so that every man could put his tax into the box. It is not long before they find a large amount of money in it, and they are very careful how it should be counted and paid out, and very careful about the men who are to count it and hand it over to the workmen. We see how they go on with the details of the work, and they found enough money to repair the breaches of the Temple that had been broken down, and to provide the various vessels, the cups of silver, snuffers, basins, trumpets, vessels of gold, or vessels of silver. Then we find that the Temple worship is resumed, and the burnt offerings were offered continually as it had been for several years previous. Then follows an account of the death of Jehoiada, an old man, 130 years old. They buried him in the city of David among the kings as he was a king’s son-in-law, and was honored as few other Israelites have been who were not of the royal family.
After his death the bad blood flowing in the veins of Joash is manifest. A change comes; the pressure is off; the wise counsellor is gone, and Joash now begins to show what is his true nature and character. He comes under the influence of the princes of Judah, the upper ten or the upper 400, who secretly or openly preferred the worship of Baal to the worship of Jehovah, possibly because of its licentiousness. Joash is foolish enough to listen to them, sanctions the worship of Baal and of Asherah, turns his back upon the worship of Jehovah. Worse than that, Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, a prophet of God, is raised up to rebuke and reprove Joash for his sin, but Joash commands that Zechariah be stoned to death in the Temple area because he has dared to warn and admonish the king. Base ingratitude. “O, what a falling off was this!” Zechariah’s last words, “The Lord look upon it and require it,” were remembered and recorded, as was the dying statement of Jesus Christ and of Stephen, the martyr. Some scholars think that when Jesus Christ was speaking to the Pharisees about the blood of Zechariah, which should be required of their generation, that he referred to this same Zechariah. Joash has incurred the hostility of the prophets and the worshipers of Jehovah in his realm. The best people of his country conspired against him, and very soon he is put to death. Israel is in a desperate condition during the reign of Jehoahaz. Hazael and Benhadad have assaulted him and-defeated him to such an extent that only fifty horsemen and ten chariots and ten thousand footmen are left. For the king of Syria destroyed them and made them like the dust in the threshing. The kingdom could hardly be lower and exist at all. It is at its lowest ebb. Joash’s reign ends in misery and defeat. Hazael whom Elijah had anointed in Damascus, that ruthless monarch of Syria, who has crushed northern Israel under his feet and ground it to dust, advances as far south as Judah and Jerusalem and meets a large army of Joash and defeats it utterly, kills the princes of the people, and sends all the spoil that he captures back to Damascus. Then Hazael goes down to Philistia and takes the strong city of Gath, then he turns his eye upon Jerusalem with its vast treasures and is intending to advance up one of those mountain defiles to the hilltop whereon Jerusalem is situated and conquer the capital and take all its treasures. The only thing Joash can do, is to buy Hazael off. Then Joash strips the Temple of all the hallowed things, takes the gold and the treasure and hands it over to Hazael. Hazael is satisfied, as all he wants is the plunder and the treasure of the Temple, and in this way he got it without fighting for it.
Joash perishes by the hands of his own servants who had become disgusted with him because of his apostasy and evil reign. They buried him with the family in the City of David, but it does not say in the sepulchers of the kings.
QUESTIONS
1. What was the condition of Israel at this time?
2. What were the antecedent facts in the history of Judah bearing on this period?
3. After the death of Ahaziah who reigned in his stead, how did she get the throne, and how was God’s promise to David made sure?
4. What was Jehu’s policy and what was his scheme to destroy Baal?
5. What right had Jehu to destroy so many people?
6. What do you think of his method and what did God command in Jehu?
7. How did the Lord reward Jehu for his service and wherein did Jehu fail?
8. Recite the story of how the royal line of David was restored.
9. How did Athaliah meet with her deserts?
10. Who was Joash’s mother and what was the bearing on the life of Joash?
11. What was the character of Jehoiada and what were his works?
12. What was Jehoiada’s influence over Joash, what was the spiritual condition of the kingdom of Judah at this time, what strange thing did Jehoiada do and how do you account for it?
13. What command did Joash give and what was his plan for carrying it out?
14. What happened to Israel during the reign of Joash and what was the character of the Syrians.
15. Who succeeded Jehu, what was his character, who oppressed Israel during this time and what were the events in his reign?
16. How did Joash’s plan for repairing the Temple work, what was the fault with the plans and what was the lesson?
17. What new plan did they adopt and what custom perhaps originated here?
18. What order did he here reset?
19. What was the lesson here of the value of the preacher to the world?
20. What prophetic book has its setting here?
21. What distinction in Jehoiada’s burial?
22. What was his sin of omission; his sin of commission?
23. What indicates Joash’s weakness, what were his sins, what was the origin of the high places and groves, and what was the paliation for the sins of Joash?
24. How did the Lord try to bring them back, how did they receive the Lord’s prophet’s what special case cited, how did Joash show his ingratitude in his case, and what New Testament use of this incident?
25. What was the judgment executed on Joash and how did he escape?
26. Rewrite the story of Joash’s death and contrast this death with that of Jehoiada.
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
2Ki 12:1 In the seventh year of Jehu Jehoash began to reign; and forty years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name [was] Zibiah of Beersheba.
Ver. 1. Forty years reigned he in Jerusalem. ] A great part of these years, Jehoiada lived with him; and so long, did he not “eat and drink, and do judgment and justice, and then it was well with him?” as Jer 22:15 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 12
Now in the seventh year in which Jehu was the king in Israel is when this king began to reign ( 2Ki 12:1 );
Because you remember, he was just one year old when his dad was killed by Jehu. He was hid for six years and so in the seventh year in which Jehu was reigning, this young man began to reign.
Now Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the LORD all his days in which Jehoiada the priest instructed him ( 2Ki 12:2 ).
