IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?
If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus. (But preferably not from aol.com, for some reason they do not deliver our messages).
FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.
THE PENTATEUCH --- GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS --- NUMBERS --- DEUTERONOMY --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- THE BOOK OF RUTH --- SAMUEL --- KINGS --- EZRA---NEHEMIAH--- ESTHER--- PSALMS 1-58--- PROVERBS---ECCLESIASTES--- SONG OF SOLOMON --- ISAIAH --- JEREMIAH --- LAMENTATIONS --- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL --- --- HOSEA --- --- JOEL ------ AMOS --- --- OBADIAH --- --- JONAH --- --- MICAH --- --- NAHUM --- --- HABAKKUK--- --- ZEPHANIAH --- --- HAGGAI --- ZECHARIAH --- --- MALACHI --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- READINGS IN ROMANS --- 1 CORINTHIANS --- 2 CORINTHIANS ---GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS--- PHILIPPIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- PHILEMON --- HEBREWS --- JAMES --- 1 & 2 PETER --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- JUDE --- REVELATION --- THE GOSPELS & ACTS
By Dr Peter Pett BA BD (Hons) DD
The Reign Of Jehoram, Son Of Jehoshaphat, King of Judah (21.1-20).
Up to this point the Chronicler has presented the house of David in a good light, although not wholly hiding imperfections. He has presented Solomon, Rehoboam and Abijah as all failing to reach the high standards required by the Law. But what he has tended to hide was their association with idolatry. Thus 1 Kings presents Solomon as involving himself with idolatry towards the end of his life (1 Kings 11.1-13), makes clear that idolatry flourished in the days of Rehoboam (1 Kings 14.22-24), and briefly but specifically associates Abijam (Abijah) with the same thing (15.3-4). The Chronicler on the other hand is far more veiled in his references to their dallying with idolatry, only referring to it indirectly in terms of what Asa had to deal with (14.2-5). Asa and Jehoshaphat are then presented as free from idolatry, indeed as reformers. His aim was probably in order to establish the credit of the house of David in the eyes of the post-exilic community who were themselves constantly under pressure from syncretistic and idolatrous neighbours, and had learned not to compromise. They could understand weakness and failure, but they abhorred idolatry.
Now, however, the Chronicler faces his readers up to full blown idolatry. And the tragic thing is that it occurred because of Jehoshaphat’s one great failing, his cosying up the kings of Israel. Had he kept them at arms length what follows would never have happened. But by marrying off his son to a daughter of Ahab, king of Israel, he introduced idolatry into Judah at the highest level. And it would later result in enforced idolatry in Judah, the assassination of all his sons but one, and a period of fifteen years of idolatrous rule patterned on that of the kings of Israel, which would have a continual effect on Judah from then on because of the public officials who had been led astray by that rule.
This is a reminder to all Christians that whilst compromise might sometimes appear helpful (it undoubtedly did to Jehoshaphat) we need to be very wary that it does not put us in a position of continual compromise or introduce what is unhealthy which can never be eradicated.
Jehoram Becomes King And Murder His Brothers (21.1-4).
As the husband of Ahab’s daughter Athaliah, Jehoram was clearly strongly influenced by the ways that she had learned at the court of Ahab. His father had endowed his brothers with great wealth, and had given them rulership, under Jehoram, over the larger fortified cities in Judah. Their wealth and status was too much for Jehoram and Athaliah (who would later reveal her true colours by leading astray Jehoram’s son Ahaziah (22.3) and by murdering all Jehoram’s grandsons (22.10-11)) who decided to deal with their threat by having them all assassinated. Ahab’s ways were being introduced into Judah by the bloodthirsty Athaliah, whom Jehoshaphat in his folly had welcomed to be his son’s wife.
Analysis.
Note that in A Jehoram began to reign, and in the parallel we have details of his reign. In B Jehoshaphat’s sons are described, and in the parallel what happened to them is described. Centrally in C Jehoshaphat made his sons rulers over fortified cities in Judah, and in the parallel he made Jehoram, his firstborn, king.
2.21.1 ‘And Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David, and Jehoram his son reigned instead of him.’
This opening verse follows the usual pattern for kings of Judah. Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers (a euphemism for death), and was buried with his fathers in the royal tombs in the city of David, and his firstborn son (verse 3) reigned instead of him. We learn from 22.2 that his son’s wife was Athaliah of the house of Omri in Israel.
2.21.2 ‘And he had brothers, the sons of Jehoshaphat: Azariah, and Jehiel, and Zechariah, and Azariyahu, and Michael, and Shephatiah. All these were the sons of Jehoshaphat king of Israel.’
Jehoram had six brothers whose names are given here, all of whom were sons of Jehoshaphat. Producing only seven sons Jehoshaphat had clearly refrained from marrying multiple wives, unlike Rehoboam (11.21) and Abijah (13.21), although he probably had more than one. He was following the requirements for kingship in the Law (Deuteronomy 17.17).
The names reflect Jehoshaphat’s piety. Jehoram itself means ‘YHWH is exalted’. Azariah (Azariyahu) means ‘YHWH has helped’. Jehiel means ‘God lives’. Zechariah means ‘YHWH remembers’ or ‘YHWH is renowned’. Michael means ‘who is like God?’. Shephatiah means ‘YHWH has judged’.
The close similarity of the names Azariah and Azariyahu (an alternative form for Azariah) need not worry us. They may well have been named by different mothers, distinguishing themselves from each other by using the shorter and longer form.
Note the title given to Jehoshaphat of ‘king of Israel’. The Chronicler saw wider Judah as the true Israel, made up as it was of Judah, Benjamin, cities of Ephraim and Manasseh (15.8) and large numbers of Israelite immigrants (11.13-16; 14.9). On the other hand it may have been found in his source, used there for a similar reason. It is not a unique example. Judah is equated with Israel a number of times elsewhere (consider 11.3; 12.1, 6; 15.13, 17; 19.8; 20.19; 20.29).
2.21.3 ‘And their father gave them great gifts, of silver, and of gold, and of precious things, with fortified cities in Judah. But he gave the kingdom to Jehoram, because he was the first-born.’
Jehoshaphat treated all his sons equally, giving them the wealth due to their station and appointing them as governors over large cities, as Rehoboam had ‘wisely’ done before him (11.23). One purpose in doing this was to ensure the loyalty of those cities. It also kept his sons away from idle living in Jerusalem, and therefore from mischief. However to his firstborn son Jehoram he ‘gave the kingdom’, that is, he appointed him as his successor, and in fact made him co-regent five years before his death so as to ensure a smooth succession.
2.21.4 ‘Now when Jehoram was risen up over the kingdom of his father, and had made his position strong, he slew all his brothers with the sword, and a variety also of the princes of Israel.’
Once Jehoram had established his position as king he began to deal with those whom he saw as challenging his position. But he clearly went over the top. Whilst it is quite possible that all his brothers, together with many ‘princes of Israel’ (leading men of wider Judah), murmured at the direction in which he was taking the kingdom, especially with regard to his leading the people astray into gross idolatry and giving special heed to the advice of his wife Athaliah, it is questionable whether they all actively intended positive action against him, especially as the Chronicler gives no hint that it was so. The impression given is rather that his action was totally arbitrary, arising from deep suspicion and total ruthlessness, rather than because he had actual grounds for his actions. It seems very probable that he was egged on by his wife (21.6; 22.3), in the same way as Jezebel had egged on Ahab, for his wife would later herself perform a similar ruthless deed in order to establish her position (22.10). Jehoshaphat’s folly in being unequally yoked with unbelievers was reaping a grim harvest for Judah.
The annihilation of rivals was a common practise among many foreign rulers, and had been known in special circumstances in ancient Israel (compare Abimelech in Judges 9.56). It was also the policy of Jehu in northern Israel (2 Kings 10.11), although in his case it was by executing Baal worshippers, not by assassinating his brothers. But, in spite of Solomon’s action against Adonijah it was not a practise in Judah where in fact the kings appear to some extent to have shared their power with their sons through co-regency and governorships (11.23; 21.3), with no action being taken against such sons when their brothers later began to reign. This was certainly true of Rehoboam and Jehoshaphat, and probably true of Abijah and Asa. It must seem probable that the total ruthlessness shown by Jehoram had its source in Athaliah.
2.21.5 ‘Jehoram was thirty two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem.’
This small subsection ends by giving details of Jehoram’s reign. He was thirty two yeas old when he began to reign and he reigned in Jerusalem for eight years.
However, there are good grounds for suggesting that Jehoram was co-regent with Jehoshaphat for a number of years. In 2 Kings 3.1 the reign of Joram of Israel is said to have commenced in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat (who reigned for twenty five years), whilst in 2 Kings 1.17 it is said to have commenced in the second year of Jehoram of Judah. This is explicable in terms of Jehoram having become co-regent with Jehoshaphat some seven or eight years before Jehoshaphat died (taking part years into account) with 2 Kings 1.17 having in mind the commencement of the co-regency. In 2 Kings 8.16 the sole reign of Jehoram of Judah is said to have begun in the fifth year of Joram of Israel. Taking this along with 2 Kings 1.17 we have a co-regency of seven years. This co-regency may well have been established due to the invasion of northern states by Shalmaneser III of Assyria in 853 BC which was driven back at the Battle of Qarqar by a coalition which included Ahab of Israel. Jehoshaphat may well have taken part in the coalition, leaving Jehoram to rule Judah in his absence.
The Downward Path And Initial Failures Of Jehoram (21.6-11).
In this subsection we learn of the downward path which Jehoram began to take by enforcing Baalism on the people of Judah, and the seethings of rebellion which resulted. We also learn how through his actions Judah lost control of its only subject nation, the people of Edom. Both were the inevitable result of his weakening of Judah.
Thus the assassination of his brothers who were governors of the largest cities in Judah, and of the many other leading figures in Judah, could only weaken Judah’s ability to defend itself. The core of its leadership strength had been destroyed, and resentment would have been built up within Judah. It is not, therefore, surprising that Jehoram faced rebellion within (Libnah) and without (Edom). The rebellion in Libnah, a city in the foothills (the shephelah) of Judah, was caused by Jehoram’s attempts to enforce Baalism on Judah (verse 10), possibly also being a consequence of the assassination of their governor at Jehoram’s command. They broke away from Judah and presumably formed their own city state. (Others may have joined in with them). The rebellion in Edom occurred because the Edomites saw in his actions a weakening of Judah which they considered gave them an opportunity to successfully rebel.
The words in this subsection are mainly (with exceptions) in parallel with the words in 2 Kings 8.17-22.
Analysis.
Note that in A Jehoram walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, and in the parallel he encouraged Baal worship at high places in the mountains of Judah and led Judah astray. In B Edom revolted, and in the parallel Libnah revolted. In C the Edomites nearly trapped him as he sought to bring them to heel and in the parallel the Edomites revolted ‘to this day’.
2.21.6 ‘And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as did the house of Ahab, for/because he had the daughter of Ahab to wife, and he did what was evil in the sight of YHWH.’
The essence of this verse is that he was led into false ways because he had the daughter of Ahab as his wife, with the consequence that he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, and ‘did what was evil in the eyes of YHWH’. These phrases primarily had in mind his activities in enforcing Baalism (verse 11), but may also be seen as including the following of the evil practises that resulted (such as the assassination of all his rivals). As with Jezebel on Ahab, the influence of his evil wife was very strong. Note how the Chronicler assumes that his readers will be familiar with the life and ways of Ahab.
Elsewhere Athaliah is called ‘the daughter of Omri’ (22.2; 2 Kings 8.26), but the word daughter can equally mean female descendant. It thus simply means that she was Omri’s granddaughter. Omri was the founding member of the house of Ahab.
2.21.7 ‘However that may be YHWH would not destroy the house of David, because of the covenant which he had made with David, and as he promised to give a lamp to him and to his children always.’
This is the first indication by the Chronicler of the danger of the house of David being destroyed. In his eyes whatever Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa and Jehoshaphat had done it had not put the relationship of the house of David with YHWH in jeopardy. But now he saw the position as so serious that had it not been for YHWH’s solemn unconditional covenant with David, the house of David might have been destroyed. He saw it as having become worthy of destruction. (In 1 Kings 15.4 a similar thing, although not quite so forceful, had been said about Abijah, but the Chronicler has not brought out Abijah’s worst faults. However, there was there no specific threat of destruction, only a promise of continuation).
