In the seventh year of Jehu, Jehoash began to reign; and he reigned forty years in Jerusalem; and his mother's name was Zibiah of Beer-sheba.
Jehoash came to the throne as a boy of seven, kept alive through a dangerous rescue, and Scripture names his mother beside him. Two questions follow — how did this heir survive, and will a reign that starts so well end well?
Before Jehoash — also called Joash — could reign, someone had to keep him alive. Commentators credit God's word about David's line, and a priest and his wife who acted on it.
Jehoiada and his wife took up this dangerous business in faith. His own words show it: "Behold, the king's son shall reign, as the Lord has said of the sons of David." "The Lord has said" is quite enough for faith to move on, or to act, whatever the dangers, the difficulties and the work. And in that path God turns all the wheels of providence to bring about the successful end. The cause was of God. Joash was the only rightful heir to the throne of David. By God's promise that throne was not to be left without an heir, until that Heir should come who would need no successor.
One writer looks past Jehoash and sees a foreshadowing of Christ, the true David.
Nothing could more beautifully give us distant glimpses of our true David than all this. We see, as it were, His descent from heaven, the house of the Lord, in power and glory. And it was the fitting moment for such a picture. For Athaliah's seizing of the throne was Judah's complete turning away from God.
Scripture pauses to name Zibiah of Beersheba. One writer notices that these books nearly always name the king's mother, and gives the reason.
A mother's influence is very great. I presume that this is why the history of the kings of Israel and Judah almost always records the name of the mother. She was the one who in so many cases formed the character of her son.
Another writer turns that into a warning for parents.
This should make Christian mothers realise their responsibility. It should stir them to bring up their children in the fear of the Lord. On the other hand, it shows something else. When the head of a Christian family marries a woman of the world, the result is morally disastrous for the children born of that union.
The reign is long, and the next verse ties its good verdict to one man. Commentators read the reigns carefully and see a measure of outward care for God's things while the priest was there.
As long as Jehoiada was there, there was a measure of care outwardly for the things of God; and, as the priests had watched over Jehoash in his childhood, Jehoash now in his maturity watches over them.
The same writer names plainly what was carrying the king, and what was not.
It was more the influence of Jehoiada than faith in the living God. An influence, sooner or later, must fail. The influence of man is not the faith of God's elect.
Even at its best the reign fell short. The high places — local sites of sacrifice outside Jerusalem — stayed standing.
The high places still remained, where the people sacrificed and burned incense. They would say they were sacrificing to God. But it was disobedience. God had told Israel to sacrifice only in the place that He chose, which was Jerusalem.
Jehoiada died, and what had looked solid gave way. Writers turn the story into a warning about borrowed godliness.
External influence, however holy, can never change the heart. The heart is like a bent bow. It springs back to its normal shape the moment the pressure stops. How often this solemn fact is seen in Christian families! How often a son leaving the godly restraints of his father's house plunges with greater eagerness into the sinful pleasures of the world!
Another writer follows those forty years to their end, and places responsibility on both sides.
Being only seven years old at his coronation, Joash reigned forty years, and so was only forty-seven when his own servants killed him... But he leaned too heavily upon the godly priest and did not learn to depend truly on the Lord. How often it is true that people depend so much on a godly leader that they never learn to stand on their own feet! Of course the leader is to blame if he encourages this.
- Kept — the boy is on the throne because God had spoken about David's sons, and faith acted on that word.
- Named — Scripture names Zibiah of Beersheba, because mothers shaped the character of these kings.
- Borrowed — Jehoash did right on Jehoiada's influence, not on his own faith. Influence always fails in the end.
- Incomplete — the high places stayed. The reign looked right, but it stopped where obedience cost something.
- Exposed — when Jehoiada died, the heart sprang back. The day the prop goes, you see what a man was leaning on.
And Jehoash did what was right in the sight of Jehovah, all the days wherein Jehoiada the priest instructed him.
Joash — called Jehoash here — became king as a child, and Jehoiada the priest saved his life and taught him the law. The verse praises the king and links that praise to the priest, which raises the question commentators press hardest: whose faith was it?
The good verdict is real. Older translations read that Joash did right "all the days that Jehoiada the priest instructed him," and one writer traces the king's devotion to a source outside the king himself.
"And Joash did what was right in the sight of Jehovah all the days of Jehoiada the priest." Yes, but it was more the influence of Jehoiada than faith in the living God. An influence, sooner or later, must fail. The influence of man is not the faith of God's elect.
The wording in Kings ties the king's obedience to the priest's teaching. One writer builds a full portrait of Joash out of that phrase — sheltered, teachable, and dependent.
Joash was brought up in the law of the Lord from his earliest years. Jehoiada and Jehosheba cared for him and guarded him from every outward temptation. He had a flexible character, marked more by his submission than by his energy. He went along with good influences as long as they lasted, but for lack of "virtue" he was in danger of giving way to evil influences. From childhood on, Joash was used to a relationship with God through a go-between, and he never felt the need for direct communion with the Lord. He did not lack initiative, but he lacked the direct guidance of the Spirit of God.
Another writer explains why outside pressure can shape a life but never change it.
But external influence, however holy, can never change the heart. The heart is like a bent bow. It springs back to its normal position the moment the pressure stops. How often this solemn fact is seen in Christian families! How often a son leaves the godly restraints of his father's house and plunges with greater eagerness into the sinful pleasures of the world!
Joash was no passive figure. He knew the Word well enough to correct the very man who had raised him.
True to what he had learned in the word of God, he did not hesitate to correct even the high priest if he was careless in carrying it out, for that Word is above all. He owed his uncle a lasting debt of gratitude for saving his infant life. Even so, when the occasion required, he could ask him to do his duty as God's high priest about the necessary repairs of that house over which God had set him. Would to God he had continued in such a mind to the end of his reign.
One writer applies this straight to children raised in believing homes. The problem he names is not unbelief. It is a faith that never grew up.