And so, he was more or less a puppet leader. Jehoiada the priest was the influence behind the throne. However, there were high places of worship where the people burnt incense and offered sacrifices which was following after the pagan customs, and these they did not destroy. And of course, that remained the blotch on the kingdom.
Now Jehoash, this young king, as he grew older he ordered that they take all of the money that was brought into the temple and they use it to repair the temple, for the temple had come into a state of disrepair because the people were worshipping on the high places and they were worshipping Baal and all. And so the temple of God had come into a state of disrepair, and the king Jehoash ordered that they take the money and they repair all of these places in the temple. But after a period of time, the priest had done nothing in the repair of the temple. So Jehoash came and said, “What’s happened? How come you haven’t made the repairs?” And the priest were pocketing all of the money. So Jehoiada put this agape box in there. He got a box and put a hole in the top of it so that the people could drop the money in the box so that the priest couldn’t get it. And they then took the money that the people would drop in the box and they began to repair the temple. And they gave it to the builders and the masons and so forth to begin to restore the temple building.
Now at this time, Hazael, who had taken and had captured the area where the Reubenites and the Gadites and the tribe of Manasseh were living, he now had moved his troops down into the area between Jerusalem and the coast, the city of Gath, which was a Philistine city. And he had taken the city of Gath and was now moving his Syrian army to besiege Jerusalem.
And Jehoash took all of the gold and the silver and all and he bought off Hazael. He gave him all of his money and said, “Hey look, we surrender and here’s all of the money.” So he paid him off and Hazael returned to the to Syria, but the temple was robbed of all of its treasures, the gold and silver vessels and all. They were taken by Hazael.
We come in verse nineteen to the death of Joash. He was killed by his servants who conspired against him, and his son Amaziah began to reign in his stead. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
2Ki 12:1
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Coming to the throne at seven years of age, Jehoash reigned for forty years. All that was beneficent in his reign would seem to have been directly due to the influence of Jehoiada, the priest, for “le did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord all his days wherein Jehoiada the priest instructed him.”
During this period the Temple was rebuilt. In order to do this, there was, first, the correction of official abuses; and then the institution of a voluntary system of giving. Yet the reform was not complete, for the high places were not taken away, and the people were still committing idolatry thereon.
The chapter ends with a threatened invasion by Hazael, and Jehoash, in craven cowardice, bought him off by giving him all the vessels and treasures of the house of God. Such a method of averting attack is always perilous, and transitory in its effect.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Money for the Lords House
2Ki 11:21; 2Ki 12:1-16
So long as the good priest lived, the young king did well. How much we owe to the presence of wise, strong men to advise and assist us! But neither king nor priest dared to go to the furthest limit of reform, 2Ki 12:3. This failure bore disastrous fruit in after-years. It is a mistake to cut off weeds on the surface; they will sprout again and give trouble. If thy right hand cause thee to offend, cut it off.
The Temple had suffered terribly under Athaliah, 2Ch 24:7. The king might well take an interest in its reconstruction, because of the shelter it had afforded him from his enemies. The first attempt to raise a renovation fund was a failure. It was in the wrong hands. The priests appear to have appropriated for their own use offerings intended for Temple repair. A change was therefore required, and their receipts were limited to the sin-offerings. As soon as a clear chance was given to the people, their free-will gifts totaled a large amount, which justified the resumption of the work. Certainly the promptness and integrity of the men who did the work put to shame the lethargy and peculation of the priests. Trust the people! This is not the last time that the heart of the masses was more to be trusted than the priestly caste.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
4. Jehoash, the Temple Repaired, and the Death of Jehoash
CHAPTER 12
1. Jehoashs (Joash) Reign (2Ki 12:1-3; 2Ch 24:2)
2. The Failure of the Priests (2Ki 12:4-8; 2Ch 24:4-5)
3. The Temple Repaired (2Ki 12:9-16; 2Ch 24:8-14)
4. Hazael and Jehoash (2Ki 12:17-18)
5. The Death of Joash (2Ki 12:19-21; 2Ch 24:25-27)
Great things had the Lord done both in Israel and in Judah. As we have seen there were numerous divine interpositions in the downward course, but all led to the final judgments upon both. Revivals took place, but they were not lasting and the reactions which followed produced a greater apostasy. This also is the course of the present age, which will end in a greater departure from God and in a corresponding greater judgment than Israels. The people had fallen away from the divine purpose of their national calling, and become untrue to the meaning of their national history. From this point of view the temporary success of these reform movements may be regarded as a divine protest against the past. But they ultimately failed because all deeper spiritual elements had passed away from rulers and people. And still deeper lessons come to us. There is not a more common, nor can there be a more fatal mistake in religion or in religious movements than to put confidence in mere negations, or to expect from them lasting results for good. A negation without a corresponding affirmation is of no avail for spiritual purposes. We must speak because we believe; we deny that which is false only because we affirm and cherish the opposite truth. Otherwise we may resist; and enlist unspiritual men, but we shall not work any deliverance in the land (A. Edersheim).
The reign of Jehoash had begun well. The record tells us that he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD as long as Jehoiada was priest. But what happened after the departure of Jehoiada? The answer is indicated in verse 3 and fully given in 2Ch 24:17-22. The king, who had received such kindness from Jehoiada, ordered the stoning of Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, because he delivered a faithful message to the king against his idolatry.
The leading work of Jehoashs reign was the repairing of the temple. This had become necessary because the family of Athaliah had broken it up and used the dedicated things in the worship of Baal (2Ch 24:7). The king took the initiative, but the neglect of the priests made the work practically impossible. Then the work was taken up in earnest by Jehoiada, and voluntary contributions received. A large sum was collected which was exclusively used for the repairing of the temple. When this was completed the balance was used for the purchase of the sacred vessels (2Ch 24:14).