The point being made is that whatever the behaviour of the kings of Judah, YHWH would be faithful to His covenant with David, and to the house of David. He had promised David that his descendants would continue ‘always’, with each being given ‘a lamp’ (a living descendant) to carry on the line. His emphasis was thus on the continuation of the line of David (which he emphasises in 1 Chronicles 3), and thus on the certainty of the arrival one day of the Coming King of the house of David which was a part of YHWH’s promise to David. It found its fulfilment in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, the everlasting King.
In 2 Kings 8.19 the parallel promise was that he would not destroy Judah for David His servant’s sake, but would give him a lamp for his children always, where the emphasis was on the continuation of Judah consequent on the continuation of David’s line. Here ‘Judah’ indicated the ‘ideal’ people of God. Judah continued in the Jewish church under the Messiah.
2.21.8 ‘ In his days Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah, and made a king over themselves.’
As a consequence of Jehoram’s idolatry and evil behaviour YHWH withheld His assistance from him. Thus when Judah’s subject nation Edom rebelled against Judah and made their own king over themselves He did not intervene.
Edom had originally been subdued by David (2 Samuel 8.13-14; 1 Kings 11.15-17), and was controlled by Solomon who was able to make and despatch ships from Ezion-geber at will (1 Kings 9.26), although late in his reign he experienced trouble from Hadad the Edomite (1 Kings 11.21-22, 24). It is probable that as a consequence Edom was lost to Rehoboam, something suggested by where he situated his fortified cities for the defence of Judah. It was, however, certainly back under the control of Judah in Jehoshaphat’s day, for he was able to build ships at Ezion-geber in Edom, with the ruler of Edom being only a deputy (1 Kings 22.47-48; 2 Kings 3.9). Now, however, under Jehoram Edom were making a bid for freedom and chose a king of their own to rule over them.
2.21.9 ‘Then Jehoram passed over with his commanders, and all his chariots with him, and he rose up by night, and smote the Edomites who surrounded him, and the commanders of the chariots.’
This very brief description is enigmatic. At first sight it gives the impression that Jehoram gained the victory over Edom. But verse 10a gives the opposite impression. The description is slightly longer in 2 Kings 8.21 and reads, ‘then Joram passed over to Zair, and all his chariots with him. And he rose up by night and smote the Edomites who surrounded him, and the commanders of the chariots, and the people fled to their tents.’ What this appears to be saying is that Jehoram found himself and his chariot commanders unexpectedly surrounded by the Edomites and had to take advantage of night time to break through their ranks to safety, on which the people of Judah made for home (‘fled to their tents’). In other words it was a victory for Edom.
2.21.10a ‘So Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah to this day.’
Thus as a consequence of his defeat Edom threw off the yoke of Judah, a situation which still applied in the days in which the Chronicler’s source wrote. So as a result of Jehoram’s folly, the only nation that was subject to Judah was lost to them.
2.21.10b ‘Then did Libnah revolt at the same time from under his hand, because he had forsaken YHWH, the God of his fathers.’
At the same time as Edom rebelled, the city of Libnah also rebelled. Libnah was an important city in the Shephelah (the lower hill country to the West). It apparently rebelled because of Jehoram’s religious perversion in establishing Baal worship. It took a firm stand for the worship of YHWH, no doubt along with its surrounding towns. It may well be that its governor had been one of the sons of Jehoshaphat. The fact that Jehoram could not prevent it demonstrates how much he had weakened himself. It demonstrated that YHWH was no longer with him. Libnah once again belonged to Judah by the time of Hezekiah (2 Kings 19.8).
2.21.11 ‘Furthermore he made high places in the mountains of Judah, and made the inhabitants of Jerusalem to play the prostitute, and led Judah astray.’
Jehoram was the first king of Judah actively to promote Baalism. He used his position as king in order to pressurise the inhabitants of Jerusalem into becoming Baal worshippers and indulging in the perverted sexual acts which were an essential part of that religion. He established new high places in the mountains besides those which were already there (high places were sanctuaries containing a pillar of Baal and/or an Asherah image or pole where worship could be conducted in accordance with base Canaanite ritual. Asherah was the consort of Baal). And as a consequence of his activities he led Judah astray.
Elijah The Prophet Denounces Jehoram And Proclaims YHWH’s Judgment Against Both Jehoram And Judah, Judgments Which Are Fulfilled (21.12-20).
No doubt to his surprise, Jehoram received a letter from Elijah the Prophet of Israel condemning him for his ways and warning him of the judgments which were coming on him. In course of time those judgments came about.
Analysis.
Note that in A he rejected the ways of the kings of Judah and walked in the way of the kings of Israel and in the parallel he was not buried in the sepulchres of the kings of Judah (not accepted as a true king of Judah) but departed without being desired. In B he led Judah astray and assassinated his bothers, and in the parallel they made no funerary burning for him because he was rejected. In C he was told that he would have a sickness of the bowels and his bowels would fall out, and in the parallel YHWH smote him with a sickness of the bowels and his bowels did fall out. In D the Philistines and Arabians slew his sons, and in the parallel he had no sons apart from Jehoahaz, his youngest son.
2.21.12-13 ‘And there came a written communication to him from Elijah the prophet, saying, “Thus says YHWH, the God of David your father, Because you have not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat your father, nor in the ways of Asa king of Judah, but have walked in the way of the kings of Israel, and have made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to play the prostitute, just as the house of Ahab did, and also have slain your brothers of your father’s house, who were better than yourself,’
No doubt to his surprise Jehoram received a written communication from Elijah, the prophet of Israel. We can only conjecture why Elijah wrote rather than coming in person. It may have been because of his great age, or it may have been because he was so taken up with his ministry to the northern kingdom of Israel that he only had time to write a letter. As elsewhere with the Chronicler we are provided with only an extract from that letter (compare Huram’s letter in 2.11 ff.).
In his letter Elijah referred to the three kings of Judah who acted strongly against idolatry, David, Jehoshaphat and Asa. In this field neither Solomon nor Rehoboam nor Abijah were blameless. He first reminded Jehoram that he was a son of David, but that he had come short of what such a position demanded. The implication is that as a son of David he had had a special responsibility of obedience to YHWH in accord with the Davidic covenant (1 Chronicles 17.8-14), a responsibility in which he had failed.
Elijah then referred him to the two great kings of Judah who had preceded him within living memory, Jehoshaphat, his own father, and Asa. Both had sought to rid Judah of idolatry. But Jehoram had not followed in their ways. Rather he had chosen to follow the evil ways of the house of his father-in-law, Ahab, the idolatrous king of Israel. As a consequence he had encouraged debased idolatrous religion in Judah and Jerusalem and had been guilty of fratricide, slaying his brothers who had been more concerned to please YHWH (to Elijah it was this which would make them better than Jehoram).
‘To play the prostitute.’ The main idea here was of being unfaithful to YHWH by worshipping other gods. But it probably also contained within it the idea of the debased sex involved in Baal worship. Sinful men delighted in cult prostitution. At the instigation of Jehoram the people had welcomed the debased religion of Canaan with open arms because their hearts were not set to the God of their fathers (20.33). Thus both king and people shared the blame, and all would experience the punishment.
2.21.14-15 “Behold, YHWH will smite with a great plague/slaughter your people, and your children, and your wives, and all your substance, and you will have great sickness by disease of your bowels, until your bowels fall out as a result of the sickness, day by day (literally ‘days unto days’).”
Then he warned that the idolatrous behaviour of Jehoram and Judah would bring repercussions on both. YHWH would smite Jehoram’s people, the people of Judah, with a great plague/slaughter (the Hebrew word can mean either). And it would affect Jehoram’s children, his wives, and all that he possessed. Meanwhile Jehoram himself would suffer from a great sickness though a disease of his bowels which would eventually result in his bowels falling out. ‘Days unto days’ probably signifies ‘for a good period of time’.
Note On Whether Elijah Wrote To King Jehoram.
Some have questioned whether Elijah could or would have written to King Jehoram. The main claim is that by this time Elijah was dead, and if indeed we treat 2 Kings 1-2 as in chronological sequence with what has gone before it and what follows it this claim would be valid for 2 Kings 2 records the ‘death’ of Elijah whilst 2 Kings 3 occurs in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat and thus before Jehoram came to the throne. There is, however, nothing in 2 Kings 3 or in the chapters that follow which demand that Elijah was dead at the time that what was written in them happened. The much cited words in 2 Kings 3.11 that Elisha once ‘poured water on the hands of Elijah’ tells us only that he was once a disciple of Elijah. The fact that he was no longer a disciple of Elijah, but had graduated into a prophet in his own (and YHWH’s) right, need not indicate that Elijah was dead. It could be, therefore, that the writer of Kings inserted 2 Kings 2 out of chronological order in order to cap off 2 Kings 1, and in order to explain the translation of Elijah, without intending it to be seen as chronological in the whole wider context. It simply indicated that he himself would not be mentioning Elijah again and was therefore explaining what finally happened to him. Looking at it in the light of the whole context 2 Kings 2 could be seen as a flashforward, explaining how Elijah ‘died’, prior to going back to look at features of the life of Elisha. Note especially 2 Kings 2.1 which gives the purpose of writing chapter 2 without indicating any time note.
Furthermore, whilst the mention of Elisha in 2 Kings 3 onwards does indicate that Elisha was ministering then, it says nothing about Elijah. There is no good reason why Elisha should not have been ministering at the same time as Elijah, with Elijah possibly being discreet at the time, or busy on other ministry. We should also note that Ahaziah of Israel was dead prior to the assumption of Elijah (2 Kings 1.18) and that Joram of Israel was on the throne during Elijah’s lifetime. If the statement that he came to the throne in the second year of Jehoram of Judah is correct (2 Kings 1.17) then we have proof positive that Elijah was at least alive when Jehoram of Judah became co-regent with Jehoshaphat.
Other arguments which seek to exclude the idea that Elijah wrote to Jehoram are:
The above arguments are not very strong so that all in all the case must rest on the question as to when Elijah ‘died’. And as we have seen the fact is that we do not know the answer to that question with any certainty, whereas the very unlikelihood of anyone introducing a letter from Elijah, especially during the reign of Jehoram, must count in favour of its authenticity.
A possible alternative is that Elijah wrote a communication to Jehoram whilst he was co-regent because of his idolatrous practises, which was not delivered before his assumption and that one of his disciples later added the section concerning his fratricide prior to arranging for its delivery. But this suggestion would only be necessary if it could be demonstrated that Elijah’s assumption occurred before the commencement o Jehoram’s sole reign. But on the evidence that is not demonstrable.
End of note.
2.21.16-17 ‘And YHWH stirred up against Jehoram the spirit of the Philistines, and of the Arabians who are beside the Cushites, and they came up against Judah, and broke into it, and carried away all the substance which was found in the king’s house, and his sons also, and his wives; so that there was never a son left him, except for Jehoahaz, the youngest of his sons.’
As a consequence of Jehoram’s folly ‘YHWH stirred up’ both the Philistines and some North African Arabians (the Cushites were from the area around Northern Sudan) to come against Judah. We have no clearer information about these North African Arabians, but together with the Philistines they clearly formed a powerful force. It may be that the Chronicler worded it in this way because he intended his readers to compare this force with the Cushite force that invaded in the days of Asa where Philistines were also involved (14.9, 14). According to 22.1 these invaders came to ‘the camp’. This would suggest that Jehoram had mustered his forces in order to seek to drive them back, but was totally defeated so that his camp was taken over by the invaders. It is probable from the description that they then required Jehoram to produce in the camp all his wives and children, together with a huge ransom which emptied his coffers and his royal palace. It is doubtful if they themselves approached Jerusalem. Having received the ransom they then went off leaving Jehoram behind but taking as captive his wives and his sons, and subsequently putting all his sons (and probably his wives) to death (22.1). Only one son escaped, and that was his youngest son Jehoahaz (Azariah) who was probably about twenty years of age. It may be that he was away from Judah on some kind of mission, or it may simply be that the invaders showed some compassion and in view of the size of the ransom allowed Jehoram to retain one of his sons, his youngest, as his successor.
The total defeat of Jehoram’s forces, no doubt with many casualties, together with the subsequent pillage, rape and slaughter of inhabitants of Judah was a fulfilment of Elijah’s words to Jehoram that YHWH would smite with great slaughter the people of Judah, who it must be noted had played their part in the rise of idolatry. The slaughter of his sons in accord with the words of Elijah was also a punishment for his own slaughter of his brothers. He reaped what he had sown.
2.21.18-19a And after all this YHWH smote him in his bowels with an incurable disease, and it came about, in process of time, at the end of two years, that his bowels fell out by reason of his sickness, and he died of sore diseases.’