Their parents' faith guides their first steps, which is right and approved by God. Later they show a genuine faith, but it is not free of its earliest habits. They look to people rather than to God Himself. Their conscience has never been deeply troubled by man's sinful state and his natural distance from God. They believe what they have always believed, yet no one can doubt that they have life... Knowledge and real piety do not make up for the lack of a direct relationship of the soul with the Lord. The Christian must seek this above everything else. Thousands of godly souls stay in a childhood condition. They depend first on their parents and later on their spiritual leaders, instead of depending on God and the Word. Let the leader disappear, and their godliness disappears with him. Let him turn aside, and their soul turns aside after him... Joash obeyed leaders without discernment, whether Jehoiada or the princes — and that was his ruin.
Another writer draws the same line for young people leaving home for study or work.
The case of King Joash shows that a faith based only on training vanishes when the supporting influences disappear.
If every human support can fail, the answer is not a better mentor but a different anchor.
Leaders may change or fail; Christ alone does not change: He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He is "the great shepherd of the sheep." It is to Him that we must hold fast. This is one of the solemn lessons that the character and career of Joash offer us.
- Dated praise. The verse praises Joash. But it ties his right doing to the years Jehoiada taught him.
- Borrowed, not owned. Commentators call this the influence of a man, not personal faith. Influence must fail sooner or later.
- Pressure, not change. Outward restraint never changes the heart. The heart is a bent bow: it springs back when the pressure lifts.
- Knowledge is not enough. Joash knew the Word well enough to correct the high priest. But knowledge and real piety cannot replace direct dealing with God.
- Hold fast to the unchanging. Every human support fails in the end. Christ, the great shepherd of the sheep, is the same yesterday, today and forever.
Only, the high places were not removed the people still sacrificed and burned incense on the high places.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
And Jehoash said to the priests, All the money of the hallowed things that is brought into the house of Jehovah, the money of every one that passes [the account], the money at which every man is valued, [and] all the money that comes into any man's heart to bring into the house of Jehovah,
Jehoash, also called Joash, was a young king, and he turned the nation's giving toward one thing: the neglected temple in Jerusalem. The verse names three streams of money and hands them all to the priests — the men whose faithfulness the rest of the chapter tests.
The temple was not simply worn out. Something had been done to it.
The leading work of Jehoash's reign was the repairing of the temple. This had become necessary because the family of Athaliah had broken it up and used the dedicated things in the worship of Baal (2 Chron. 24:7). The king took the initiative, but the neglect of the priests made the work practically impossible.
Joash started with the house of God. That choice is the mark of a real revival.
Joash's first concern was the temple of the Lord, the place of God's presence in the midst of His people. When there is a revival of godliness, this neglected object requires a totally new value. God's children feel the need to gather where the Lord has chosen to make His name dwell. They also feel the need to honour His presence among His own people by their work, their devotion, and all their conduct.
The verse lists three separate payments. Each one comes straight out of the law of Moses.
The wording comes from Exodus 30:13, about everyone who passes among those who are counted: the money is the half-shekel. Here it is for the Temple; in Exodus this money was meant for the tent of meeting. Secondly, the money at which the persons, or souls, were valued, Lev. 27:2-8... and thirdly, the freewill money. Without the five books of Moses this verse would make no sense.
Joash was not inventing a scheme. He was going back to the law God had already given.
What mattered to Joash was going back to "the tribute of Moses the servant of God laid upon Israel in the wilderness" (2 Chr. 24:9). He would not turn aside from the word of the law when it came to honouring the house of God and everything connected with it. It is the same in our day. For us, as for Joash, the question is not about beginning to build the house or putting up a new Church. It is only about repairing the breaches. And for that, God does not leave us to our own ideas, which would only add new breaches to the old evils.
The money goes to the priests, and Joash's own history with them gives the order its weight.
As long as Jehoiada was there, some outward care for the things of God remained. The priests had watched over Jehoash in his childhood. Now Jehoash, grown up, watches over them.
The arrangement failed. Money came in, and the breaches stayed.
Still, there is no true zeal for the LORD. The priests keep the money to themselves, which they had agreed to use for repairing the house of the Lord, until the king steps in to set things in order.
The priests had a right to live from the offerings. The problem lay deeper, in what they put first.
They did have the right to live from the things offered at the altar. But in their hearts their own interests came before the interests of the Lord and of His house... They lived from their gifts, and the house of God kept its breaches. Jehoiada himself let them do so without protesting. Later (v. 15) we see men with no official position — from the foremen over the work down to the carpenters and masons — who "dealt faithfully," far more than the priests themselves.
- Breach — Athaliah's family broke up the temple and spent its dedicated things on Baal. Unfaithfulness caused the ruin, not age.
- Concern — Joash put God's house first. That is what a real revival of godliness looks like.
- Provision — Three streams of money flow in, and all three come from the law of Moses. Without those earlier books the verse makes no sense.
- Trust — Joash handed the money to the priests who had once cared for him. They kept it for themselves, so the king stepped in.
- Repair — The task was never to build something new, only to mend what was broken. The workmen with no official position did that faithfully.
let the priests take it, every man of his acquaintance; and let them repair the breaches of the house, wherever any breach is found.
Jehoiada the priest rescued Joash as a baby and raised him inside the temple. Now, as king, Joash cares first about the building that sheltered him. The order he gives sounds simple — let the priests collect the money and mend whatever is broken. But it raises two questions the chapter then answers. What had damaged God's house? And why did such a sensible plan stall for over twenty years?
The temple was not just worn out by age. Commentators point to a deliberate cause.
The leading work of Jehoash's reign was the repairing of the temple. The repair had become necessary because Athaliah's family had broken it up and used the dedicated things in the worship of Baal (2 Chron. 24:7). The king made the first move, but the priests neglected the work and made it almost impossible.
The king's thoughts turn first to God's dwelling place. One writer sees here what happens whenever godliness revives.
Joash's first concern was the temple of the Lord, the place of God's presence among His people. When godliness revives, this neglected object takes on a completely new value. God's children feel the need to gather where the Lord has been pleased to make His name dwell. They feel the need to honour His presence among His own by their activity, their devotion, and all their conduct.
The verse points to money coming in from more than one source.
Jehoash cared about the proper welfare of the temple of God. He ordered that two kinds of money should pay for its repair: the money the people owed, and the money they brought willingly.
Some older translations read "every man of his acquaintance"; the ESV has "each from his donor."