Then Hazael began his wicked work and threatened Jerusalem. Joash bought him off by turning over to him all the hallowed things of the temple and the treasures of the palace. Not a word is said that Jehoash sought the Lord or prayed. It shows only too clearly that Jehovah, the present help in time of trouble, had been forgotten. The death of the king, murdered in the house of Millo followed soon. In our annotations of Chronicles we shall hear more of his history. Then Amaziah reigned in his stead.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
the seventh: 2Ki 9:27, 2Ki 11:1, 2Ki 11:3, 2Ki 11:4, 2Ki 11:21, 2Ch 24:1-14
Jehoash: 2Ki 11:2, 1Ch 3:11, Joash
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2Ki 12:3. The people still sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places, where the holy patriarchs and prophets had worshipped the Lord. The people venerated those places, but the law it would seem, absolutely required all sacrifices, except sin-offerings, to be offered in the temple. Deuteronomy 16.
2Ki 12:18. Sent it to Hazael: viz. all the hallowed treasures of the temple. Where then was Israels God? Alas, this king was good only while his uncle guarded his person, and influenced his council. He had a prodigal heart which spurned restraints.
2Ki 12:20. His servants slew him. By his apostasy, and the murder of the priests, his cousins, he became so unpopular that nobody would defend him. Zachariah prayed the Lord to require his blood, and that of his brothers; and the Lord now did so. See the account of their martyrdom in 2Ch 24:21.
REFLECTIONS.
Having seen Israel purged of bloody and wicked rulers, we now see a period of peace under the wise ministry of Jehoiada the highpriest, and uncle of the king. Poverty and affliction assailed the kingdom; otherwise the worship of the Lord was brought into a resemblance of the happier times of David and of Solomon. When men high in office are more distinguished by their goodness than their greatness, it is peculiarly happy for their country.The only complaint brought against the age is, that the high places were not taken away; and worshipping the Lord on those hills was a long controverted subject. Every city, for ought we know, had a high place for peace-offerings, and even for burning incense. They could therefore boast of following the example of their fathers, and that God had met the patriarchs in many of those identical spots, for the communication of special blessings, and the renewal of the covenant. The high places were, notwithstanding, very often perverted to idolatry; and therefore it was the best and safest way for Israel to have but one altar; for we have but one Mediator between God and man.
Jehoiada, striving to repair the spiritual temple, neglected for a long time to repair the breach in the outward temple, and to fortify the wall, which during a former siege had been broken down. It was therefore resolved to call upon the people for a poll-tax of half a shekel, which Moses had enjoined to be paid towards the erection of the tabernacle. Exo 30:13. To this were to be added voluntary gifts, which the worshippers dropped into the treasury chest, as was the case in our Saviours time. When the people see ministers faithful and diligent in the execution of the ministry, the difficulties arising from the want of money to build and repair places of worship are generally superseded in a course of years; and as the efforts of Joash in this work were the finest trait in his character, so christians should regard the supplying the cause of God with every necessary want as one of their best and first duties.
The loss of a wise and faithful guardian is often among the greatest calamities which can befal a weak prince. Joash served the Lord all the days of his pious uncle; but on his demise he indulged himself in all the sins of the age, became the dupe of his courtiers, worshipped idols, and slew Zachariah for testifying against his apostasy, and the corrupt propensities of his heart. And how many like Joash do we find in this age of commercial wealth? How many young men, the sons of pious and industrious tradesmen, who have lived decently while under the care of their parents, launch forth on their decease into all the follies and wickedness of the world, and become like Joash a proverb of impiety. How careful then should those be who enjoy the advantages of a religious education, to form in early life the habits of piety and temperance; otherwise, on breaking the bonds of religion, they are peculiarly in danger of becoming prodigals of the most distinguished class.
Young men, who so wantonly deviate from the habits and hopes of early life, often receive their punishment in this world, besides what awaits the impenitent in the world to come. A conspiracy was formed against Joash, and he was slain, having cast off the defence of the Almighty. Thus, though some of his children were spared, yet not a man in Davids line, living when Athaliah slew the seed-royal, ultimately escaped. They all fell by the sword; for God had said to him, The sword shall never depart from thy house. But this family had ceased to be faithful to God: and if four very numerous royal families all fell in this unexpected way, how presumptuous is it for men to sin in hopes of future repentance. Who among the multitude of these distinguished personages had any proper time for repentance? Oh that the foolish world would be wise unto salvation: oh that they would learn this well authenticated truth, that when a man is actually sliding into the abyss, it is then too late to start back and cry for help. He is in the rapids, which run with fearful impetuosity to the cataract.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2 Kings 12. Reign of Joash and his Repair of the Temple.
2Ki 12:1-3 is in the usual annalistic style of the Deuteronomist. It is followed by a curious extract from the Temple records (2Ki 12:4 ff.), similar to those found in 2Ki 16:10-18 and 2Ki 22:3 to 2Ki 23:24. This relates to the provision of money for the repair of the Temple. Two things deserve attention (2Ki 12:4). The first is that the sources of the Temple revenue are given as (a) an assessment on each individual (cf. Lev 27:2) and (b) voluntary offerings. The second is the part taken by the king. Jehoash (for so Joash is here termed) takes the lead throughout; the priests are merely his servants. Even Jehoiada (here called the high priest; see on 2Ki 11:4) is quite subordinate to the king. In all the Temple records in Kings the sanctuary is under the kings absolute control. This representation is carefully corrected in the parallel passages in Chronicles, where the priests and Levites are given more prominence. But even there we can see that, as at Bethel, so at Jerusalem, the Temple was the kings chapel (Amo 7:13).