Subsequent to the above the next part of Elijah’s prophecy came true. Jehoram was smitten in his bowels with an incurable disease, which, in the process of time at the end of two years (or ‘in process of time after the end of two days’), caused his bowels to prolapse. As a consequence he suffered ‘sore diseases’ which brought about his death.
‘In process of time.’ Literally ‘in days from days’.
‘At the end of two years’. Literally ‘after the end of two (lots of) days (yamim)’. The plural of yom is often used to express years as an accumulation of days (see for example Exodus 13.10; Leviticus 25.29; Numbers 9.22; Joshua 13.1 (twice); Judges 11.40; 17.10; 21.19; 1 Samuel 1.3; 2.19; 20.6; 27.7; 2 Samuel 14.26; 1 Kings 1.1) which explains the grounds for the above translation, although it is not fully satisfactory. It could thus either mean that he suffered for two years, or that after a period of time the prolapse took place in the final two days resulting in his death.
2.21.19b ‘And his people made no burning for him, like the burning of his fathers.’
His attempts to seek popularity and to establish his status had all failed. When he died no honour was paid to him in his death. The ‘burning’ which was not made for him was a means of showing respect for the dead and giving them honour. It was a usual part of the funeral arrangements for a dead king (compare 16.14).
2.21.20 He was thirty two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and he departed without being desired, and they buried him in the city of David, but not in the sepulchres of the kings.’
The statistical details of his reign are repeated, but it is made clear that he died a man rejected by both God and man. No one among the people had any feelings for him when he died and he was not buried in the sepulchre of the kings. He was not counted worthy. Those who had played up to him when he was alive, turned against him on his death. Thus died the son of Jehoshaphat, the product of his father’s folly.
Note in passing that the Chronicler does not refer us to any other records for details of his reign. As far as he was concerned anything that was written about Jehoram was not worth reading. No one could be interested in a life as worthless and useless as that of Jehoram.
The Short Reign Of Ahaziah (22.1-9).
The Jeho-ahaz of 21.17, the youngest son of Jehoram, now came to the throne with the name of Ahaziah. The name was obtained by taking the Jeho- signifying YHWH, and placing it at the end of the name as Yah. But his reign would be very short for he involved himself with his relatives of the house of Ahab and was struck down for his troubles.
The Chronicler’s account of his life is very brief, and so abbreviated that it can appear to contradict the much longer account in 2 Kings (see note at the end of the commentary on the passage). He had no interest in a king who followed the ways of the house of Ahab, only bringing out that his way of life and demise were both the result of his associations with that house. As far as the Chronicler was concerned he could only provide a bad example to the Chronicler’s readers.
Analysis.
Note that in A Ahaziah, Jehoram’s youngest son, was unexpectedly made king, and seemingly only because of the intervention of the people of Jerusalem, and in the parallel the house of Ahaziah had no power to hold the kingdom. In B Ahaziah reigned in Jerusalem, but his mother was Athaliah the daughter of Ahab, and in the parallel he was slain in Samaria because of his connection with the house of Ahab and his ‘father’ was Jehoshaphat. In C he walked in the ways of the house of Ahab, and in the parallel Jehu was exercising judgment on the house of Ahab. In D his ways led to his destruction, and in the parallel God had determined on his destruction. Centrally in E Jehoram of Israel was at war with Hazael, king of Aram (Syria) and was wounded, and in the parallel reference is made to the wounds that he received when fighting Hazael, king of Aram (Syria).
2.22.1 ‘And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king instead of him, for the band of men who came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned.’
The opening description of Ahaziah’s succession may be seen as suggesting that that it was not as easy as it sounded. Normally we would expect to read - ‘and Ahaziah his son reigned instead of him’, indicating a smooth transition. But here the men of Jerusalem had to step in so as to ensure his succession. This may suggest that Athaliah herself was seeking to obtain the throne, but was thwarted by the men of Jerusalem. Alternately it may be that there was some outside contender who was throwing doubt on Ahaziah’s right to succeed, but that the men of Jerusalem intervened in order to ensure that Jehoram’s son was made king.. Whichever way it was Ahaziah did not apparently himself have the strength to ensure his succession. Compare verse 9b.
The reason for the appointment of the youngest son is given. It was because the Philistines and Arabians had carried off all Jehoram’s other sons and had slain them. As a consequence Ahaziah, the son of Jehoram king of Judah, the only son of Jehoram, who was the only one who remained alive began to reign.
2.22.2 ‘Ahaziah was forty two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem, and his mother’s name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.’
The usual formula for a king of Judah is now given. He was forty two years old when he began to reign and he only reigned in Jerusalem for roughly one year. His mother’s name was Athaliah, a daughter of the house of Omri. Omri was her grandfather (see 21.6).
In fact if previous information given to us was correct Ahaziah could not possibly have been forty two years old. His father had been thirty two years old when he began to reign and he only reigned for eight years (21.5, 20). Thus he was around forty years old when he died. His immediately succeeding youngest son could not therefore possibly at this stage be forty two years old. The solution probably therefore lies in a copyist’s error whereby twenty two has at some stage early on been read as forty two. This would appear to be confirmed by the fact that 2 Kings 8.26 states it to be twenty two. (Versions of LXX have 22 or 20. Old Latin has 16).
From this point up to verse 6 the Chronicler follows fairly closely the narrative in 2 Kings 8.26-29, although with exceptions. 2 Kings does not mention his following the counsel of Athaliah, or of his following the counsel of the house of Ahab ‘to his destruction’, rather seeing his behaviour as occurring because he was a son-in-law of the house of Ahab. The Chronicler, on the other hand, wants it to be known why he behaved as he did.
2.22.3 ‘He also walked in the ways of the house of Ahab, for his mother was his counsellor to do wickedly.’
It will be noted that from verse 3 to verse 8 Ahab is mentioned in every verse indicating the influence that the house of Ahab had on Ahaziah’s life. It affected him at every turn. Here we learn that he walked in the ways of the house of Ahab, pursuing idolatry and establishing the high places, and generally behaving wickedly, and he did it under the counsel of his mother, the daughter of Ahab. He was her tool.
2.22.4 ‘And he did what was evil in the sight of YHWH, as did the house of Ahab, for they were his counsellors after the death of his father, to his destruction.’
And like the house of Ahab he did what was evil in the sight of YHWH. For no doubt under his mother’s aegis, members of the house of Ahab were his counsellors once his father was dead. The house of Ahab were surreptitiously taking over Judah. And it could only have one end, his destruction. For YHWH was watching over Judah in order to finally preserve it for the house of David.
2.22.5 ‘He walked also after their counsel, and went with Jehoram the son of Ahab king of Israel to war against Hazael king of Aram (Syria) at Ramoth-gilead, and the Syrians wounded Joram.’
One example of the way in which he followed their counsel was in respect to his alliance with Jehoram (Joram) the son of Ahab. Like his grandfather had done he allied himself with Israel in a war against Hazael, king of Aram (Syria) at Ramoth-gilead. The Arameans (Syrians) were seemingly still in control of Israel’s land in Transjordan, for Ramoth-gilead was in the territory of Gad, and was located along the King’s Highway. It was thus of vital importance for watching over the trade route. The aim of the alliance was no doubt to drive the Arameans out of Transjordan, thus securing that part of the King’s Highway for themselves. So, on the advice of his counsellors, Ahaziah went to war along with Jehoram the son of Ahab, only for Joram (Jehoram) to be wounded in the battle, as Ahab had previously been. Ramoth-gilead was an ill-fated place for the house of Ahab.
2.22.6 ‘And he returned to be healed in Jezreel of the wounds which they had given him at Ramah, when he fought against Hazael king of Syria. And Azariah the son of Jehoram king of Judah went down to see Jehoram the son of Ahab in Jezreel, because he was sick.’
Having been wounded Jehoram (Joram) of Israel, the son of Ahab, returned to his summer palace in Jezreel in order that his wounds might heal, and Ahaziah dutifully went to Jezreel in order to see Jehoram of Israel, because he was sick, bringing out the closeness between the two men. Note that here he is called Azariah (in 2 Kings 8.29 Ahaziah). This may have been the responsibility of a careless copyist, or it may have been an alternative name for him. He had had two uncles named Azariah. From this point on the narrative varies from 2 Kings which deals with Jehu’s career in some detail. But Jehu was of no interest to the Chronicler.
2.22.7 ‘Now the destruction of Ahaziah was of God, in that he went to Joram, for when he was come, he went out with Jehoram against Jehu the son of Nimshi, whom YHWH had anointed to cut off the house of Ahab.’
We are now told that Ahaziah’s visit was as planned by God, Who purposed his destruction. For whilst Ahaziah and Jehoram of Israel were together in Jezreel, Jehu the son of Nimshi arrived in order to confront Jehoram and seize the kingdom from him. For he was the one whom YHWH had anointed to cut off the house of Ahab (2 Kings 9.6-7). However, the Chronicler’s only interest in him was in what he did to the house of Ahaziah.
2.22.8 ‘And it came about, when Jehu was executing judgment on the house of Ahab, that he found the princes of Judah, and the sons of the brothers of Ahaziah, ministering to Ahaziah, and slew them.’
This is very much an abbreviation of 2 Kings 9.24-26; 10.1-14. The executing of judgment on the house of Ahab began with the death of Jehoram of Israel (2 Kings 9.24-26), continued with the slaying of his sons (2 Kings 10.7-8), and this was followed by the slaying of ‘the brothers of Ahaziah’, that is, his relatives (2 Kings 10.13-14). Speaking strictly all his blood brothers were dead (22.1). It was probably because the Chronicler closely followed this narrative, but wanted to deal separately with the slaying of Ahaziah, that he placed these incidents prior to mentioning the death of Ahaziah, which in fact took place before the slaughter of the sons of Jehoram of Israel, and the relatives of Ahaziah. The princes of Judah and the sons of the brothers of Ahaziah may have been identical people, although we are not given details However, 2 Kings tells us that there were forty two of them, which may suggest that the number included other ‘princes’ of Judah. These ‘sons of the brothers of Ahaziah’ were possibly all that were left of the family of Jehoram of Judah (if all the sons were there). Thus the judgment on the house of Jehoram continued.
2.22.9a ‘And he sought Ahaziah, and they caught him, and he was hiding in Samaria, and they brought him to Jehu, and slew him,.
The death of Ahaziah followed swiftly on that of Jehoram of Israel. Combining this verse with 2 Kings 9.27 suggests that Ahaziah’s end was a little more complicated than either account suggests. It would appear from what is said here that he fled in his chariot to Samaria by the way of the garden house. But there Jehu’s men found him and forced him to go with them to Jehu. Recognising what his end must be, he somehow made his escape by chariot (possibly provided by some of his servants who would have been with him in Jezreel, and who may then have accompanied him), at which Jehu told his men to slay him in his chariot once they caught up with him, something which they sought to do at the Ascent of Gur by Ibleam. Severely wounded he then fled by chariot to Megiddo and died there..
2.22.9b ‘And they buried him, for they said, “He is the son of Jehoshaphat, who sought YHWH with all his heart.”
The ‘they’ here is impersonal. The people who might be expected to give him proper burial because he was a son of the worthy Jehoshaphat would most naturally be men of Judah. It does not fit in with what we know of Jehu and his followers, and besides, Ahaziah would appear to have escaped from his men by fleeing. And this is confirmed in 2 Kings 9.28 where the men who had aided his escape took him to Jerusalem and buried him in his sepulchre with his fathers in the city of David, something which the Chronicler probably wanted to avoid mentioning because he thought Ahaziah unworthy.
2.22.9b ‘And the house of Ahaziah had no power to hold the kingdom.’
Unsurprisingly the house of Ahaziah, having lost their family head and mainly being young, were in no position to appoint one of Ahaziah’s young sons to reign over Judah. And this was especially so as the formidable Athaliah had herself determined to take over the kingdom supported by her servants. Thus the reign of Ahaziah ended in disaster for his house, due reward for his utterly sinful behaviour. It was a further reaping of Jehoshaphat’s folly.
Athaliah Usurps The Throne (22.10-12).
On the death of her son Ahaziah, Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab, moved swiftly to take the throne. As queen mother she had had powerful status, and the opportunity seemed to good to miss. The fact that it involved the murder of all her grandchildren and relatives does not seem to have disturbed her at all. It went along with her own ideas of kingship. But although she was unaware of it, the daughter of Jehoram and sister of Ahaziah, whose name was Jehoshabeath, hid one of Athaliah’s grandsons, first in a bedchamber, and then in the Temple area where she lived with her priestly husband, Jehoiada ‘the Priest’ (the High Priest). The account is very similar to that in 2 Kings 11.1-3.