Joash invented nothing. He went back to what Moses had laid down, and one writer draws a line from that to believers today.
To Joash the important thing was to go back to "the tribute of Moses the servant of God laid upon Israel in the wilderness" (2 Chr. 24:9). He would not turn aside from the word of the law when it came to honouring the house of God and everything connected with it. It is the same in our day. Like Joash, we are not asked to start building the house, or to set up a new Church. We only have to repair the breaches. And for that God does not leave us to our own ideas, which would only add new breaches to the old evils. In the Word of God we too have our tribute of Moses, the sign of what God expects from us. And if our hearts are willing, they will seek only one thing: the interests of Christ and of the house of God on earth.
The order was clear, and still nothing happened. The problem lay in what the priests put first.
The priests were using for themselves the gifts they received from the people they knew. They did have the right to live from the things offered at the altar. But in their hearts their own interests came before those of the Lord and of His house, and their conduct showed it. They lived off their gifts, and the house of God kept its breaches. Jehoiada himself let them do so without protesting.
Joash knew the word of God for himself. That gave him the standing to speak.
He stayed true to what he had learned in the word of God. So he did not hesitate to correct even the high priest when the high priest failed to carry it out, for that Word is above all. He owed his uncle a lasting debt of gratitude for saving his life as a baby. Yet when the moment called for it, he could ask him, as God's high priest, to do his duty over the repairs that house needed — the house God had set him over.
- Breach — Athaliah's family broke up the house and spent its dedicated things on Baal. Every breach in God's house has a cause.
- Burden — A renewed heart turns first to God's dwelling place. The neglected object takes on a completely new value.
- Bounty — What the people owed and what they gave willingly paid for the repair. Joash followed the pattern Moses laid down. He invented nothing new.
- Blockage — The priests put their own interests before the Lord's. They lived off the gifts, and the house kept its breaches.
- Backbone — Joash learned the Word and lived by it. So he corrected even the high priest who had saved his life, because that Word stands above all.
And it was [so that] in the twenty-third year of king Jehoash, the priests had not repaired the breaches of the house.
Jehoash had told the priests to take the money brought into the temple and mend the damaged house of God. Twenty-three years into his reign the damage was still there — older translations call it the unrepaired "breaches" of the house.
Money came in; the repairs did not. One writer reads the neglect as a misuse of funds:
Instead of applying the contributions for the house of Jehovah, the priests had applied them to themselves.
The remedy did not come from inside the priesthood:
Still, there is no true zeal for Jehovah. The priests keep the money to themselves, which they had agreed to use for repairing the house of the Lord, until the king steps in to set things in order.
The priests had a real right to live from the altar. What went wrong was the order of things in their hearts. Writers call this king either Jehoash or Joash; it is one man:
If Joash is full of zeal at this moment, he does not find the same degree of zeal in the priesthood, or even in godly Jehoiada who is its head. The priests were using for themselves the gifts they received from their acquaintances. They did have the right to live from the things offered at the altar. But their own interests were taking first place in their hearts, above those of the Lord and of His house. Their conduct showed this. They lived from their gifts, and the house of God kept its breaches.
Commentators differ on the cause. Another writer, reading the parallel account, suggests the priests simply had no appetite for the collecting:
Perhaps they had no heart for demanding money from the people, because people usually resist such demands. It is the principle of law-keeping, which always awakens resistance in people's minds.
Jehoash knew what the word of God said. That knowledge gave a king the standing to correct the high priest — the man who had saved his life as a baby.
He was true to what he had learned in the word of God. So he did not hesitate to correct even the high priest, if the high priest was slack in carrying it out. That Word is above all. He owed his uncle a lasting debt of gratitude, for his uncle had saved his life when he was a baby. Even so, when the occasion required it, he could ask him to do his duty as God's high priest and see to the needed repairs of that house. God had set him over it.
The same chapter that exposes the priests praises the workmen — from the overseers down to the masons:
Further on (v. 15) we see people without any official position, from those set over the work down to the carpenters and masons. They "dealt faithfully," much more so than the priests themselves. Let us urge one another to follow their example. Let us show the same heart for the work, and the same faithfulness in the service entrusted to us, so that we "adorn the doctrine of God our Savior" (Titus 2:10).
The verse speaks of repairs, not of building something new. One writer draws that line for today:
To Joash the important thing was to go back to "the tribute of Moses the servant of God laid on Israel in the wilderness" (2 Chron. 24:9). He would not turn aside from the word of the law when it came to honouring the house of God and everything connected with it. It is the same in our day. For us, as for Joash, it is not a question of beginning to build the house, of putting up a new Church. It is only a matter of repairing the breaches. And for that God does not leave us to our own initiative, which would only add new breaches to the old evils.
The king who pressed for the repairs did not stay that way:
But however that may be, the heart of Jehoash was not with the Lord. The death of Jehoiada gave an occasion to show it… It is sad to see that the one who began so well at last slips away from his original integrity.
- Cracks — Money came in for God's house. Twenty-three years later the breaches were still open, because the priests kept for themselves what people gave.
- Cause — The priests had a real right to live from the altar. But their own interests came first in their hearts, so the house kept its breaches.
- Correction — A king had to step in. Jehoash corrected even the man who had saved his life, because God's Word stands above every person.
- Contrast — The workmen held no office, yet from overseers to masons they dealt faithfully. That service adorns the doctrine of God our Savior.
- Commission — The task is never a new house, only the old one mended. And Jehoash's later drift warns that a strong start settles nothing.
Then king Jehoash called for Jehoiada the priest, and the priests, and said to them, Why have ye not repaired the breaches of the house? And now receive no money of your acquaintances, but give it for the breaches of the house.
Twenty-three years into his reign, Joash (called Jehoash here) found that the money given for the temple had produced no repairs. So he called in the priests, among them the uncle who had once saved his life, and asked them why.
The priests had agreed to use the money to repair the breaches — the broken places in the building. So where had it gone?
By the twenty-third year of King Jehoash, the priests had not repaired the breaches of the house. Instead of using the contributions for the house of the Lord, they had used them on themselves.
Nothing changed until someone stepped in from outside the priesthood.