2Ki 12:17-21. Hazael, king of Syria (cf. 2Ki 10:32, 2Ki 13:3) extended his ravages into Judah, and was bought off by Temple treasures. Joash, like his son Amaziah (2Ki 14:19), was murdered in a conspiracy. In 2Ch 24:19 ff. Hazaels invasion and the murder of Joash are represented as punishments for his refusal to listen to Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, and causing him to be stoned.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
JEHOASH REPAIRS THE TEMPLE
(vv.1-16)
Jehu bad reigned seven years in Israel before Jehoash took the throne of Judah, so that the two were contemporary for 21 years (ch.10:26). Until the time that Jehoiada died, Jehoash was kept from evil (v.1), though after the death of Jehoiada, Jehoash was influenced by leaders in Judah to leave the house of the Lord and worship wooden images and other idols (2Ch 24:15-18).
However, in the earlier years of his reign, Jehoash was rightly influenced by Jehoiada, though the high places still remained, where the people sacrificed and burned incense (vv.2-3). They would say they were sacrificing to God, but it was disobedience, for God had told Israel to sacrifice only in the place that He chose (Deu 12:5; Deu 12:11), which was Jerusalem. Yet Jehoash was concerned for the proper welfare of the temple of God and gave orders that the money for which the people were assessed and that which they voluntarily brought was to be used for the repair of the temple (vv.4 5). It is not told us at what age Jehoash first gave these orders, but by the time Jehoash was 30 years of age the priests had not repaired the damages of the temple (v.6).
It was Jehoash who confronted the priests with this failure. it seems strange that Jehoiada had been lax in this necessary work. of repairing the temple, so that Jehoash took the initiative. At this time the faithfulness of Jehoash was commendable. He called Jehoiada and other priests to reproach them with their laxity and to command that they use the money they already had in the work of repair, demanding no more from the people.
However, Jehoiada bored a hole in the lid of a chest and placed it beside the altar, and whatever money was brought voluntarily by the people was put into the chest (v.9). This was filled more than once (v.10), and the proceeds were put into bags and counted by the king’s scribe and the high priest, a necessary witness as to the amount gathered.
The money was then given to those who did the work, having oversight over the house of the Lord, as well as masons and stonecutters, and for bringing timber. It is noted, however, that basins of silver, trimmers, sprinkling bowls, trumpets or articles of gold and silver were not included in this work of repair (v.14). Does this not tell us that, though there was a good measure of recovery, yet the finer details of the worship of the Lord were still lacking? This too frequently happens even in the Church of God today. Seriously concerned saints may be exercised to recover the main features of the worship of God, but too often the silver basins are lacking, that is, the emphasis on the truth of redemption by virtue of the sacrifice of Christ. Or the trimmers might be ignored, speaking of the absence of lowly self-judgment in our worship. Or the sprinkling bowls may be absent, the bowls from which blood was sprinkled before and on the mercy seat. For sometimes, even in worship, we forget how valuable to God is the reminder of the blood of Christ having made atonement for sin in God’s sight. Trumpets too, the musical side of worship, with its many notes of praise, may not be present. Indeed, today literal musical instruments may be used, but their spiritual significance hardly known. Articles of gold speak of that which is strictly for God’s glory, and articles of silver speak of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. These ought to be most prominent in worship, and yet in many churches today there is a measure of worship without attention given to these precious details.
How good it is to see that the workmen dealt faithfully (v.15), not as under bondage. How vital a matter this is in Christian testimony too.
JEHOASH COMPROMISES WITH HAZAEL
(vv.17-18)
Hazael, the wicked king of Syria had aspirations of greatness. He fought against Gath, a Philistine city, and captured it (v.17). Then he set his sights on Jerusalem. Jehoash made the sad blunder of not appealing to the Lord, but rather of sacrificing the sacred wealth that was in the temple, to compromise himself and satisfy the greed of Hazael (v.18). Did he not stop to think that the treasures he gave to Hazael actually belonged to the Lord, so that he had no right to give them away? Do we also make the serious blunder of giving up any truth of the Word of God to satisfy the enemy of our souls? The Word of God tells Timothy, “O Timothy, guard what was committed to your trust” (1Ti 6:20). When God entrusts us with His truth, let us not dare to give it up, whatever enemy threatens us!
THE DEATH OF JEHOASH
(vv.19-21)
No more is said in Kings of the further failure of Jehoash, though 2Ch 24:15-22 shows us how far astray he went in disobedience to God after the death of Jehoiada, even putting to death Zechariah the prophet who reproved his transgression.
It is little wonder that the death of Jehoash was so tragic. When he rebelled against serving the Lord, his own servants rebelled against him, and as a result of a conspiracy, two of them killed Jehoash (vv.20-21). Thus a reign that began well ended in ignominy and shame. Jehoash was buried in Jerusalem and Amaziah, his son, took the throne.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
ATHALLAH
(B.C. 842-836)
JOASH BEN AHAZIAH OF JUDAH
(B.C. 836-796)
2Ki 11:1-21; 2Ki 12:1-21
“Par cette fin terrible, et due a ses forfaits,
Apprenez, Roi des Juifs, et noubliez jamais,
Que les rois dans le ciel ont un juge severe,
Linnocence un vengeur, et les orphelins un pere!”
– RACINE, “Athalie.”
“Regardless of the sweeping whirlwinds sway,
That, hushed in grim repose, expects its evening prey.”
– GRAY.
BEFORE we follow the destinies of the House of Jehu we must revert to Judah, and watch the final consequences of ruin which came in the train of Ahabs Tyrian marriage, and brought murder and idolatry into Judah, as well as into Israel.
Athaliah, who, as queen-mother, was more powerful than the queen-consort (malekkah), was the true daughter of Jezebel. She exhibits the same undaunted fierceness, the same idolatrous fanaticism, the same swift resolution, the same cruel and unscrupulous wickedness.
It might have been supposed that the miserable disease of her husband Jehoram, followed so speedily by the murder, after one years reign, of her son Ahaziah, might have exercised over her character the softening influence of misfortune. On the contrary, she only saw in these events a short path to the consummation of her ambition.