Analysis.
Note that in A Athaliah destroyed all the royal seed, and in the parallel she consequently reigned over the land. Centrally in B Jehoshabeath hid Joash, the king’s son so that he was not slain, and in the parallel she is described as doing the same.
2.22.10 ‘Now when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she arose and destroyed all the seed royal of the house of Judah.’
On the death of Ahaziah Athaliah his mother possibly saw her status as queen mother in danger, especially as her support in Israel had collapsed with the overthrow of the house of Ahab by Jehu, and so she took steps to remedy the situation while she was still powerful as the queen mother by murdering all Ahaziah’s male seed. If she could get rid of all the descendants of David there would be little opposition. She would know that her act was necessary because of Judah’s loyalty to the house of David. It was a typical act of a member of the house of Ahab, and she seemingly had no compunction about doing it. Jehoram’s act of slaying his brothers was rebounding on his descendants. He had set the example. Others followed.
Note that there is no explanatory introduction to her reign. She was not looked on as a true ruler of the house of David, but as an interloper.
2.22.11 ‘But Jehoshabeath, the daughter of the king, took Joash the son of Ahaziah, and stole him away from among the king’s sons who were slain, and put him and his nurse in the bedchamber. So Jehoshabeath, the daughter of king Jehoram, the wife of Jehoiada the priest (for she was the sister of Ahaziah), hid him from Athaliah, so that she slew him not.
But Athaliah had not taken into account the loyalty and compassion of the sister of Ahaziah. The young Joash was probably being suckled by his nurse, a common practise among royalty. He thus apparently escaped the attention of Athaliah who was seemingly unaware of the fact. But it was known to Jehoshabeath, Ahaziah’s sister, (probably a half sister by another wife of Jehoram), and she kept him secreted from Athaliah. It was a brave thing to do. Athaliah was not the kind of woman to be thwarted. As a consequence of her action Joash survived. Jehoshabeath was the wife of Jehoiada ‘the Priest’, and would have had quarters in the priest’s accommodation in the Temple area. Thus she was soon able to smuggle the young baby out of the palace and into the priests’ quarters in the Temple area.
2.22.12 ‘And he was with them hid in the house of God six years, and Athaliah reigned over the land.’
And it was there that she hid him for six years. If Athaliah saw him at all she would assume he was simply another of the children of the priests, or one of the young dedicated boys similar to Samuel. As Samuel had this would mean that he could actually enter the Sanctuary and remain there. And she reigned over the land for six years, oblivious of the fact that a son of Ahaziah survived in the Temple. We know nothing of her reign but we can surmise that she carried on in the ways of Jehoram (see 23.17).
There is here a remarkable parallel between the tyrant Athaliah who took over the kingdom, and sought to destroy the seed royal, only to discover later that God had hidden away and preserved Joash the son of David who would appear in due time. (We cannot doubt that the Satan who had caused David to number Israel (1 Chronicles 21.1) was behind this attempt to destroy the house of David, only for him to be thwarted by God). Centuries later another tyrant who had usurped the throne of Israel, would again seek to destroy the seed royal in Bethlehem, only for his house to discover later that God had similarly hidden away and preserved the son of David Who would take His throne in due time at the resurrection. Again Satan’s plan had been thwarted by God. Satan had had nothing new to offer.
Jehoiada The High Priest Acts To Deliver Judah From The Clutches Of Athaliah And Sets The Davidic King On The Throne Of Judah (23.1-21).
Jehoiada the High Priest, with the young Joash under his protection, bided his time and waited until he felt that it was the time to act. It is clear from what follows that there was a great deal of unrest in the kingdom, so much so that when he did act the people were ready to respond, and no one informed Athaliah. Proceedings began when Jehoiada sent out the commanders of elite troops (probably the Temple guards), with whom he had clearly previously been plotting, in order to bring the Levites to the Temple to commence their course (a regular event which would arouse no suspicion), together with the clan leaders of the people, no doubt outwardly with a view to a Feast of YHWH. These gathered to the Temple, and were then armed, and suitable guards for the young king were arranged. Once everything was ready the coup took place. Joash was brought out, crowned and proclaimed as king.
All these preparations were necessarily carried out surreptitiously, no doubt under the veil of gathering the clan leaders for a Feast of YHWH, something which was assisted by what appeared to outside observers to be the regular weekly change of courses of the Levites when much movement of personnel would be expected. But in this case it was without those who had completed their course leaving the Temple so as to swell the numbers. Thus no suspicions were aroused until the coup took place and the young king was proclaimed.
The unusual noise from the Temple as the people hailed the young king (she would have been familiar with a certain level of noise as worship proceeded), aroused Athaliah in the palace next door, and confident in her status she entered the Temple, no doubt accompanied by her bodyguard, in order to discover what was happening. Seeing the coronation scene before her she must have been completely taken aback, and it caused her to cry out ‘treason, treason’. But she was unable to do anything because, as she recognised, her bodyguard were heavily outnumbered by the armed and determined men in the Temple, armed from the Temple treasury.
She was allowed to leave the Temple precincts, because to slay her there would have rendered the Temple unclean. But as soon as she had done so she was slain, along with all who followed her. Joash was then ‘set on the throne of the kingdom’ amidst general rejoicing. The country had long been awaiting such a change.
Analysis.
Note that in A Jehoida set his mind to deliver the kingdom from Athaliah, and in the parallel that is what he had accomplished. In B the determination was to set the king on his throne, and in the parallel that was what was accomplished. In C arrangements were made that the holiness of the Temple be preserved and that none should come in apart from those appointed, and in the parallel the gatekeepers were set for that very purpose. In D the Levites were set to guard the House and the king, and in the parallel the Levitical priests were set over the House of YHWH to ensure the offering of the sacrifices. In E the king’s son was brought out and given the covenant, and in the parallel the covenant was made between Jehoiada, the people and the king. Centrally in F Athaliah came to the people in the House of YHWH, saw what was happening, and proclaimed treason, and in the parallel she was allowed to leave the House and then slain. It was she who had been treasonable.
2.23.1 ‘And in the seventh year Jehoiada made himself strong (firmly set his mind and resolved that he would act), and took the commanders of hundreds, Azariah the son of Jeroham, and Ishmael the son of Jehohanan, and Azariah the son of Obed, and Maaseiah the son of Adaiah, and Elishaphat the son of Zichri, into covenant with him.’
It is quite clear from this and what follows that Jehoida had been in consultation with these commanders previously about the political situation and that they had had their feelers out assessing the mood of tribal and clan chiefs in Judah and had discovered that many were only to willing to act to deliver Judah from Athaliah and from Baalism if only the opportunity arose. And so in the seventh year after Athaliah seized the throne he determined that it was time to act, and called together five ‘commanders of hundreds’, whom the Chronicler names, and entered into a solemn pact with them. Their ready acceptance of Joash might suggest that when the king’s sons were born they were marked with an identifying tattoo, which in this case was shown to them. Alternately the testimony of the nurse and of Jehosheba, supported by the reputation of Jehoiada, may have been accepted
It is quite clear that these five men were extremely important military men, and not simply junior army officers. Thus ‘commanders of hundreds’ did not simply mean that they captained a smaller military unit (‘a hundred’) as subservient to ‘commanders of thousands’ (large military units’). It is a reminder that we do not at this stage fully understand the technical military language of those days. These men may well have been commanders of the Temple guards, who would have been numbered in thousands (consider how Solomon had had five hundred celebratory shields, and these would only have been used by those on watch at the time, whilst many others would have been on various duties at the same time. There were probably at least two and possibly three watches). As Temple guards they would then be Levites and see themselves as owing no allegiance to Athaliah. Their loyalty was to the High Priest. Athaliah, as a member of the family of Ahab, probably trusted in her own bodyguard introduced from Israel, and to a certain extent in the general military commanders, although these latter may only have supported her half-heartedly
The parallel account in 2 Kings 11.4 says that Jehoiada called together ‘commanders over hundreds of the Carites and the guards’. The ‘hundreds’ (military units) of the Carites (or ‘executioners’) have been seen as:
All the names mentioned are attested elsewhere in list of Levites, but that does not limit them to being Levites. Such names were popular.
2.23.2 ‘And they went about in Judah, and gathered the Levites out of all the cities of Judah, and the heads of fathers’ houses of Israel, and they came to Jerusalem.’
Neither this verse nor the following verse are found in 2 Kings. They are probably from another of the Chronicler’s sources and make clear that the coup was not just a Temple one, but had wide general support. No suspicion would have been aroused by the Temple guard going out to escort to Jerusalem the course of unarmed Levites who were coming on duty. It would be a regular occurrence. And they took the opportunity at the same time to gather the heads of sub-tribes and clans, no doubt under the pretext of a worship Feast in Jerusalem. These leaders, living well away from Jerusalem, would not have been so affected by the reign of Athaliah or by her Baalism. They would owe their loyalty to YHWH and the High Priest. All came to Jerusalem.
2.23.3 ‘And all the assembly made a covenant with the king in the house of God. And he said to them, “Look, the king’s son shall reign, as YHWH has spoken concerning the sons of David.”
We do not know at what stage those gathered (‘all the assembly’) had revealed to them that a genuine son of David was still alive in the Temple, nor how he was identified (king’s sons were probably marked at birth), but it is clear that all were convinced of the truth of the matter. For there in the House of God they solemnly entered into a covenant to support the king, gladly accepting Jehoiada’s assurance that Azariah’s true born son, the true king of the house of David, would reign over them in accordance with the word of YHWH given in 1 Chronicles 17.12, 14.
The Chronicler’s concern to stress the continuation of the house of David, at a time when there was no king from the house of David in the offing, is important for understanding his motif. It was an indication of his confident hope that God would yet raise up the ‘son of David’ who would rule the everlasting kingdom
2.23.4 ‘This is the thing that you shall do. A third part of you, who come in on the sabbath, of the priests and of the Levites, will be gatekeepers of the thresholds, and a third part will be at the king’s house, and a third part at the gate of the foundation. And all the people shall be in the courts of the house of YHWH.”.
We are only given the bare bones of the plot, but we can be sure that it had been meticulously planned. It was probably timed to take place during a regular feast when crowds of people gathering to the Temple would not cause comment, and was clearly at the time of the changing of the Temple guard when movements in and out by armed guards would be expected. Others, however, who were not of the Temple guard going on and off duty, (the latter being able to move in and out armed as they commenced or finished duty), presumably had to enter the Temple without weapons. They would be supplied with weapons in the Temple area (verse 9), because for them to enter the Temple armed would have been seen as suspicious.
The instructions in this verse were for the incoming Temple guards. These were those who came into the Temple on the Sabbath in order to begin their period of duty, clearly in this case they were more than usual because of what was anticipated (proved by the fact that they made up three companies), but not sufficiently more to arouse suspicions (no one would be counting but the numbers would have to be kept within bounds). Of these one third were to guard the house where the king was residing, one third were to guard the Foundation Gate (2 Kings - the gate Sur), and one third were to be at the gate behind the guard (2 Kings - the gate of the keepers/guards). Their joint responsibility was to watch over the place where the king was in residence, and to be ready for any armed opponents who might try to enter the Temple by the gates mentioned in order to attack the king.
‘The Foundation gate’ (‘the gate Sur’). A number of suggestions have been made as to which gate this was and concerning the meaning of ‘Sur’ but all are guesses. It probably refers to the gate leading to the royal palace next door which it would clearly be necessary to watch and guard.
2.23.6 ‘But let none come into the house of YHWH, except the priests, and those (or ‘even those’) who serve of the Levites. They shall come in, for they are holy, but all the people shall keep the charge of YHWH.’
This verse is not found in 2 Kings, but its truth would be acknowledged by everyone. The point of it was to preserve the purity of the temple, and this would be recognisable by all. No one was actually to enter the Sanctuary apart from ‘the priests and/even the serving Levites’. These latter may be another designation of the priests, indicating that only the serving ones (who had been sanctified for the occasion) could enter, for only sanctified priests could enter the Holy Place. It is, however, possible that by this time there had been a slight relaxation of the rules. These could enter because they were ‘holy’ (set apart for YHWH and sanctified for the occasion). It is probable that the verse was found in the source used both by 2 Kings and the Chronicler, which was quite possibly a Temple source maintained by Jehoiada or by a prophet.