Still, there is no true zeal for the Lord. The priests keep the money to themselves, which they had agreed to use for repairing the house of the Lord, until the king steps in to set things in order.
Each priest received gifts from his own donors. So why were the walls still broken?
Joash is full of zeal at this moment. He does not find the same zeal in the priesthood, or even in godly Jehoiada, its head. The priests were using for themselves the gifts they received from the people they knew (vv. 7-8). It was not that they had no right to live from the things offered at the altar. The problem was that their own interests came first in their hearts, ahead of the Lord's interests and His house. Their conduct showed it. They lived from their gifts, and the house of God kept its breaches.
Joash owed Jehoiada his life. Jehoiada was his uncle, and gratitude did not stop him from speaking.
He stayed true to what he had learned in the word of God. So he did not hesitate to correct even the high priest, if he was careless in carrying it out, because that Word is above all. He owed his uncle a lasting debt of gratitude for saving his life as a baby. Even so, when the occasion required it, he could ask him to do his duty as God's high priest and see to the needed repairs of that house. God had set the high priest over it. Would to God he had kept such a mind to the end of his reign.
The king's fix was blunt. The priests were to stop handling the money, and something else took its place.
The priests agreed to take no more money from the people and not to repair the breaches of the house. Instead, Jehoiada the priest took a chest and bored a hole in its lid. He set it beside the altar, on the right side as you come into the house of the Lord. The priests who guarded the door put into it all the money people brought to the house of the Lord. And so it was done: the work went forward, Jehoiada watched over it, and the house of the Lord was repaired.
Commentators differ on Jehoiada. Rossier finds even him short of the king's zeal. Kelly notes that he set up the chest and watched over the work.
The same writer brings this forward to our own day. Joash did not build a new temple; he repaired the one that stood.
It is the same in our day. For us, just as for Joash, the task is not to start building the house or to put up a new Church. It is only a matter of repairing the breaches. And for that, God does not leave us to our own ideas, which would only add new breaches to the old evils. In the Word of God we too have our own tribute of Moses, showing what God expects of us. If our hearts are "willing," they will seek only one thing, the interests of Christ and of the house of God on earth.
- Breach — years of giving repaired nothing, because the priests kept for themselves what people gave for the house.
- Priority — the priests had a real right to live from the altar. Putting their own interests above the Lord's house was the fault, and the broken walls proved it.
- Word — Joash corrected the man who had saved his life, because the word of God stands above every office and every debt of gratitude. He did not hold that mind to the end of his reign.
- Remedy — the money went straight into a chest beside the altar, the work went forward, and the house was repaired.
- Reach — our task today is not to start a new house but to repair the breaches, using what God has already written, not our own ideas.
And the priests consented to receive no money of the people, and that they should only repair the breaches of the house.
Joash had ordered the temple repaired, yet twenty-three years later the damage was still there. The king summoned the priests, and verse 8 gives their answer: they handed back both the money and the job.
The money had been flowing in; the building stayed broken. One writer traces the gap to where the priests' hearts were set. He does not spare Jehoiada, the head of the priesthood.
If Joash is full of zeal at this moment, he does not find the same degree of zeal in the priesthood, or even in godly Jehoiada who is its head. The priests were using for themselves the gifts they received from their acquaintances (vv. 7-8). They did have the right to live from the things offered at the altar. But in their hearts their own interests came before those of the Lord and of His house. Their conduct showed it. They lived from their gifts, and the house of God kept its breaches.
Joash owed Jehoiada his life, and Jehoiada was God's high priest. Neither fact kept the king quiet.
He stayed true to what he had learned in the word of God. He did not hesitate to correct even the high priest if the high priest was neglecting it, for that Word is above all. He owed his uncle a lasting debt of gratitude for saving his life as a baby. Even so, when the occasion required, he could ask him, as God's high priest, to do his duty about the necessary repairs of that house over which God had set him.
The priests gave up the money and the work in one breath. That is not the same as a change of heart.
Still, there is no true zeal for the LORD. The priests keep for themselves the money they had agreed to use for repairing the house of the Lord. It takes the king stepping in to set things in order.
What came next was not a new demand on the people. It was a new route for their gifts — one that no longer passed through a priest's private hands.
"Then Jehoiada the priest took a chest and bored a hole in its lid and set it beside the altar on the right side as one entered the house of the LORD. And the priests who guarded the threshold put in it all the money that was brought into the house of the LORD." And so it was done: the work went forward, Jehoiada watched over it, and the house of the LORD was repaired.
The change did not leave the priests with nothing. Part of the income never went into the chest.
Even so, the needs of the priests were not forgotten. Certain sums — the money of the trespass offerings and sin offerings — did not go into the chest at the entrance of the house of the Lord. These remained set apart for the priesthood (v. 16). So the arrangement provided for everything, with order and measure.
Joash was not building something new. He was mending what already belonged to God. One writer turns that on readers today.
It is the same in our day. For us, as for Joash, the question is not about starting to build the house, or putting up a new Church. It is only a matter of repairing the breaches. And for that, God does not leave us to our own ideas, which would only add new breaches to the old evils. If our hearts are willing, they will seek one thing only: the interests of Christ and of the house of God on earth.
- Breach exposed. For twenty-three years the gifts came in and the damage stayed; the failure was not a shortage of money but of will.
- Interest misplaced. The priests had a real right to live from the altar. But their own interests came first, and the house of God kept its breaches.
- Word above all. Joash acted on what he had learned from Scripture and corrected even the high priest, to whom he owed his life.
- Chest opened. A box beside the altar replaced the old arrangement. From then on the work went forward and the house was repaired.
- Portion kept. The trespass and sin offering money still went to the priests. The correction kept order and measure; it was not a punishment.
And Jehoiada the priest took a chest, and bored a hole in the lid, and set it beside the altar, on the right side as one comes into the house of Jehovah; and the priests that kept the door put into it all the money brought into the house of Jehovah.
Money for the temple had come in for years, yet the repairs were still not done in the twenty-third year of Joash's reign. So the king changed the method, and the chest in this verse raises a question every gathering faces: who handles the Lord's money?
The chest was not the first plan. Before it, the money stayed with the priests and the house stayed broken.