Under Jehoram she had been queen: under Ahaziah she had exercised still more powerful influence as Gebirah, and had asserted her sway alike over her husband and over her son, whose counsellor she was to do wickedly. It was far from her intention tamely to sink from her commanding position into the abject nullity of an aged and despised dowager in a dull provincial seraglio. She even thought that
“To reign is worth ambition though in hell
Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.”
The royal family of the House of David, numerous and flourishing as it once was, had recently been decimated by cruel catastrophes. Jehoram, instigated probably by his heathen wife, had killed his six younger brothers. {2Ch 21:2-4} Later on, the Arabs and Philistines, in their insulting invasion, had not only plundered his palace, but had carried away his sons; so that, according to the Chronicler, “there was never a son left him, save Jehoahaz [i.e., Ahaziah], the youngest of his sons.” {2Ch 21:17} He may have had other sons after that invasion; and Ahaziah had left children, who must all, however, have been very young, since he was only twenty-two or twenty-three when Jehus servants murdered him. Athaliah might naturally have hoped for the regency; but this did not content her. When she saw that her son Ahaziah was dead, “she arose and destroyed all the seed royal.” In those days the life of a child was but little thought of; and it weighed less than nothing with Athaliah that these innocents were her grandchildren. She killed all of whose existence she was aware, and boldly seized the crown. No queen had ever reigned alone either in Israel or in Judah. Judah must have sunk very low, and the talents of Athaliah must have been commanding, or she could never have established a precedent hitherto undreamed of, by imposing on the people of David for six years the yoke of a woman, and that woman a half-Phoenician idolatress. Yet so it was! Athaliah, like her cousin Dido, felt herself strong enough to rule.
But a womans ruthlessness was outwitted by a womans cunning. Ahaziah had a half-sister on the fathers side, the princess Jehosheba, or Jehoshabeath, who was then or afterwards (we are told) married to Jehoiada, the high priest. The secrets of harems are hidden deep, and Athaliah may have been purposely kept in ignorance of the birth to Ahaziah of a little babe whose mother was Zibiah of Beersheba, and who had received the name of Joash. If she knew of his existence, some ruse must have been palmed off upon her, and she must have been led to believe that he too had been killed. But he had not been killed. Jehosheba “stole him from among the kings sons that were slain,” and, with the connivance of his nurse, hid him from the murderers sent by Athaliah in the palace storeroom in which beds and couches were kept. Thence, at the first favorable moment, she transferred the child and nurse to one of the chambers in the three stories of chambers which ran round the Temple, and were variously used as wardrobes or as dwelling-rooms.
The hiding-place was safe; for under Athaliah the Temple of Jehovah fell into neglect and disrepute, and its resident ministers would not be numerous. It would not have been difficult, in the seclusion of Eastern life, for Jehosheba to pass off the babe as her own child to all but the handful who knew the secret.
Six years passed away, and the iron hand of Athaliah still kept the people in subjection. She had boldly set up in Judah her mothers Baal worship. Baal had his temple not far from that of Jehovah; and though Athaliah did not imitate Jezebel in persecuting the worshippers of Jehovah, she made her own high priest, Mattan, a much more important person than Jehoiada for all who desired to propitiate the favors of the Court.
Joash had now reached his seventh year, and a Jewish prince in his seventh year is regarded as something more than a mere child. Jehoiada thought that it was time to strike a blow in his favor, and to deliver him from the dreadful confinement which made it impossible for him to leave the Temple precincts.
He began secretly to tamper with the guards both of the Temple and of the palace. Upon the Levitic guards, indignant at the intrusion of Baal-worship, he might securely count, and the Carites and queens runners were not likely to be very much devoted to the rule of the manlike and idolatrous alien queen. Taking an oath of them in secrecy, he bound them to allegiance to the little boy whom he produced from the Temple chamber as their lawful lord, and the son of their late king.
The plot was well laid. There were five captains of the five hundred royal bodyguards, and the priest secretly enlisted them all in the service. The Chronicler says that he also sent round to all the chief Levites, and collected them in Jerusalem for the emergency. The arrangements of the Sabbath gave special facility to his plans; for on that day only one of the five divisions of guards mounted watch at the palace, and the others were set free for the service of the Temple. It had evidently been announced that some great ceremony would be held in the shrine of Jehovah; for all the people, we are told, were assembled in the courts of the house of the Lord. Jehoiada ordered one of the companies to guard the palace; another to be at the “gate Sur,” or the gate “of the Foundation”; another at the gate behind the barracks (?) of the palace-runners, to be a barrier against any incursion from the palace. Two more were to ensure the safety of the little king by watching the precincts of the Temple. The Levitic officers were to protect the kings person with serried ranks. Jehoiada armed them with spears and shields, which David had placed as trophies in the porch; and if any one tried to force his way within their lines he was to be slain.
The only danger to be apprehended was from any Carite mercenaries, or palace servants of the queen: among all others Jehoiada found a widespread defection. The people, the Levites, even the soldiers, all hated the Baal worshipping usurper.
At the fateful moment the guards were arranged in two dense lines, beginning from either side of the porch, till their ranks met beyond the altar, so as to form a hedge round the royal boy. Into this triangular space the young prince was led by the high priest, and placed beside the matstsebah-some prominent pillar in the Temple court, either one of Solomons pillars Jachin and Boaz, or some special erection of later days. Round him stood the princes of Judah, and there, in the midst of them, Jehoiada placed the crown upon his head, and in significant symbol also laid lightly upon it for a moment “The Testimony”-perhaps the Ten Commandments and the Book of the Covenant-the most ancient fragment of the Pentateuch which was treasured up with the pot of manna inside or in front of the Ark. Then he poured on the childs head the consecrated oil, and said, “Let the king live!”