2 Kings 11.7 adds here, ‘and the two companies of you, even all who go forth on the sabbath, will keep the watch of the house of YHWH about the king.” In other words those who were supposed to be going off duty would not actually do so, but would act as further guards in the Temple so as directly to protect the king. Of these guards, (whose numbers had not been deliberately increased because they had been on duty all week), there were only two companies, composed of the alternating guard duties.
2.23.7 ‘And the Levites shall surround the king, every man with his weapons in his hand. And whoever comes into the house, let him be slain. And you be with the king when he comes in, and when he goes out.’
2 Kings 11.8 reads, “And you shall surround the king round about, every man with his weapons in his hand, and he who comes within the ranks, let him be slain. And be you with the king when he goes out, and when he comes in.” The slight differences suggest a different source, for why otherwise should the Chronicler reverse the last two phrases?
The general point is that when the king was being brought out for his coronation their responsibility would be to surround the king with their weapons at the ready and to ensure that any who sought to break into the Sanctuary, or who later tried to pierce their ranks, would be killed instantly. ‘Going out and coming in’ is a general phrase signifying everyday living, but here probably has in mind the king’s activities on that day. They would go with him into the Temple, and out again once the proceedings were over, guarding him at all times. There could be no slip up. His life as a Davidide was paramount.
Others see ‘the ranks’ in 2 Kings as referring to the ranks of pillars in the colonnades of the Temple which would indicate that both sources were saying the same thing..
2.23.8 ‘ So the Levites and all Judah did according to all that Jehoiada the priest commanded, and they took every man his men, those who were to come in on the sabbath, with those who were to go out on the sabbath. For Jehoiada the priest did not dismiss the courses.’
2 Kings 11.9 has ‘the commanders over hundreds’ instead of ‘the Levites and all Judah’. As we have seen ‘the commanders over hundreds’ in question probably were Levites. They did according to all that Jehoiada the priest commanded, as did all Judah who were present. Everyone played his part. The remainder of the sentence, ‘and they took every man his men, those who were to come in on the sabbath, with those who were to go out on the sabbath’ clearly signifies the activities of the commanders. The Chronicler now explains the last clause in terms of the fact that Jehoiada kept the course of Levites who were going out, from leaving, thus supplementing the number of men they had.
So the commanders over these military units did precisely as Jehoiada had commanded, both those who were over the guards who were coming on duty, and those who were over those going off duty. There was no dissent.
2.23.9 ‘And Jehoiada the priest delivered to the commanders of hundreds the spears, and bucklers, and shields that had been king David’s, which were in the house of God.’
It may be that the Temple guards had to pass their weapons on when they went off duty so as to limit the number of weapons available at one time. Or it may simply be that there were others who required to be armed. Thus we are now told where Jehoiada was able to obtain more weapons so that all could be armed. Furthermore, others who were not Temple guards but who were present would have come without weapons, apart possibly from a sword, and these too were armed more fully from a stock of weapons which had been put in the Temple treasury by David himself. This was possibly because they had been taken from the enemy whom YHWH had defeated, or possibly because they had once been used ceremonially and were therefore ‘holy’. Once Solomon introduced his golden shields much would have become redundant. But they would still be ‘holy’ and have to be kept within the Temple confines. As a consequence Jehoiada was able to arm every man present.
2.23.10 ‘And he set all the people, every man with his weapon in his hand, from the right side of the house to the left side of the house, between the altar and the house, round about the king.’
With all the loyal men present fully armed, guards were established, with their weapons in their hands, on both sides of the Temple courts, on both the right side and the left, and between the altar and the Sanctuary, fully surrounding the young king once he emerged from the Temple to be hailed by the people. Jehoiada was taking no chances.
2.23.11 ‘Then they brought out the king’s son, and put the crown on him, and gave him the covenant, and made him king, and Jehoiada and his sons anointed him, and they said, “Long live the king.”
Then the event took place that most present could only previously have dreamed of. A genuine heir of the house of David was ‘brought out’, and was crowned, presumably in accordance with the customs prevailing in Judah, viz;
The lack of opposition in general may have had much to do with the impressive array of armed guards, but it also betokened the fact that rather than being dismayed by what was happening, those present, who to some extent may have been carefully ‘selected’, were delighted.
Note the centrality of the Testimony, which represented the whole Law of Moses, the reading and observance of which was the duty of the king (Deuteronomy 17.18-19). The Ark of the Covenant of YHWH, which contained ‘the ten words’ written on stone, was also called ‘the Ark of the Testimony’ (Exodus 25.16-22; 26.33-34; 30.6, 26; 31.7; 39.35; 40.3, 5, 20, 21; Numbers 4.5; 7.89; Joshus 4.16). 1 Kings 8.9 confirms that the covenant tablets were there in the time of Solomon.
Some see this covenant as the covenant mentioned in verse 3 which was made between Jehoiada and the people on behalf of the king, no doubt laying down the terms of how he would go about his rule under the guidance of Jehoiada. But at such a moment as this, when the king was being crowned, we would expect some reference to the covenant of Moses (the Law).
2.23.12 ‘And when Athaliah heard the noise of the people running and praising the king, she came to the people into the house of YHWH.’
On hearing the cries of acclamation in the Temple Athaliah was concerned to discover the cause of it, and came from the palace into the Temple precincts, no doubt accompanied by armed attendants. But she must have been totally without suspicion of the truth to arrive in the way that she did (she, of course, believed that all sons of David were dead).
2.23.13 ‘And she looked, and, behold, the king stood by his pillar at the entrance, and the commanders and the trumpets by the king, and all the people of the land rejoiced, and blew trumpets, the singers also played on instruments of music, and led the singing of praise. Then Athaliah tore her clothes, and said, “Treason! treason!”
She must equally have been totally taken aback when she discovered there a boy wearing a crown, standing by the coronation pillar (or the recognised ‘king’s pillar’. Compare ‘the station of the king’ in the temple of Amun in Egypt), and being hailed by the commanders of the guard and all the people present, with loud cries of acclamation and the blowing of trumpets. Furthermore he was surrounded by a large number of armed men, far more than she had expected. She would not have known where they obtained their arms.
Indeed she was so taken aback that she tore her clothes and cried out in alarm, ‘treason, treason’. She was furious. She had felt safe to come there because she had known the Temple guard were there, and knew that they were limited in numbers, and she just could not believe that the whole of the Temple guard had turned against her, and that other armed men were present as well. After all the guard had always treated her with the greatest of respect, whilst no other armed men were allowed in the Temple. (Had she realised the true position earlier she could have withdrawn quietly and waited until she could round up her own loyal supporters and call out the royal bodyguard, but she had acted on impulse and presumably could not believe that this was happening to her until it was too late. We are expected to recognise that this was of YHWH).
‘Treason, treason.’ The cry is ironic. This woman who had stolen the throne by murdering all of royal blood was herself treasonable. By her own standards what had occurred was within the order of things, that might is right. She could have no grounds for complaint.
2.23.14 ‘And Jehoiada the priest brought out the commanders of hundreds who were set over the host, and said to them, “Take her forth between the ranks, and whoever follows let him be slain with the sword,” for the priest said, “Do not kill her in the house of YHWH.”
Then Jehoiada commanded ‘the commanders of hundreds who were set over the host’. This probably has reference to the previous commanders of hundreds who were now in charge of crowd control (over the host). But it is feasible that it refers to different commanders over the host of Israel who were also there supporting Jehoiada. Either way they were to take her forth between the ranks of guards until she was outside the Temple precincts. Only then could she be slain with the sword. And if any followed her, demonstrating their loyalty to her, they too were to be slain. The point was that it was not fitting that blood be shed in this way in the house of YHWH. It would defile the house. She was to be slain with the sword because, while worthy of death and a murderess and usurper, she was of royal blood and had not committed offences for which she should be stoned.
2.23.15 ‘ So they made way for her, and she went to the entrance of the horse gate to the king’s house, and they slew her there.’
So the ranks opened up for her and she walked out by way of the Horse Gate to the king’s house, and there she was executed. This was probably in contrast to the Foundation Gate by which the king would enter the palace complex. The execution may not necessarily have taken place immediately, although it would be vital for it to be accomplished before her supporters could rally round. It may have awaited the cessation of the coronation celebrations so as not to mar the event. On the other hand, the danger of news slipping out and causing a counter-movement would have rendered it necessary as soon as possible.
The Horse Gate was one of two that led into the Temple from the palace. There may have been two Horse Gates, one for the palace and one in the walls of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 31.40; Nehemiah 3.28). That she was made to use this gate indicated that she was no longer seen as queen. It may therefore be that she was slain in the palace stables.
2.23.16 ‘And Jehoiada made a covenant between himself, and all the people, and the king, that they should be YHWH’s people.’
Some see this as an agreement now made between Jehoiada, the people and the king, confirming that from now on they would be YHWH’s people, no doubt outlining and making official the position each was now in and what was required of them. It was thus a covenant for the time. 2 Kings however describes it as a covenant made between YHWH, the people and the king. This would then suggest that it was a confirmation of previous covenants made by and with YHWH. If this be so then in very abbreviated form we learn that Jehoiada re-established the sacred covenants; the sacred covenant of YHWH with the Davidic house, ‘YHWH and the king’ (2 Samuel 7.8-16), and the sacred covenant of YHWH with the people, (including the king), ‘YHWH --- and the people’ (Exodus 20.2-17). If this be so then the kingdom had returned to YHWH on the basis of the covenants of YHWH.
Such a renewing of the covenant on important occasions can be paralleled in 29.3 ff.; 2 Kings 23.3; Deuteronomy 5.1 ff; Joshua 8.30-35; 24.2-25; 2 Samuel 5.3 with 1 Chronicles 11.3. It was an essential part of returning to the true worship of YHWH. By it the people were acknowledging YHWH as their sole God and Overlord, and their responsibility to be His holy people and observe His laws and commandments.
2.23.17 ‘And all the people went to the house of Baal, and broke it down, and broke his altars and his images in pieces, and slew Mattan the priest of Baal before the altars.’
Then ‘all the people’ (2 Kings says, ‘all the people of the land’ i.e. the freemen of Israel, the landed gentry and freeholders in contrast with the city bureaucrats), went to the hated house of Baal and tore it down. They were dethroning the Baal worshipped by Athaliah and the house of Ahab. (Even those who secretly worshipped the Canaanite Baal may not have objected to this). They broke in pieces his altars and his images. And they slew Mattan, the priest of Baal in Jerusalem, before those altars. This was, of course, a necessary consequence of the official renewing of the covenants. The people were in control, no doubt supported by the Temple guard, and they hated the foreign religion introduced by Athaliah. Any followers of Baal remained quiet. The will of the people was conclusive. (The incidents are in topical order rather than in chronological order. This would chronologically probably follow the enthronement of the king).
‘The house of Baal.’ This is possibly a significant indication that Athaliah had not sought to introduce Baal worship into the Temple. When she married Jehoram she would expect to be allowed to worship her own gods, and to have a building set apart for that purpose. This may have been that building. The house of Ahab were well known worshippers of the Tyrian Baal. It is a sad reflection that indirectly this pagan Temple had been allowed to be built in Jerusalem by Jehoshaphat through his folly in entering into alliance with idolaters and marrying his son to a member of the house of Ahab. And as we have already seen that alliance had had grave consequences, both for his house and for Judah.
Mattan was a common Israelite name (a shortened form of Mattaniah) and is testified to by a seal at Lachish. It means simply ‘gift’. (It may here signify ‘gift (of Baal)’. Mattaniah in contrast means ‘gift of YHWH’).
2.23.18 ‘And Jehoiada appointed the officers of the house of YHWH under the hand of the Levitical priests (‘the priests the Levites’), whom David had distributed in the house of YHWH, to offer the burnt-offerings of YHWH, as it is written in the law of Moses, with rejoicing and with singing, according to the order of David.’
Here 2 Kings simply says, ‘And the priest appointed officers over the house of YHWH.’ The Chronicler, however, goes into more detail and brings out what is meant. The ‘officers of the House of YHWH’ were priests appointed by ‘the Levitical priests’ at the request of Jehoiada, for the specific purpose of offering burnt offerings to YHWH as the Law of Moses required. As a consequence of Athaliah’s reign the Temple was in disrepair, much of its furniture was gone, and it is probable that the daily burnt offerings had ceased to be offered regularly (24.7). Alternatively these burnt offerings may have been offered because of the deliverance from Athaliah. And this was accompanied by rejoicing and singing as the people rejoiced in deliverance. And it was in accordance with the order of David, who had himself determined the courses of the Levitical priests. Thus Jehoiada brought them back to obedience to the Law of Moses, and to the injunctions of David.