Yet there is no true zeal for the LORD. The priests keep the money for themselves — money they had agreed to use for repairing the house of the Lord. They keep it until the king steps in to set things in order.
The design was plain, and so was the handling of what went in.
However, Jehoiada bored a hole in the lid of a chest and placed it beside the altar. Whatever money the people brought of their own will went into the chest (v. 9). The chest was filled more than once (v. 10). The king's scribe and the high priest put the money into bags and counted it, a necessary witness as to the amount gathered.
The people gave of their own will. Commentators differ on the bookkeeping: one calls the scribe's count a needed witness, the other says no strict accounts were kept at all.
It commended itself to the people's conscience, as what is of God usually does. They gave as the Lord loves to see His people give — cheerfully… No one kept exacting accounts. There was no suspicion of dishonesty or misuse of the money. The most beautiful confidence prevailed, showing the work of God.
The chest received the gift. God looked at the giver.
It is well to think on this, on every occasion when we are called to contribute to the Lord's cause. It is well to remember, as the box or the basket is placed in my hand, that "Jesus is sitting opposite the treasury." His holy eye rests, not upon the purse, but upon the heart. He weighs, not the amount, but the motive. If the heart is right, the amount will be right, according to His judgment.
Joash did not design a new house. He went back to what Moses had laid down and used it to mend what was already God's.
To Joash the important thing was to go back to "the tax that Moses the servant of God laid on Israel in the wilderness" (2 Chron. 24:9). He would not turn aside from the word of the law when it was a matter of honouring the house of God and all that belonged to it. It is the same in our day. For us, as for Joash, it is not a question of beginning to build the house, of putting up a new Church. It is only a matter of repairing the breaches. And for that, God does not abandon us to our own ideas, which would only add new breaches to the old evils.
The men with titles had failed at this. The men with trowels did not.
They lived from their gifts, and the house of God kept its breaches… Further down (v. 15) we see people without any official position, from those set over the work down to the carpenters and masons. They "dealt faithfully," much more so than the priests themselves. Let us stir ourselves up to follow their example. Let us show the same heart for the work, and the same faithfulness in the service entrusted to us, so that we "adorn the doctrine of God our Savior" in everything (Titus 2:10).
The change did not leave the priests with nothing.
Despite this, the needs of the priests were not forgotten. Certain sums (the money of the trespass and sin offerings) did not go into the chest at the entrance of the house of the Lord. These stayed set apart for the priesthood (v. 16). So everything was provided for with order and measure.
- Breach — The house stayed broken because the men trusted with the money used it on themselves. The king had to step in.
- Chest — One box, one hole, set in the open beside the altar and guarded by the doorkeepers. Anyone could watch it; no one could divert it unseen.
- Heart — The chest demanded nothing. Each gift spoke to the conscience, and God weighs the motive, not the amount.
- Repair — The pattern was not a new house but the old one mended by God's own word. Our own ideas only add fresh breaches to the old ones.
- Faithful — The carpenters and masons dealt faithfully where the priests had not. Office is no substitute for faithfulness.
And it came to pass when they saw that there was much money in the chest, that the king's scribe and the high priest came up, and they tied up and counted the money that was found in the house of Jehovah.
King Joash ordered the temple repaired, but for years the work stalled. So a chest with a hole in its lid stood beside the altar. This verse shows what happened each time it filled. Two men came up together — one from the palace, one from the priesthood — to bag and count the gifts. Why did the money need two pairs of hands?
The new arrangement replaced an older one that had failed. Money had come in for years, but the building stayed broken. One writer says where it had gone:
"By the twenty-third year of King Jehoash, the priests had made no repairs on the house." That is, instead of using the gifts for the house of the LORD, they had used them on themselves.
The fix came from outside the priesthood. Another writer says the priests kept the money for themselves "until the king steps in to set things in order" (J. N. Darby).
One writer traces the money's route, from the chest by the altar to the two men who counted it:
Jehoiada bored a hole in the lid of a chest and placed it beside the altar. Whatever money the people brought freely went into the chest (v.9). It filled more than once (v.10). The king's scribe and the high priest put the money into bags and counted it — a necessary witness to the amount gathered.
Why involve two men when either alone might have been trustworthy? The same writer draws out the rule behind it:
These priests were likely trustworthy men. Even so, more than one or two had to be in charge of the property. That honors the truth Paul stresses in 2 Corinthians 8:20-23 — "we take this course so that no one should blame us about this generous gift that is being administered by us." The more honest a man is, the more he should want others to examine his actions closely. So too, those trusted with money in an assembly should have the amounts and the use of any funds checked by others.
The same care applied to carrying money, not only to counting it:
No matter how faithful a man's reputation was, he would not travel alone with these funds. Nobody was to be given the least occasion to suspect that all might not be done in total honesty. What the Lord saw mattered; so did what men saw.
Nobody was forced to give. One writer points to how the people answered the public announcement:
"And proclamation was made throughout Judah and Jerusalem to bring in for the LORD the tax that Moses the servant of God laid on Israel in the wilderness." … "And all the princes and all the people rejoiced and brought their tax and dropped it into the chest until they had finished." It appealed to the people's conscience, as what is of God usually does, and they gave as the Lord loves to see His people give — cheerfully.
The money was counted at the chest, yet the men who spent it were never audited. One writer asks whether that should be our pattern:
Nobody asked the men who handled the money for an account, "for they dealt honestly." Is this how God would have things done all the time? Should the example of these people of long ago be our pattern today? The answer is "No." The times of Joash and of Josiah were exceptional. In each reign a great spiritual revival was going on. After many years of serious sin the people — or at least a remnant of them — were turning back to their God. Their hearts and consciences were stirred about His holy will. Because of that, safeguards against fraud were hardly needed.
Careful counting at the chest and trust toward the builders went together. The result was harmony:
On the other hand, those who had the money in hand to distribute to the workers did not distrust them, for they recognized the selflessness brought to light by their entire conduct. So a happy fellowship reigned among all, and nothing came in to hinder the orderly advance of the work.
- Breach. The temple stayed broken because the priests kept the money meant for it. The king had to step in and change the system.