The completion of the ceremony was marked by the blare of the rams horns, the softer blast of the silver trumpets, and the answering shouts of the soldiers and the people. The tumult, or the news of it, reached the ears of Athaliah in the neighboring palace, and, with all the undaunted courage of her mother, she instantly summoned her escort, and went into the Temple to see for herself what was taking place. She probably mounted the ascent which Solomon had made from the palace to the Temple court, though it had long been robbed of its precious metals and scented woods. She led the way, and thought to overawe by her personal ascendency any irregularity which might be going on; for in the deathful hush to which she had reduced her subjects she does not seem to have dreamt of rebellion. No sooner had she entered than the guards closed behind her, excluding and menacing her escort.
A glance was sufficient to reveal to her the significance of the whole scene. There, in royal robes, and crowned with the royal crown, stood her little unknown grandson beside the matstsebah, while round him were the leaders of the people and the trumpeters, and the multitudes were still rolling their tumult of acclamation from the court below. In that sight she read her doom. Rending her clothes, she turned to fly, shrieking, “Treason! treason!” Then the commands of the priest rang out: “Keep her between the ranks, till you have got her outside the area of the Temple; and if any of her guards follow or try to rescue her, kill him with the sword. But let not the sacred courts be polluted with her blood.” So they made way for her, and as she could not escape she passed between the rows of Levites and soldiers till she had reached the private chariot-road by which the kings drove to the precincts. There the sword of vengeance fell. Athaliah disappears from history, and with her the dark race of Jezebel. But her story lives in the music of Handel and the verse of Racine.
This is the only recorded revolution in the history of Judah. In two later cases a king of Judah was murdered, but in both instances “the people of the land” restored the Davidic heir. Life in Judah was less dramatic and exciting than in Israel, but far more stable; and this, together with comparative immunity from foreign invasions, constituted an immense advantage.
Jehoiada, of course, became regent for the young king, and continued to be his guide for many years, so that even the kings two wives were selected by his advice. As the nation had been distracted with idolatries, he made the covenant between the king and the people that they should be loyal to each other, and between Jehoiada and the king and the people that they should be Jehovahs people. Such covenants were not infrequent in Jewish history. Such a covenant had been made by Asa {2Ch 15:9-15} after Abijams apostasy, as it was afterwards made by Hezekiah {2Ch 29:10} and by Josiah. {2Ch 29:31} The new covenant, and the sense of awakenment from the dream of guilty apostasy, evoked an outburst of spontaneous enthusiasm in the hearts of the populace. Of their own impulse they rushed to the temple of Baal which Athaliah had reared, dismantled it, and smashed to pieces his altars and images. The riot was only stained by a single murder. They slew Mattan, Athaliahs Baal priest, before the altars of his god.
With Jehoiada begins the title of “high priest.” Hitherto no higher name than “the priest” had been given even to Aaron, or Eli, or Zadok; but thenceforth the title of “chief priest” is given to his successors, among whom he inaugurated a new epoch.
It was now Jehoiadas object to restore such splendor and solemnity as he could to the neglected worship of the Temple, which had suffered in every way from Baals encroachments. He did this before the kings second solemn inauguration. Even the porters had been done away with, so that the Temple could at any time be polluted by the presence of the unclean, and the whole service of priests and Levites had fallen into desuetude.
Then he took the captains, and the Carians, and the princes, and conducted the boy-king, amid throngs of his shouting and rejoicing people, from the Temple to his own palace. There he seated him on the lion-throne of Solomon his father, in the great hall of justice, and the city was quiet and the land had rest. According to the historian, “Joash did right all his days, because Jehoiada the priest instructed him.” The stock addition that “howbeit the bamoth were not removed, and the people still sacrificed and offered incense there,” is no derogation from the merits of Joash, and perhaps not even of Jehoiada, since if the law against the bamoth then existed, it had become absolutely unknown, and these local sanctuaries were held to be conducive to true religion.
It was natural that the child of the Temple should have at heart the interests of the Temple in which he had spent his early days, and to the shelter of which he owed his life and throne. The sacred house had been insulted and plundered by persons whom the Chronicler calls “the sons of Athaliah, that wicked woman,” {2Ch 24:7} meaning, probably, her adherents. Not only had its treasures been robbed to enrich the house of Baal, but it had been suffered to fall into complete disrepair. Breaches gaped in the outer walls, and the very foundations were insecure. The necessity for restoring it occurred, not, as we should have expected, to the priests who lived at its altar, but to the boy-king. He issued an order to the priests that they should take charge of all the money presented to the Temple for the hallowed things, all the money paid in current coin, and all the assessments for various fines and vows, together with every freewill contribution. They were to have this revenue entirely at their disposal, and to make themselves responsible for the necessary repairs. According to the Chronicler, they were further to raise a subscription throughout the country from all their personal friends.
The kings command had been urgent. Money had at first come in, but nothing was done. Joash had reached the twenty-third year of his reign, and was thirty years old; but the Temple remained in its old sordid condition. The matter is passed over by the king as lightly, courteously, and considerately as he could; but if he does not charge the priests with downright embezzlement, he does reproach them for most reprehensible neglect. They were the appointed guardians of the house: why did they suffer its dilapidations to remain untouched year after year, while they continued to receive the golden stream which poured-but now, owing to the disgust of the people, in diminished volume-into their coffers? “Take no more money, therefore,” he said, “from your acquaintances, but deliver it for the breaches of the house.” For what they had already received he does not call them to account, but henceforth takes the whole matter into his own hands. The neglectful priests were to receive no more contributions, and not to be responsible for the repairs. Joash, however, ordered Jehoiada to take a chest and put it beside the altar on the right. All contributions were to be dropped into this chest. When it was full, it was carried by the Levites unopened into the palace, {2Ch 24:11} and there the kings chancellor and the high priest had the ingots weighed and the money counted; its value was added up, and it was handed over immediately to the architects, who paid it to the carpenters and masons. The priests were left in possession of the money for the guilt-offerings, and for the sin-offerings, but with the rest of the funds they had nothing to do. In this way was restored the confidence which the management of the hierarchy had evidently forfeited, and with renewed confidence in the administration fresh gifts poured in. Even in the cautious narrative of the Chronicler it is clear that the priests hardly came out of these transactions with flying colors. If their honesty is not formally impugned, at least their torpor is obvious, as is the fact that they had wholly failed to inspire the zeal of the people till the young king took the affair into his own hands.