2.23.19 ‘And he set the gatekeepers at the gates of the house of YHWH, that none who was unclean in anything should enter in.’
Jehoiada also set the gatekeepers at the gates of the House of YHWH. These were not just porters, but important Levites who had the responsibility to check the credentials of all who sought to enter the House and to make sure that no one who was ritually unclean in any way could enter.
2.23.20 ‘And he took the commanders of hundreds, and the nobles, and the governors of the people, and all the people of the land, and brought down the king from the house of YHWH, and they came through the upper gate unto the king’s house, and set the king on the throne of the kingdom.’
The new king having been crowned, and Athaliah having been dealt with, there was no longer need for secrecy. So Jehoiada brought together the commanders of hundreds, the nobles, the governors of the people and all the ‘people of the land’ (the landed gentry) and then they brought down the king from the House of YHWH, entered through the Upper Gate into the king’s palace, and set the king on the throne of the kingdom which was in the king’s palace.
In the parallel passage in 2 Kings we read that ‘he took the commanders over hundreds, and the Carites, and the guard, and all the people of the land’. The Chronicler has lessened the emphasis on the guard and expanded on the content of ‘the people of the land’ in order to emphasise the participation of the lay leadership in the coup.
2.23.21a ‘So all the people of the land rejoiced, and the city was quiet.’
The coup being successfully completed, the whole land rejoiced at what had happened, and Jerusalem was quiet. No attempts at a counter-coup were made. Any who were unhappy about what had happened kept their heads low. Jerusalem was satisfied with the situation.
‘The city was quiet.’ ‘Quiet’ is a word regularly used by the Chronicler to depict a condition which results from YHWH showing His goodness towards His people by giving them peace (14.1, 5-6; 20.30). Here we are intended to see that it was YHWH Who had acted in what they had accomplished.
2.23.21b ‘And Athaliah they had slain with the sword.’
The account ends with a sense of satisfaction at the thought that Athaliah, the multiple murderess and idolatress, had been executed with the sword. Evil had been dealt with and good had triumphed. The house of David was restored to its rightful place.
The Reign Of Joash, King Of Judah: His Rise And Fall (24.1-27).
In this subsection the commencement of the reign of Joash is described, and the fact that whilst Jehoiada his mentor was alive he did what was right in the eyes of YHWH. We then have described how he gathered the tax which he claimed was due under the Law of Moses, in order to restore the Temple which had suffered under the hands of the sons of Athaliah, and how that Temple was restored.
However, after the death of Jehoiada the situation changed, for following the unwise counsel of his leading men he allowed his people to turn to the worship of the Asherim and idols, and when prophets arose to rebuke them their testimony was rejected. One such prophet was Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada Joash’s mentor (the one to whom he owed his very life and kingship), and he callously had him stoned to death.
But in response to Zechariah’s cry for requital the Arameans (Syrians) invaded Judah, destroyed the leading men who had led Joash astray, and departed having spoiled Judah. They left Joash a broken and wounded man, and shortly afterwards he was assassinated by two of his official because of what he had done to the house of Jehoiada. In his death he was buried in the city of David, but he was not considered worthy to be buried in the sepulchres of the kings. A life which had commenced with such promise ended in ignominy. Such is the consequence of sin.
The subsection divides up as follows:
Note that in A Joash commenced his reign, and in the parallel we are referred to records for an account of his reign. In B Joash restored the House of YHWH, and in the parallel his later actions resulted in the spoiling of the House of YHWH. Centrally in C Joash allowed the people to turn to the Asherim and to idols and stoned the son of Jehoiada his mentor.
Joash Commences His Reign (24.1).
2.24.1 ‘ Joash was seven years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years in Jerusalem, and his mother’s name was Zibiah, of Beer-sheba.’
The details of his reign commence in the usual way for a recognised member of the house of David. He was seven years old when he began to reign. He reigned forty years in Jerusalem (which may be a round number indicating a long and full reign). The name of his mother, the Queen Mother, was Zibiah of Beersheba. In view of his age he would clearly at first require a Regent who would act on his behalf, and this was undoubtedly Jehoiada the Priest, his mentor.
Whilst Jehoiada The Priest Is Alive Joash Does What Is Right In The Eyes Of YHWH And Also Restores The House Of YHWH (24.2-16).
As we have already seen Joash’s life was preserved, and his place on his throne secured, by Jehoiada ‘the Priest’. He thus began his reign at seven years old with Jehoiada acting as his mentor and regent, and whilst Jehoiada was alive Joash walked rightly before YHWH. This mainly signified that he worshipped YHWH truly and rejected the worship of the Baalim and idols. But involved with it was obedience to the covenant of YHWH as revealed in the Law of Moses, the covenant which had been given to him at his coronation.
Some time after he had reached full age and was king in his own right, he set his mind to restore the House of YHWH which was in considerable disrepair because of the way it had been treated in the days of Athaliah (verse 7). But it is quite clear from the narrative that this then caused a dispute as to how it should be paid for (a circumstance which may help to explain why major repairs had not proceeded before).
Initially Joash had commanded the priests and Levites to gather silver from the people for the purpose, but they had delayed doing so. This was possibly because:
The necessary silver not having been provided (in those days money was unknown) Joash, in his twenty third year (2 Kings 12.5), then more specifically called on Jehoiada to explain why the Levites had not collected the poll tax which the Law of Moses required of each Israelite when they were numbered (Exodus 30.11-16), along with votive payments (Leviticus 27) and voluntary gifts, and used that for the restoration work. It seems probable that the Levites did not see it as their responsibility to collect these payments. Unless there had been a census it is not even certain that the poll tax was due. That may simply have been Joash’s view. Jehoiada probably pointed out to him why the Levites were unwilling, and it was probably this that caused Joash to alter his tactics. Instead of utilising the Levites to collect silver, a chest was set up in the Temple to receive the gifts described above (which suggests that Joash had now accepted that the poll tax was voluntary), and this produced sufficient silver for the work to be completed. The surplus was then used to supplement the vessels in use in the Temple which had been considerably reduced by the activities of Athaliah’s sons.
Finally Jehoiada grew old and died and was honoured by being buried in the sepulchres of the kings, presumably because he had been Judah’s ruler for so long and was counted as worthy.
Analysis.
Note that in A Joash did what was right in the eyes of YHWH all the days of Jehoiada, and in the parallel Jehoiada died and was buried. In B Joash determined to renew the House of YHWH, and in the parallel they accomplished it. In C he commanded the collection of the ‘money’ for the House of God, and in the parallel the ‘money’ collected was given to the workmen to do the job. In D the king demanded to know why the ‘money’ had not been collected, and in the parallel and abundance of ‘money’ had been collected. In E the king commanded the making of a chest to collect the ‘money’, and in the parallel all the princes and people cast ‘money’ in the chest. Centrally in F proclamation was made throughout Judah for the bringing in of the tax for YHWH which Moses had commanded.
2.24.2 ‘And Joash did what was right in the eyes of YHWH all the days of Jehoiada the priest.’
‘Did what was right in the eyes of YHWH’ primarily means that whilst Jehoiada was alive Joash encouraged the true worship of YHWH and rejected idol worship. This is not counteracted by the fact that 2 Kings 12.3 points out that ‘the high places were not taken away. The people still sacrificed and burned incense in the high places’. It is certainly not said that he sought to remove the high places (which was what Ahaz and Jehoshaphat had done), but the Chronicler’s constant assertion that ‘the high places were not taken away’ was a statement of fact because of the impossibility of the task not a condemnation of particular kings. He is explaining why, in spite of the efforts of the good kings, there were still high places in Judah. And we will shortly discover how deeprooted they were in the people’s psyche (24.17-18).
This verse forms an inclusio with verse 16 where we learn of when the days of Jehoiada ceased.
2.24.3 ‘And Jehoiada took for him two wives, and he begat sons and daughters.’
Concerned to maintain the Davidic dynasty Jehoiada found two wives for Joash, presumably while he was still under his guardianship. And through these Joash begat sons and daughters. This was important for it meant that the dynasty of the house of David was preserved. 2 Kings 12 does not mention this. It was thus something that was clearly important to the Chronicler, and it underlines his concern for his readers to recognise the fact that God had preserved the house of David because of the future king who was coming. It was the continued hope of true Israel. He was still expected in the Chronicler’s day even though no king ruled in Judah. They still longed for the king whom God had promised who would bring righteousness and peace to men.
Note the contrast between Joash having two wives and the many wives of Rehoboam and Abijah. Under Jehoiada Joash was proving his faithfulness to the requirements of YHWH in Deuteronomy 17.
2.24.4 ‘And it came about after this, that Joash was minded to restore the house of YHWH.’
The Chronicler now gives us a vague time note about the next event. ‘After this’ may well have covered a number of years. But at some stage the king looked at the Temple, probably compared it with his own palace, and became unhappy that it was in such a state. This was, of course, partly due to years of neglect under Jehoram, Ahazian and Athaliah which would certainly have revealed itself in a building which was well over a hundred years old. But as Jehoiada and the priests and Levites did not appear to be upset by the fact we must consider the possibility that they were content with it and did not want more than necessary repair work to be done to a building revered for its antiquity. Joash no doubt, to his credit, wanted to bring it up to date.
2.24.5a ‘And he gathered together the priests and the Levites, and said to them, “Go out to the cities of Judah, and gather of all Israel silver to repair the house of your God from year to year, and see that you hurry the matter along.”
Conscious now of his authority as king, Joash called the priests and Levites together in order to urge them to go out and collect ‘silver’ from the people. Here the word for ‘silver’ covers any form of wealth. We could even translate it as ‘contributions’. To speak of ‘money’ is anachronistic. Actual coinage had not as yet been invented. 2 Kings 12.4 tells us that he was thinking in terms of the poll tax of Exodus which in his view the Law of Moses required of each Israelite when they were numbered (Exodus 30.11-16), along with votive payments (Leviticus 27) and voluntary gifts which had been freely given by the people when making the Tabernacle. He does not appear to have considered whether the poll tax was required when there had been no census, what the votive gifts ought to be used for, and whether the Levites felt able to require voluntary gifts from the people. So he told the Levites to hurry the matter along, and be quick about it.
2.24.5b ‘However the Levites did not hurry it along.’
The Levites on their part did not hurry it along. This may partly have been because of their veneration for the ancient House of YHWH which they did not want to see ‘renewed’, and partly have been because they recognised that their positions did not give them the authority to demand a poll tax (which what follows suggests should have been seen as voluntary), that they did not see the votive offerings as intended for that purpose, and that they were not accustomed to asking for voluntary gifts. Their main responsibility, apart from their work connected with the Temple, was to collect the tithes, and to oversee assistance to the poor from the third year tithe.
2.24.6 ‘And the king called for Jehoiada the chief, and said to him, “Why have you not required of the Levites to bring in out of Judah and out of Jerusalem the tax of Moses the servant of YHWH, and of the assembly of Israel, for the tent of the testimony?”
When the king recognised that very little was being done to fulfil his commands he called for Jehoiada, who was chief over the Levites (whether priestly or otherwise), and asked him why he had not required the Levites to collect the tax which Moses the servant of YHWH had commanded (the census tax) and which the assembly of Israel had approved should be paid, for the Tent of the Testimony.
It would appear that Jehoiada patiently explained to him that he was asking the Levites to do something which did not come into their remit, and was indeed demanding a tax which was seen as voluntary except when a census was held. Indeed, the fact that it was described as for ‘the Tent of the Testimony’ (the ancient Tabernacle) suggested that it had never been collected for work on the Temple because that had been seen as the king’s prerogative. In those days kings of nations saw it as their responsibility to pay for the building and repair of the temples of their gods (although, of course, they obtained it from their people in other ways). This would explain why in the end Joash chose to follow the method of voluntary gifts.
2.24.7 ‘For the sons of Athaliah, that wicked woman, had broken up the house of God, and also all the dedicated things of the house of YHWH did they bestow on the Baalim.’
The Chronicler now adds in parenthesis one of the reasons why the Temple was in a sad state of disrepair. It was because the sons of the wicked Athaliah had ‘broken up the house of God’. This probably means they had taken gold and decorations from the walls not caring how it affected the structure. And they had ‘bestowed on the Baalim all the dedicated things of the house of YHWH’, including furniture, vessels, basins, snuffers, tongs, and other accoutrements. How much they had taken we do not know.
The ‘sons of Athaliah’ included Ahaziah and his brothers whilst they were still alive, and their sons. It may also have included other relatives loosely called ‘sons’, adopted by Athaliah when she had slain her grandsons. The Baalim that they worshipped would have represented the Tyrian Baal of Jezebel, not the Canaanite Baal. That is why in this subsection the Chronicler does not speak of Baal or the Baalim when referring to the idolatrous religion associated with Canaan (see verse 18).