- Box. A chest by the altar took the handling of gifts out of private hands — givers put in, and nobody drew out alone.
- Both. The king's secretary and the high priest counted together, so the amount had a witness. The more honest a man is, the more he should want his own handling of money checked.
- Bountiful. Nobody was forced. The people heard the announcement and gave cheerfully. That is why there was "much money" to count at all.
- Builders. Careful counting at one end and trusted workmen at the other let the work go forward in harmony. Writers caution that the missing audit later on belonged to rare days of revival, not to a standing rule.
And they gave the money, weighed out into the hands of them that did the work, who were appointed over the house of Jehovah; and they laid it out to the carpenters and builders that wrought upon the house of Jehovah,
The money in this verse has left the chest: men weigh it, hand it over, and pay the carpenters and builders. That plain accounting raises a question for every generation — how do gifts given to God reach the work, and who can be trusted to carry them there?
The damage was not simple wear. One writer traces it to the family that ruled before, and names who got the repairs moving:
The main work of Jehoash's reign was repairing the temple. It needed repair because Athaliah's family had broken it up and used the dedicated things in the worship of Baal (2 Chron. 24:7). The king made the first move, but the priests neglected the work and made it almost impossible. Then Jehoiada took the work up in earnest, and the people gave of their own free will. They collected a large sum, and it went to repairing the temple and nothing else.
Joash invented no scheme of his own. He went back to what Moses had laid down, and one writer applies that to our own day:
For Joash the important thing was to go back to the tribute that Moses the servant of God laid on Israel in the wilderness (2 Chr. 24:9). He would not turn aside from the word of the law when it came to honouring the house of God and all that belonged to it. It is the same in our day. As with Joash, our task is not to begin building the house or to set up a new Church. It is only to repair the breaches. And for that God does not leave us to our own initiative, which would only add new breaches to the old evils.
The chest filled again and again, and two men counted what came out of it:
However, Jehoiada bored a hole in the lid of a chest and placed it beside the altar. Whatever money the people gave of their own accord went into the chest (v.9). The chest filled more than once (v.10). The king's scribe and the high priest put the money into bags and counted it, giving a necessary witness to how much had been gathered.
The overseers, carpenters and builders of this verse held no office in the sanctuary. Yet they come out better than the priests did:
Joash is full of zeal at this moment, but he does not find the same zeal in the priests, or even in godly Jehoiada, their head. The priests were using for themselves the gifts they received from the people they knew (vv. 7-8). They did have the right to live from the things offered at the altar. But in their hearts their own interests came before those of the Lord and of His house, and their conduct showed it. They lived from their gifts, and the house of God kept its breaches. Further down (v. 15) we see that people with no official position, from those set over the work down to the carpenters and masons, dealt faithfully — much more so than the priests themselves.
after_note: DELETE
A companion notes how the priests' failure was put right, and the atmosphere that followed once the money moved:
"And the king and Jehoiada gave it to such as did the work of the service of the house of the Lord, and hired masons and carpenters to repair the house of the Lord, and also such as wrought iron and brass to mend the house of the Lord." No exacting accounts were kept; there was no suspicion of dishonesty, or misappropriation; the most beautiful confidence prevailed, evidencing the work of God. When it is the work of God, the heart is engaged; selfish ends are absent.
The trust ran the other way too, and the work moved because of it:
On the other hand, the men who held the money to pay the workers did not distrust them. They saw the selflessness that their whole conduct brought to light. So a happy fellowship reigned among all, and nothing came in to hinder the work as it went forward in good order. This result always follows when people treat the interests of the house of God as the chief thing instead of pushing them into the background.
Commentators differ on whether this example should be the normal pattern:
The question will arise: "Is this how God would have things done as a rule? Should the example of these people of long ago be the pattern for us to follow today?" The answer is "No." The times of Joash and of Josiah were exceptional. In each reign a great spiritual revival was under way. After many years of serious sin the people — or at least a remnant of them — were turning back to their God. Their hearts and consciences were awake to His holy will. Since that was so, guards against fraud were hardly needed.
- Breach — the rulers before Joash had broken up the house and spent God's dedicated things on Baal. The task was repair, not new building.
- Pattern — Joash went back to what Moses laid down; our own ideas only add new breaches.
- Hands — witnesses counted the gifts, then the money went out to the overseers, carpenters and builders.
- Heart — the priests could live from the altar, but put their own interests first. Workmen with no office dealt more faithfully.
- Result — treat the house of God as the chief thing and trust runs both ways, so nothing slows the work. Writers differ on whether giving without accounts fits ordinary times or only a season of revival.
and to masons, and hewers of stone, and to buy timber and hewn stone to repair the breaches of the house of Jehovah, and for all that had to be laid out on the house for repairs.
Here the money for God's house finally reaches working men — masons, stonecutters, and the suppliers of timber and cut stone. Why did God's house need repairing at all, and what kind of people does God trust with the work?
For years people gave, but the walls stayed broken. One writer points to where the money went instead.
"But by the twenty-third year of King Jehoash the priests had made no repairs on the house." That is, instead of using the gifts on the house of the LORD, they used them on themselves.
The push to fix this came from the king, not from the priests.
It was Jehoash who confronted the priests with this failure. It seems strange that Jehoiada had been slack in this needed work of repairing the temple, so that Jehoash took the lead. At this time the faithfulness of Jehoash was commendable. He called Jehoiada and the other priests. He rebuked them for their slackness. He told them to use the money they already had for the repairs, and to ask no more from the people.
This verse pays masons and stonecutters. Their trade called for great skill.
Some of these stones are still in place. They are beautifully shaped and squared. They fit so closely that you cannot push a pen-knife blade between them, and there is no mortar at all. This shows the work of the stone-squarers. For such large stones this shows great skill on the part of the masons.
The men hired in this verse held no religious office. That is what makes them stand out in the chapter.
The priests were using for their own benefit the gifts they received from their acquaintances (vv. 7-8)... They lived from their gifts, and the house of God kept its breaches. Jehoiada himself let them do so without protesting. Further down (v. 15) we see people with no official standing — from the men set over the work down to the carpenters and masons. They "dealt faithfully," much more so than the priests themselves. Let us follow the example of these men. Let us show the same heart for the work, and the same faithfulness in the service entrusted to us, so that we "adorn the teaching which is of our Saviour God in all things" (Titus 2:10).