The long reign of Joash ended in eclipse and murder. If the later tradition be correct, it was also darkened with atrocious ingratitude and crime.
For, according to the Chronicler, Jehoiada died at the advanced age of one hundred and thirty, and was buried, as an unwonted honor, in the sepulchers of the kings. When he was dead, the princes of Judah came to Joash, who had now been king for many years, and with a strange suddenness tempted the zealous repairer of the Temple of Jehovah into idolatrous apostasy. With soft speech they seduced him into the worship of Asherim. It was marvelous indeed if the child of the Temple became its foe, and he who had made a covenant with Jehovah fell away to Baalim. But worse followed. Prophets reproved him, and he paid them no heed, in spite of “the greatness of the burdens”-i.e., the multitude of the menaces-laid upon him. {2Ch 24:27} The stern, denunciative harangues were despised. At last Zechariah, the son of his benefactor Jehoiada, rebuked king and people. He cried aloud from some eminence in the court of the Temple, that “since they had transgressed the commandments of Jehovah they could not prosper: they had forsaken Him, and He would forsake them.” Infuriated by this prophecy of woe, the guilty people, at the command of their guiltier king, stoned him to death. As he lay dying, he exclaimed, “The Lord look upon it, and require it!”
The entire silence of the elder and better authority might lead us to hope that there may be room for doubt as to the accuracy of the much later tradition. Yet there certainly was a persistent belief that Zechariah had been thus martyred. A wild legend, related, in the Talmud, tells us that when Nebuzaradan conquered Jerusalem and entered the Temple he saw blood bubbling up from the floor of the court, and slaughtered ninety-four myriads, so that the blood flowed till it touched the blood of Zechariah, that it might be fulfilled which is said, {Hos 4:2} “Blood toucheth blood.” When he saw the blood of Zechariah, and noticed that it was boiling and agitated, he asked, “What is this?” and was told that it was the spilled blood of the sacrifices. Finding this to be false, he threatened to comb the flesh of the priests with iron currycombs if they did not tell the truth. Then they confessed that it was the blood of the murdered Zechariah. “Well,” he said, “I will pacify him.” First he slaughtered the greater and lesser Sanhedrin: but the blood did not rest. Then he sacrificed young men and maidens: but the blood still bubbled: At last he cried, “Zechariah, Zechariah, must I then slay them all?” Then the blood was still, and Nebuzaradan, thinking how much blood he had shed, fled, repented, and became a Jewish proselyte!
Perhaps the worst feature of the story against Joash might have been susceptible of a less shocking coloring. He had naturally all his life been under the influence of priestly domination. The ascendency which Jehoiada had acquired as priest-regent had been maintained till long after the young king had arrived at full manhood. At last, however, he had come into collision with the priestly body. He was in the right; they were transparently in the wrong. The Chronicler, and even the older historians, soften the story against the priests as much as they can; but in both their narratives it is plain that Jehoiada and the whole hierarchy had been more careful of their own interests than of those of the Temple, of which they were the appointed guardians. Even if they can be acquitted of potential malfeasance, they had been guilty of reprehensible carelessness. It is clear that in this matter they did not command the confidence of the people; for so long as they had the management of affairs the sources of munificence were either dried up or only flowed in scanty streams, whereas they were poured forth with glad abundance when the administration of the funds was placed mainly in the hands of laymen under the kings chancellor. It is probable that when Jehoiada was dead Joash thought it right to assert his royal authority in greater independence of the priestly party; and that party was headed by Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada. The Chronicler says that he prophesied: that, however, would not necessarily constitute him a prophet, any more than it constituted Caiaphas. If he was a prophet, and was yet at the head of the priests, he furnishes an all but solitary instance of such a position. The position of a prophet, occupied in the great work of moral reformation, was so essentially antithetic to that of priests, absorbed in ritual ceremonies, that there is no body of men in Scripture of whom, as a whole, we have a more pitiful record than of the Jewish priests. From Aaron, who made the golden calf, to Urijah, who sanctioned the idolatrous altar of Ahaz, and so down to Annas and Caiaphas, who crucified the Lord of glory, they rendered few signal services to true religion. They opposed Uzziah when he invaded their functions, but they acquiesced in all the idolatries and abominations of Rehoboam, Abijah, Ahaziah, Ahaz, and many other kings, without a syllable of recorded protest. When a prophet did spring from their ranks, they set their faces with one consent, and were confederate against him. They mocked and ridiculed Isaiah. When Jeremiah rose among them, the priest Pashur smote him on the cheek, and the whole body persecuted him to death, leaving him to be protected only by the pity of eunuchs and courtiers. Ezekiel was the priestliest of the prophets, and yet he was forced to denounce the apostasies which they permitted in the very temple. The pages of the prophets ring with denunciations of their priestly contemporaries. {Isa 24:2; Jer 5:31; Jer 23:11; Eze 7:26; Eze 22:26; Hos 4:9; Mic 3:11, etc.}
We do not know enough of Zechariah to say much about his character; but priests in every age have shown themselves the most unscrupulous and the most implacable of enemies. Joash probably stood to him in the same relation that Henry II stood to Thomas a Becket. The priests murder may have been due to an outburst of passion on the part of the kings friends, or of the king himself-gentle as his character seems to have been-without being the act of black ingratitude which late traditions represented it to be. The legend about Zechariahs blood represents the priests spirit as so ruthlessly unforgiving as to awaken the astonishment and even the rebukes of the Babylonian idolater. Such a legend could hardly have arisen in the case of a man who was other than a most formidable opponent. The murder of Joash may have been, in its turn, a final outcome of the revenge of the priestly party. The details of the story must be left to inference and conjecture, especially as they are not even mentioned in the earlier and more impartial annalists.