2.24.8 ‘So the king commanded, and they made a chest, and set it outside, at the gate of the house of YHWH.’
2 Kings 12.9 tells us that the impersonal ‘they’ refers to Jehoiada and his helpers. For there Jehoiada made a large collection chest, and bored a hole in its lid. Here we learn that he placed it near the gate, outside the Sanctuary itself but within the Temple court, so that any precious metals being brought to the house of YHWH by the Levites as they brought in such things as the votive offerings, together with any other ‘monetary’ gifts or payments made by people paying their poll tax at the Temple, could be put into it. And ‘the priests who kept the threshold’ (see 2 Kings 12.9) 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, ‘on the right side as one comes into the house of YHWH’ (2 Kings 12.9), thus on the right hand side of the altar. (‘Beside the altar’ must not be pressed. The Hebrew word for ‘beside’ can vary in meaning depending on the context and does not require close proximity. Consider its use for example in Judges 19.14 (‘beside Gibeah’), 1 Samuel 5.2 (‘beside Dagon’ where there was room for Dagon to fall before the Ark); 1 Samuel 20.41 (‘towards the south’); 1 Kings 1.9, (a stone ‘beside en-Rogel’); 1 Kings 4.12; 21.1 (a vineyard ‘hard by the palace of Ahab’). In none of these cases does it mean literally ‘beside’). If the chest was placed outside the Sanctuary proper and in the courtyard by the gate on the right side of the altar both descriptions agree. This is supported by the phrase ‘on the right side as one comes into the house of YHWH’ (2 Kings 12.9). Alternately it is always possible that the chest was originally placed near the altar, but was later transferred to outside the gate when they realised how popular the collection had become.
The silver, and probably some gold (the word ‘silver’ is a cover-all description indicating tokens of wealth; see verse 14), could be used for several purposes. It could be turned into ingots. It could be used to produce Temple vessels and accoutrements. And it could be used to repair the walls. In those days temples regularly had foundries connected with them for these purposes, and Solomon’s Temple was probably no exception.
Such a collection box in a temple was not unusual. One feature of Near-Eastern temples was a repository for gifts.
2.24.9 ‘And they made a proclamation through Judah and Jerusalem, to bring in for YHWH the tax which Moses the servant of God laid on Israel in the wilderness.’
The chest having been put in place, a proclamation went out throughout the land, including in Jerusalem itself, to bring in for YHWH the tax which Moses the servant of God laid on Israel in the wilderness.’ It is doubtful whether this would have been collected in the times of Jehoram, Ahaziah and Athaliah, and it is even questionable whether it had been collected in earlier times when the kings saw the maintenance of the Temple as their own responsibility. Indeed, as we saw earlier, Moses had only laid on Israel such a tax when a census was taken. It was seemingly the assembly of Israel who had confirmed at one stage that it should be a regular yearly payment towards the upkeep of the Tabernacle. But that it was now to be brought in and placed in the chest at the door of the Temple was an indication that it was now seen that it was voluntary, for there would be no check on who had paid and who had not. It also demonstrated that it was not one of the sources of income that the Levites were to collect.
2.24.10 ‘And all the princes and all the people rejoiced, and brought in, and cast into the chest, until they had made an end.’
The Chronicler, or his source, probably had in mind Exodus 35.21 ff. when he wrote this. The idea is that no pressure needed to be applied because, as in the case of the Tabernacle, the princes (tribal and clan leaders) and people brought their gifts joyfully and gladly. All wanted to see the Temple restored. They did not argue about the rights and wrongs of the interpretation being put on Moses’ words. But that for many it was the enthusiasm of the moment comes out in verses 17-18 where it is clear that some still hungered after the worship in the high places. So this joyous giving was not because there was a wholehearted determination to truly seek YHWH (compare 20.33). It partly arose from the relief that they had been delivered from Athaliah’s oppression. But when it came to Yahwism the majority in Judah were continually lukewarm, only being stirred up by special occasions.
‘They cast it into the chest.’ This is possibly loose speaking for it would appear that they handed their gifts to the ‘keepers of the threshold’ who then put them in the chest (2 Kings 12.9). ‘The priests who guarded the threshold’ were three in number (2 Kings 25.18) and were important Temple personnel. See Jeremiah 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.
‘Until they had made an end’ makes clear how general this verse is. It covers the period from the commencement of the collection to its final end, presumably when the chests were removed.
2.24.11 ‘And it was so, that, at what time the chest was brought to the king’s officers by the hand of the Levites, and when they saw that there was much silver, the king’s scribe and the chief priest’s officer came and emptied the chest, and took it, and carried it to its place again. Thus they did day by day, and gathered silver in abundance.’
The gifts were so numerous that the chest had to be emptied regularly by the king’s officers when it was brought to them by the Levites. They in their turn called on the services of the king’s scribe and the chief priest’s officer, both men who had apparently been set apart for the task. It was they who finally emptied the chest, necessarily recording its contents. Thus it was ensured that the representatives of both king and priest were involved. (Many Near-Eastern temples had a royal official who represented the king’s interests in Temple affairs). The chest was then replaced in order to receive further gifts, and what was collected was put in bags (2 Kings 12.10). This process continued day by day, and the ‘silver’ gathered in was ‘in abundance’.
2.24.12 ‘And the king and Jehoiada gave it to such as did the work of the service of the house of YHWH, and they hired masons and carpenters to restore the house of YHWH, and also such as wrought iron and bronze to repair the house of YHWH.’
The large amount of silver collected was then given jointly by king and Priest to such as did the work of the service of the house of YHWH. In other words, those responsible for its maintenance. And they in turn hired the skilled craftsmen such as masons, carpenters, ironworkers and workers in bronze, who would do the work.
2 Kings 12.15 records that absolute trust was placed in the Levites responsible for the maintenance of the Temple so that they were not called on to give a reckoning of how they used the gifts. This would, in fact, also save considerable time and effort.
2.24.13 ‘So the workmen wrought, and the work of repairing went forward in their hands, and they set up the house of God in its state, and strengthened it.’
These skilled workmen accomplished their purpose. They worked hard and skilfully, and in their hands the work went forward rapidly, and as a consequence they restored the Temple to the state which it had previously been in, and made it strong.
2.24.14 ‘And when they had made an end, they brought the remainder of the ‘silver’ before the king and Jehoiada, of which were made vessels for the house of YHWH, even vessels with which to minister and to offer, and spoons, and vessels of gold and silver. And they offered burnt-offerings in the house of YHWH continually all the days of Jehoiada.’
So much ‘silver’ (tokens of value) had been accumulated that when the restoration was complete there was a good deal of gold and silver left over, and this was brought to the king and Jehoiada, and they used it to replace the vessels and utensils which had been lost to the house of Baal. This had not been done previously lest there not be enough silver for the restoration of the Temple (2 Kings 12.13), but now with the abundance of silver gathered the situation had altered. It appeared that Baalism had been defeated and that the worship of YHWH was triumphant. But any who thought that did not know the heart of man.
2.24.15 ‘But Jehoiada grew old and was full of days, and he died. He was one hundred and thirty years old when he died.’
For eventually Jehoiada grew old and died at the age of one hundred and thirty years. It was to be another turning point for Judah, for it was Jehoiada who was the mainstay of true Yahwism in Judah. Whilst the one hundred and thirty was probably a round number, there is no reason to doubt that it approximated to the truth. It is thus clear from this that Jehoiada’s wife married him when she was a young girl and he was well advanced in years. As the daughter of Jehoram she could have been little more than twenty when she saved Joash from Athaliah (Jehoram died at forty years old). As Joash reigned for forty years the youngest that Jehoiada could have been when she saved Joash was ninety. However, such marriages were not unknown in those days (and even today).
2.24.16 ‘And they buried him in the city of David among the kings, because he had done good in Israel, and towards God and his house.’
And they buried Jehoiada in the city of David among the kings because of what he had done, doing good in ‘Israel’ and on behalf of God and his house. It was he who had restored to ‘Israel’ the son of David, and who had brought about the restoration of Yahwism. And he had played a large part in the restoration of the Temple. And after all he had been a king for many years in all but name which may well have been a factor in the decision. Note the continued thought that Judah was now the new Israel.
After The Death Of Jehoiada Joash Changes Course. He Allows A Turning To The Asherim And To Idols, Rejects The Warnings Of The Prophets, And Kills Jehoiada’s Son Zechariah Who Rebukes Judah (24.17-22).
It is apparent from what now happened that Joash was a weak man, easily influenced and persuaded. Whilst he was under the influence of Jehoiada, his adoptive father and mentor, he walked rightly before God and man. The power and influence of Jehoiada was such that Joash responded to his will, and those who wanted to take the kingdom along a wrong path were quiet. They knew perfectly well that if they revealed themselves they would be dealt with accordingly, and were fully aware that the weak Joash would follow Jehoiada’s lead.
But once Jehoiada was dead things quickly changed. Aware that Joash was weak and easily persuaded, certain tribal and clan leaders who had yearnings after the ancient forms of worship in the high places of Baal and Asherah, (and who had no doubt previously given the impression of being good Yahwists), approached him obsequiously and obtained his consent to their nefarious practises. As a consequence of these practise the wrath of God came on Judah. He did, however, give them every opportunity to repent, sending prophets to warn them of the consequences of their wrongdoing. One of these was Joash’s adoptive brother, Zechariah the son of Jehoiada. Such was his impact that the conspirators determined to be rid of him and persuaded Joash to sentence him to death. So weak minded was Joash that he could not resist their entreaties, and ordered the execution of the brother whom he had grown up with, and to whose father he owed so much. Zechariah was thus subsequently stoned to death in the court of the house of YHWH. But as he died he cried out, “May YHWH look on it, and requite it”, a plea that would be answered within the year.
Analysis.
2.24.17 ‘Now after the death of Jehoiada the princes of Judah came, and made obeisance to the king. Then the king listened to them.’
What happened now brings out the true religious situation in Judah. Outwardly, at times, the whole people have appeared to have been worshipping YHWH, primarily because, when there were ‘good kings’ it was the king’s requirement. It did not pay to go against the king and so outward observance had to be maintained whatever the state of the heart. But inwardly their hearts were not set to seek YHWH, and many hankered after the sexual excesses of the ancient religion in the high places. That was why, despite the best efforts of kings like Asa and Jehoshaphat the high places were never got rid of. Almost as soon as they had been destroyed they sprang up again. The Chronicler was well aware of this for he pointed out that even in the reign of Jehoshaphat the hearts of the people were not genuinely set towards YHWH (20.33).
So whilst Jehoiada was alive, and was influencing and controlling king Joash, those who wanted to worship at the high places kept their worship a secret, and outwardly worshipped YHWH. But now, as soon as Jehoiada was dead, the nominal Yahwists who wanted to worship the Baals and Asherim at the high places, knowing that Joash was weak and easily persuadable, came obsequiously to him and asked for permission to worship and serve the Asherim and the idols (Baal is not mentioned in order to prevent confusion with the Tyrian Baal worshipped by Athaliah and the house of Ahab, whom they did not want to worship). Here they are described as ‘the princes (tribal and clan leaders) of Judah’. Not all would, of course, have been involved, but certainly sufficient to have brought down God’s wrath on Judah. As always there would have been a minority who remained true, in the same way as there were ‘seven thousand men who had not bowed the knee to Baal’ in northern Israel in the time of Elijah.;
2.24.18 ‘And they forsook the house of YHWH, the God of their fathers, and served the Asherim and the idols, and wrath came on Judah and Jerusalem for this their guiltiness.’
As a consequence of their action large numbers in Judah ‘forsook the house of YHWH, the God of their fathers’ and instead worshipped and cultically served ‘the Asherim and the idols’. The Asherim were poles or images which represented Asherah, the consort of Baal. The idols would include the stone pillars which represented the Canaanite Baal, but possibly also other idols like the Moabite Chemosh and the Ammonite Molech.
As a consequence the wrath of YHWH came on Judah and Jerusalem because of their guiltiness. This followed the Old Testament pattern, prominent also in the Chronicles, of wrath following blatant disobedience to YHWH. Such wrath had also come on Jehoshaphat. But in his case repentance and a change of heart averted the wrath (19.2) Thus judgment following the wrath was not inevitable..
2.24.19 ‘Yet he sent prophets to them, to bring them again to YHWH, and they testified against them, but they would not pay heed (give ear).’