No one asked these workmen for receipts. One writer sees more than good management in that.
No strict accounts were kept. No one suspected dishonesty or misuse of funds. The most beautiful confidence prevailed, and it showed the work of God. When it is the work of God, the heart is engaged. Selfish ends are absent. There is one common object. All this produces confidence.
Joash invented nothing new. He went back to what Moses had laid down, and one writer applies that to us today.
To Joash the important thing was to go back to "the tribute of Moses the servant of God laid on Israel in the wilderness" (2 Chron. 24:9), and not to turn aside from the word of the law when it was a matter of honouring the house of God... Like Joash, we are not asked to start building the house, or to put up a new Church. We only have to repair the breaches. And for that God does not leave us to our own ideas, which would only add new breaches to the old evils.
This verse lists building work and materials only. The next verses name what the money did not buy.
Note, however, that this work of repair did not include basins of silver, trimmers, sprinkling bowls, trumpets, or articles of gold and silver (v. 14). Does this not tell us that, though there was a good measure of recovery, the finer details of the worship of the Lord were still lacking?
- Breach — gifts meant for the temple went to the priests who lived off them. The walls stayed broken for twenty-three years.
- Bag — the work began only when the money went straight to the men holding the tools.
- Builders — the workmen in this verse held no office. Yet they "dealt faithfully" where the priests had not.
- Books — no one demanded accounts from them. Writers read that trust as proof that God Himself was at work.
- Blueprint — Joash added nothing of his own. He went back to what Moses had laid down. The task was never to build a new house, only to repair the old one.
However there were not made for the house of Jehovah basons of silver, knives, bowls, trumpets, nor any utensil of gold or utensil of silver, of the money that was brought [into] the house of Jehovah;
Joash's repair fund worked. The gifts came in, the masons and carpenters took their wages, and the temple was mended. Yet this verse records what the fund did not buy. None of it went into silver basins, snuffers, bowls, trumpets, or any gold and silver vessel. Why the limit? And what was still missing in Judah's worship?
The king had drawn his instructions straight from the law he had been given at his coronation, and the whole point was restoration, not innovation. One writer traces where every category of the money came from and then draws the principle out:
For Joash the important thing was to go back to "the tribute of Moses the servant of God laid upon Israel in the wilderness" (2 Chronicles 24:9), and not to turn aside from the word of the law, when it came to honouring the house of God and everything connected with it. It is the same in our day. Like Joash, we are not asked to begin building the house, or to set up a new Church. It is only a matter of repairing the breaches. And for that God does not leave us to our own ideas, which would only add new breaches to the old evils.
Each item left unmade had its own place in the worship of God. Their absence shows how far the recovery reached. The writer below calls the snuffers "trimmers."
Note, however, that basins of silver, trimmers, sprinkling bowls, trumpets and articles of gold and silver were not included in this work of repair. Does this not tell us that, though there was a good measure of recovery, the finer details of the worship of the Lord were still missing? This happens too often even in the Church of God today. Believers who care deeply may set out to recover the main features of the worship of God, but too often the silver basins are missing — that is, the stress on redemption through the sacrifice of Christ. Or the sprinkling bowls may be absent, the bowls used to sprinkle blood before and on the mercy seat. For sometimes, even in worship, we forget how precious to God is the reminder that the blood of Christ has made atonement for sin in God's sight. Articles of gold speak of what is strictly for God's glory, and articles of silver speak of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
The word behind the basins is not a general household term. It belongs to the altar:
mizraq, "large basin or bowl," used for holding the blood that had to be sprinkled.
So the missing basins point straight to the handling of sacrificial blood.
The people gave more than the repairs needed. What was left over went into the very vessels this verse says the repair money never bought:
The willing-hearted people gave more than enough. "And when they had finished, they brought the rest of the money before the king and Jehoiada, and with it were made utensils for the house of the LORD, both vessels for the service and for the burnt offerings, and dishes for incense and vessels of gold and silver." The priests were not forgotten either: "The money from the guilt offerings and the money from the sin offerings was not brought into the house of the LORD; it belonged to the priests."
The chapter also sets two groups side by side. One writer compares the priests with the men who did the work:
They lived off their gifts, and the house of God kept its breaches. Jehoiada himself let them do it without protest. Later we see that men with no official position, from those in charge of the work down to the carpenters and masons, "dealt faithfully" — far more so than the priests themselves. Let us stir ourselves up, following the example of these men, to show the same heart for the work and the same faithfulness in the service entrusted to us.
The way the money changed hands says the same thing.
No one demanded strict accounts. No one suspected dishonesty or misuse of the money. The most beautiful trust prevailed, and it showed the work of God. When it is the work of God, the heart is engaged and selfish aims are gone.
- Repair, not rebuild. The fund was for mending breaches, not for putting up a new house. God does not leave His people to their own ideas, which would only add new breaches to old evils.
- A real gap. No basins, trimmers, sprinkling bowls, trumpets or gold and silver articles came out of this fund. The recovery got the main features right. The finer details of worship were still missing — above all the reminder of the blood that made atonement.
- The surplus supplies it. Willing hearts gave more than the need. Out of what was left came the vessels, and the guilt and sin offering money stayed with the priests.
- Faithfulness finishes it. The priests lived off the gifts and let the breaches stand. The masons and carpenters "dealt faithfully," and the trust between them meant no one had to demand accounts.
but they gave that to the workmen, and repaired the house of Jehovah with it.
Repairs came first. Every gift brought into the temple went straight to the builders. None of it bought silver basins, snuffers, bowls or trumpets while the walls still had holes in them.
One commentator traces this money back to the law on vows:
The LORD did not ask for these vows, so He did not make them impossible to undo. A person devoted in this way could be bought back, and that is why God gave the scale of values above. 2 Kings 12 tells us what that redemption price was for. It calls it "the money of the persons for whom each man is rated." The priests were to take this money, with the other fixed or voluntary gifts named there, and use it in the days of the temple to repair the breaches of the house wherever any breach was found.