It is at least singular that while Joash, the king, is blamed for continuing the worship at the bamoth, Jehoiada, the high priest, is not blamed, though they continued throughout his long and powerful regency. Further, we have an instance of the priest-regents autocracy which can hardly be regarded as redounding to his credit. It is preserved in an accidental allusion on the page of Jeremiah. In Jer 29:26 we read his reproof and doom of the lying prophecy of the priest Shemaiah the Nehelamite, because as a priest he had sent a letter to the chief priest Zephaniah and all the priests, urging them as the successors of Jehoiada to follow the ruling of Jehoiada, which was to put Jeremiah in a collar. For Jehoiada, he said, “had ordered the priests, as officers [pakidim] in the house of Jehovah, to put in the stocks every one that is mad and maketh himself a prophet. {Jer 29:24-32} If, then, the Jehoiada referred to is the priest-regent, as seems undoubtedly to be the case, we see that he hated all interference of Jehovahs prophets with his rule. That the prophets were usually regarded by the world and by priests as “mad,” we see from the fact that the title is given by Jehus captains to Elishas emissary; {2Ki 9:11} and that this continued to be the case we see from the fact that the priests and Pharisees of Jerusalem said of John the Baptist that he had a devil, and of Christ that He was a Samaritan, and that He, too, had a devil. If Joash was in opposition to the priestly party, he was in the same position as all Gods greatest saints and reformers have ever been from the days of Moses to the days of John Wesley. The dominance of priestcraft is the invariable and inevitable death of true, as apart from functional, religion. Priests are always apt to concentrate their attention upon their temples, altars, religious practices and rites-in a word, upon the externals of religion. If they gain a complete ascendency over their fellow-believers, the faithful become their absolute slaves, religion degenerates into formalism, “and the life of the soul is choked by the observance of the ceremonial law.” It was a misfortune for the Chosen People that, except among the prophets and the wise men, the external worship was thought much more of than the moral law. “To the ordinary man,” says Wellhausen, “it was not moral but liturgical acts which seemed to be religious.” This accounts for the monotonous iteration of judgments on the character of kings, based primarily, not upon their essential character, but on their relation to the bamoth and the calves. Although the historian of the Kings gives no hint of this dark story of Zechariahs murder, or of the apostasy of Joash, and indeed narrates no other event of the long reign of forty years, he tells us of the deplorable close. Hazaels ambition had been fatal to Israel; and now, in the cessation of Assyrian inroads upon Aram, he extended his arms towards Judah. He went up against Gath and took it, and cherished designs against Jerusalem. Apparently he did not head the expedition in person, and the historian implies that Joash bought off the attack of his “general.” But the Chronicler makes things far worse. He says that the Syrian host marched to Jerusalem, destroyed all the princes of the people, plundered the city, and sent the spoil to Hazael, who was at Damascus. Judah, he says, had assembled a vast army to resist the small force of the Syrian raid; but Joash was ignominiously defeated, and was driven to pay blackmail to the invader. As to this defeat in battle the historian is silent; but he mentions what the Chronicler omits-namely, that the only way in which Joash could raise the requisite bribe was by once more stripping the Temple and the palace, and sending to Damascus all the treasures which his three predecessors had consecrated, -though we are surprised to learn that after so many strippings and plunderings any of them could still be left. The anguish and mortification of mind caused by these disasters, and perhaps the wounds he had received in the defeat of his army, threw Joash into “great diseases.” But he was not suffered to die of these. His servants-perhaps, if that story be authentic, to avenge the slain son of Jehoiada, but doubtless also in disgust at the national humiliation-rose in conspiracy against him, and smote him at Beth-Millo, where he was lying sick. The Septuagint, in 2Ch 24:27, adds the dark fact that all his sons joined in the conspiracy. This cannot be true of Amaziah, who put the murderer to death. Such, however, was the deplorable end of the king who had stood by the Temple pillar in his fair childhood, amid the shouts and trumpet-blasts of a rejoicing people. At that time all things seemed full of promise and of hope. Who could have anticipated that the boy whose head had been touched with the sacred oil and over-shadowed with the Testimony-the young king who had made a covenant with Jehovah, and had initiated the task of restoring the ruined Temple to its pristine beauty-would end his reign in earthquake and eclipse? If indeed he had been guilty of the black ingratitude and murderous apostasy which tradition laid to his charge, we see in his end the nemesis of his ill-doing; yet we cannot but pity one who, after so long a reign, perished amid the spoliation of his people, and was not even allowed to end his days by the sore sickness into which he had fallen, but was hurried into the next world by the assassins knife.
It is impossible not to hope that his deeds were less black than the Chronicler painted. He had made the priests feel his power and resentment, and their Levitic recorder was not likely to take a lenient view of his offences. He says that though Joash was buried in the City of David, he was not buried in the sepulchers of his fathers. The historian of the Kings, however, expressly says that “they buried him with his fathers in the City of David,” and he was peaceably succeeded by Amaziah his son.
There is a curious, though it may be an accidental, circumstance about the name of the two conspirators who slew him. They are called “Jozacar, the son of Shimeath, and Jehozabad, the son of Shomer, his servants.” The names mean “Jehovah remembers,” the son of “Hearer,” and “Jehovah awards,” the son of “Watcher”; and this strangely recalls the last words attributed in the Book of Chronicles to the martyred Zechariah. “Jehovah look upon it, and require it!” The Chronicler turns the names into “Zabad, the son of Shimeath, an Ammonitess, and Jehozabad, the son of Shimrith, a Moabitess.” Does he record this to account for their murderous deed by the blood of hated nations which ran in their veins?