Thus in an attempt to bring them to repentance YHWH sent prophets to them, to bring them back to Him, and these prophets testified against the culprits. But they would not listen, for their hearts were hardened. It would be a familiar story in centuries to come.
2.24.20 ‘And the Spirit of God came on Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, and he stood above the people, and said to them, “Thus says God, Why do you transgress the commandments of YHWH, so that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken YHWH, he has also forsaken you.”
Then YHWH raised up a special prophet to whom Joash should certainly have listened. This was Zechariah the ‘son’ of Jehoiada the Priest, the adopted brother of Joash with whom he had been brought up. Surely after all that Jehoiada had done in saving Joash’s life and establishing him on the throne, and guiding him through his tender years, Joash would listen to his son.
So the Spirit of God came on Zechariah, and he cried to the people and said, “Thus says God, Why do you rebel against the commandments of YHWH, for in so doing you will not prosper? Because you have forsaken YHWH, He also has forsaken you.” But the people closed their ears and would not listen.
Note the use of the word ‘forsake’ (‘azah), prominent in the passage. They had ‘forsaken’ the house of YHWH (verse 18), and they had ‘forsaken YHWH’ (verse 20), thus YHWH would ‘forsake’ them (verse 20), and Joash would therefore be ‘forsaken’ by his enemies, leaving him with severe wounds (verse 25).
2.24.21 ‘And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of YHWH.’
‘They’ is strictly ‘the people’ but probably mainly refers to the tribal and clan leaders who originally approached Joash (verse 17). They clearly came to the king and called on him to give them the right to execute Zechariah, and it may well be that court proceedings were held before the porch of the Temple. There Zechariah was, at their instigation, charged before the king with being a blasphemer, or at the best a traitor. Sentence being passed by the king they then stoned him with stones in the court of the house of YHWH, the recognised punishment for blasphemy. Stoning with stones was a fate reserved for blasphemers and certain adulterers. Thus the man through whom the Spirit of YHWH had spoken was charged with being a blasphemer because he rightly declared that YHWH would forsake His people. Jesus Himself later referred to this execution in Matthew 24.35 where He called him the son of Barachiah. As Jehoiada was in fact probably his grandfather it is quite feasible that his father was called Barachiah.
Whilst it is certainly a coincidence that the prophet Zechariah who prophesied after the return from Exile was also ‘the son of Berechiah’ (Zechariah 1.1) it does not necessarily mean that Matthew was in error. The Berechiah after the Exile may well have called his son Zechariah because he knew that Jehoiada’s son Barachiah had called his son the same. Zechariah was a very popular name. Consider the similar coincidence where the witness Zechariah in Isaiah 8.2 is also the son of Je-berechiah (Berechiah with Yah appended). This may suggest a pattern.
2.24.22 ‘Thus Joash the king did not remember the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but slew his son. And when he died, he said, “YHWH look on it, and requite it.”
The Chronicler then adds the comment, that Joash had failed to remember how much he owed to Jehoiada. It was due to Jehoiada that he was alive at all, and even more due to him that he was now king. And in return he had slain his ‘son’, who had presumably been as a brother to him in the early days.
But the dying words of Zechariah would soon haunt him, for Zechariah cried out to YHWH, saying, “YHWH look on it and requite it.’ He was calling on God to fulfil what he had prophesied and restore the situation of His people by judging the royal perpetrator, not asking for personal vengeance. Unless judgment came on Joash, evil would triumph and his prophecy would have been proved wrong. It is wrong to compare these words with Jesus’ words of forgiveness at the cross in a unique situation (Joash did know what he was doing), and Stephen’s similar words when he was stoned to death did not have a situation in mind where, if his murderers were forgiven, God’s people would suffer. His murderers were religious antagonists, not rulers of the people. Zechariah was not just speaking on his own behalf, but as a prophet who had responsibilities for his people and was speaking of the king who ruled over them, and who if left to himself would lead his people into even greater sin. Judgment on Joash was necessary so that the kingdom might be delivered from idolatry. And Zechariah knew it was coming. A far better comparison is with the words of Paul to Elymas the sorcerer in Acts 13.10-11.
Joash Suffers Under An Invasion By The Syrians Who Spoil Judah, Leaving Joash A Badly Wounded Man Who Is Finally Assassinated By Two Of His Officials (24.17-26).
The Chronicler intends us to see this as YHWH’s response to the rejection of His prophets. It would have happened whatever Zechariah had prayed, for YHWH had determined to bring judgment on those who had turned away from Him to idols and had led the country astray. It describes the arrival of the Arameans (Syrians) who would, in requital for Zechariah’s death, and as a punishment for turning the country to idolatry, put to death the perpetrators, ‘the princes of the people’.
The account is very much abbreviated, and comparison with 2 Kings 12.17-18 brings out the fuller picture. There Hazael the king of Aram (Syria) first invaded Gath, in Philistia to the west, and subdued it. Then he turned his attention on Judah and Jerusalem. 2 Kings gives the impression that he did not actually reach Jerusalem, but was bought off before he could do so. But this in itself would result in a visit to Jerusalem by a deputation. So this does not contradict what is said by the Chronicler. For ‘they came to Judah and Jerusalem’, does not necessarily indicate the subduing by force of that city, only that their activities affected both. The slaying of the false princes and the wounding of Joash could easily have taken place away from Jerusalem during warfare in Judah, when the invading forces met resistance, but the collecting of the spoil would necessitate a visit to Jerusalem in order to check out the situation and in order to ensure that all the spoil was received, otherwise some could have been held back secretly. (Nothing is said about Jerusalem’s investment and destruction).
Analysis.
Note that in A reference is made to the Aramean army coming against Joash, and in the parallel mention is made of the greatness of the burdens put on him. In B the Arameans conspired against him, and in the parallel his own servants conspired against him. In C the Arameans came against him, and in the parallel they left him badly wounded. Centrally in D they were their to execute YHWH’s judgment on Joash.
2.24.23 ‘And it came about at the end of the year, that the army of the Arameans (the Syrians) came up against him. And they came to Judah and Jerusalem, and destroyed all the princes of the people from among the people, and sent all their spoil to the king of Damascus.’
The Chronicler ignored the earlier invasion of Philistia by the Arameans (Syrians) which led on to the invasion of Judah. His concern was not with presenting a full history of the Aramean predatory action (2 Kings 12.17), but with making clear YHWH’s punishment of Judah. In his eyes the successful invasion was a direct result of Joash’s support of idolatry and of his murder of Jehoiada’s ‘son’ Zechariah. For had Joash been right with YHWH the invasion would not have been successful
Note the phrase ‘they came to Judah and Jerusalem’. The fact that Judah is mentioned underlines the fact that the visit to Jerusalem was not the essence of the invasion (‘they came to Jerusalem’ would have been a much stronger statement). It was thus Judah that felt the full force of the invasion, and it was in Judah that the ‘princes’ (tribal and clan leaders) were destroyed, either during the skirmishes and battles or as a reprisal after these had been won by the Arameans (Syrians). Jerusalem is mentioned because most of the spoils were sent from there. The spoils included ‘all the hallowed things that Jehoshaphat, Jehoram and Ahaziah, his fathers, kings of Judah, had dedicated, and his (Joash’s) own hallowed things, and all the gold which was found in the treasures of the house of YHWH, and of the king’s house’ (2 Kings 12.18). So at one go, as a result of his folly, Joash and the Temple lost the accumulation of over fifty years. Jerusalem was stripped of its treasures.
2.24.24 ‘For the army of the Arameans (Syrians) came with a small company of men, and YHWH delivered a very great host into their hand, because they had forsaken YHWH, the God of their fathers. So they executed judgment on Joash.’
Previously in the reigns of the good kings it had been Judah who had been in the minority and the invaders who had been the great host. But now the situation had changed because YHWH was no longer with them. ‘A small company’ is comparative to ‘the great host’. It must have been quite a sizeable company that reduced Gath. But this ‘small company’ would have been made up of picked warriors, battle hardened, fully armed, highly skilled and highly trained, and presumably led by skilled generals. The ‘great host’ would largely have been made up of conscripts who had been hastily gathered to meet the invasion and may well have been comparatively poorly armed. Nevertheless the suggestion is that had they had YHWH on their side they would have prevailed. They failed because ‘they had forsaken YHWH, the God of their fathers’ with the result that He had forsaken them (verse 20).
‘So they executed judgment on Joash.’ They carried out God’s judgment on Joash and Judah in requital for Judah’s forsaking of Him and their slaying of His prophet (verse 22).
2.24.25 ‘And when they were departed from him (had forsaken him), for they left him badly wounded, his own servants conspired against him for the blood of the sons of Jehoiada the priest, and slew him on his bed, and he died. And they buried him in the city of David, but they did not bury him in the sepulchres of the kings.’
There is irony in the way that the Chronicler uses the same word ‘forsaken’ of the enemy leaving Joash suffering from his wounds. Even his enemy forsook him! And they left him ‘badly wounded’. The Hebrew word is a unique one. It is related to the word for diseases in 21.19. Here it would seem to mean ‘wounded’ as no sickness is mentioned.
But what was worse for Joash was that even those whom he trusted betrayed him (as he had betrayed Jehoiada’s son). Two of his officials, who seemingly had access to his private rooms, conspired against him and entering his bedroom slew him where he lay recovering from his wounds. Furthermore we are given the reason why they did so. It was ‘for the blood of the sons of Jehoiada the Priest’ (the fact that ‘sons’ is plural may suggest that Joash had also retaliated against Zechariah’s brothers. Or it may be seeing the whole family as having suffered in Zechariah’s death. His blood was their blood). But whether that was the motive of the conspirators, or simply YHWH’s motive, we are left to surmise. We are not told. It is ambiguous. He was then buried in the city of David (the ancient Jerusalem/Jebus). But to add to his disgrace, unlike Jehoiada his mentor, he was not buried in the sepulchres of the kings. He was another who was not found worthy.
2 Kings 12.20-21 gives further detail concerning his wounding and death. It would appear that his wounds were due to the fact that prior to reaching Jerusalem there was a conspiracy against him by some of his officials as a consequence of which he was wounded at the house of Millo on the way which goes down to Silla. But he seemingly survived it, and it was only once he had reached Jerusalem badly wounded that two of them were able to slay him in his bed.
2.24.26 ‘And these are they who conspired against him: Zabad the son of Shimeath the Ammonitess, and Jehozabad the son of Shimrith the Moabitess.’
We now learn the names of the two main conspirators. They were Zabad the son of Shimeath and Jehozabad the son of Shimrith. In both cases their mothers were foreigners. Perhaps it was because their mothers were foreigners that they dared to lift up their hand against YHWH’s anointed, a son of David. 2 Kings gives the name of the two as Jozacar the son of Shimeath and Jehozabad the son of Shomer. Zabad may have been Jozacar’s Ammonite name (or vice versa). Shomer is a variant on Shimrith.
2.24.27 ‘Now concerning his sons, and the greatness of the burdens laid on him, and the rebuilding of the house of God, behold, they are written in the commentary of the book of the kings. And Amaziah his son reigned instead of him.’
The passage ends with a typical reference to the source available for the life of Joash. Information about his sons, and the greatness of the burdens laid on him (which may suggest that we have only been told the half about the requital that came on him) and about the rebuilding of the House of God, are to be found in ‘the commentary of the book of kings’. And it is then emphasised that Amaziah his son reigned instead of him. In spite of all the problems that it had faced, the house of David continued as YHWH had promised.
IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?
If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus. (But preferably not from aol.com, for some reason they do not deliver our messages).
FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.
THE PENTATEUCH --- GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS --- NUMBERS --- DEUTERONOMY --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- THE BOOK OF RUTH --- SAMUEL --- KINGS --- EZRA---NEHEMIAH--- ESTHER--- PSALMS 1-58--- PROVERBS---ECCLESIASTES--- SONG OF SOLOMON --- ISAIAH --- JEREMIAH --- LAMENTATIONS --- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL --- --- HOSEA --- --- JOEL ------ AMOS --- --- OBADIAH --- --- JONAH --- --- MICAH --- --- NAHUM --- --- HABAKKUK--- --- ZEPHANIAH --- --- HAGGAI --- ZECHARIAH --- --- MALACHI --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- READINGS IN ROMANS --- 1 CORINTHIANS --- 2 CORINTHIANS ---GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS--- PHILIPPIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- PHILEMON --- HEBREWS --- JAMES --- 1 & 2 PETER --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- JUDE --- REVELATION --- THE GOSPELS & ACTS