Joash invented no new funding scheme. He went back to what was already written:
To Joash the important thing was to go back to "the tribute of Moses the servant of God laid upon Israel in the wilderness" (2 Chron. 24:9). He would not turn aside from the word of the law when it was a matter of honouring the house of God and everything connected with it. It is the same in our day. Like Joash, we are not asked to begin building the house or to put up a new Church. It is only a matter of repairing the breaches. For that work God does not leave us to our own initiative, which would only add new breaches to the old evils. In the Word of God we too have our tribute of Moses, the sign of what God expects of us. And if our hearts are willing, they will seek one thing only: the interests of Christ and of the house of God on earth.
For years the gifts came in and nothing got mended. The reason lay with the men who handled the money:
The priests were using for themselves the gifts they received from their acquaintances (vv. 7-8). They did have the right to live from the things offered at the altar. But in their hearts their own interests came before the interests of the Lord and of His house, and their conduct showed it. They lived from their gifts, and the house of God kept its breaches. Jehoiada himself let them do it without protest. Further down (v. 15) we see that people with no official position, from those set over the work down to the carpenters and masons, acted faithfully — much more so than the priests themselves.
Once the money went to the builders, no audit followed:
No strict accounts were kept. There was no suspicion of dishonesty or misuse of funds. The most beautiful confidence prevailed, showing the work of God. When it is the work of God, the heart is engaged. Selfish aims are absent. There is one common object. All this produces confidence.
One writer names the condition behind such trust:
Such a result is always produced when the interests of the house of God, instead of being pushed into the background, are treated as the chief thing.
Commentators differ on how to read the missing vessels. One takes the gap as a real loss:
Note, however, that this work of repair did not include basins of silver, snuffers, sprinkling bowls, trumpets or articles of gold and silver (v. 14). There was a good measure of recovery. But does this not tell us that the finer details of the worship of the Lord were still lacking? … Articles of gold speak of what is for God's glory alone, and articles of silver speak of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. These ought to be most prominent in worship.
Another points to what happened next, once the building work was done:
The willing-hearted people gave more than enough. When they had finished the work, they brought the rest of the money before the king and Jehoiada, and from it vessels were made for the house of the Lord: vessels for the service, vessels for the offerings, dishes, and vessels of gold and silver. The priests were not left unprovided for either. The money of the guilt offerings and the money of the sin offerings was not brought into the house of the LORD; it was for the priests (2 Kings 12:16).
Restricting the chest money did not leave the priests destitute. The offerings for sin and guilt stayed outside the chest and remained theirs, so that, as one writer puts it, "everything was provided for with order and measure" (H. L. Rossier).
- Breach — The house had holes in it, and every gift named here had one target: repairing the breaches wherever they were found.
- Rule — Joash designed no new system. He went back to what Moses had laid down, because repair is God's work, not our own initiative.
- Rivalry — Nothing got mended for years because the priests' own interests came before the interests of the house.
- Trust — When the house is the chief thing, selfish aims drop away, no one demands an account, and the workmen act faithfully.
- Order — Repairs first, then vessels from what was left, and the priests still provided for from the sin and guilt offerings.
And they did not reckon with the men into whose hand they gave the money to be bestowed on workmen; for they dealt faithfully.
Joash's order to repair the temple ends with a striking detail: no one audited the money handed to the builders. The reason was the character of the men themselves, which raises a question for anyone who handles other people's gifts — does trust make accounts unnecessary?
The praise in this verse lands on ordinary tradesmen, and it lands there by contrast. Earlier in the chapter the priests took the offerings and left the building unrepaired. One commentator reads the two halves of the chapter together. (Where the ESV says the workmen "dealt honestly," the older translation these writers quote reads "dealt faithfully.")
The priests were using the gifts they received from their acquaintances for themselves (vv. 7-8). They did have the right to live from the things offered at the altar. But their own interests were taking first place in their hearts, above the interests of the Lord and of His house. Their conduct showed it. They lived off their gifts, and the house of God was left with its damage unrepaired. Jehoiada himself let them do it without protesting. Further down (v. 15) we see people with no official position — from those set over the work down to the carpenters and masons. They "dealt faithfully," much more so than the priests themselves.
The missing audit was not carelessness. The men who handed out the money trusted the workmen, and that trust helped the building work along.
On the other hand, the men who had the money in hand to give out to the workers did not distrust them. They recognised the selflessness that their whole conduct brought to light. So a happy communion reigned among all, and nothing came in to hinder the orderly advance of the work. This result always follows when people treat the interests of the house of God as the chief thing instead of pushing them into the background.
One writer reads the missing accounts as a sign of what God was doing among the people:
They kept no exacting accounts. No one suspected dishonesty or misuse of funds. The most beautiful confidence prevailed, and it showed the work of God. When it is the work of God, the heart is engaged; selfish ends are absent.
Another writer notes the spirit in which the men served:
How good it is to see that the workmen dealt faithfully (v. 15), not as under bondage. How vital a matter this is in Christian testimony too.
Should churches and charities today copy this and stop keeping books? One writer asks that very question and answers it plainly:
We return to the statement that there was no reckoning with the men who handled the money, "because they dealt faithfully."… The same is said of the workmen in the days of Joash and Jehoiada (2 Kings 12:15; 2 Kings 22:7). The question will naturally arise: is this how God would have things done as a rule? Should the example of these people of long ago be the pattern for us to follow today? The answer is "No." The times of Joash and of Josiah were exceptional. In each reign a great spiritual revival was going on. After many years of serious wrongdoing the people, or at least some of them, were turning back to their God. Their hearts and consciences were stirred about His holy will. Because of this, precautions against fraud were scarcely needed.
The missing account book does not carry over, but the word "faithfully" does. The same writer draws out what God asks of His people now:
We conclude then that God would have His saints keep orderly accounts, both individually and together. Our own books should be kept so that a tax inspector who examines them can see at a glance that we are honourable. And the books of gathered saints should be so ordered that everything is above reproach. Once more we would remind ourselves that Josiah's workmen, in their work and in their handling of the people's money, "dealt faithfully." The Holy Spirit says in 1 Cor. 4:2, "it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy."
Another writer turns this around. Honest people, he says, should welcome examination:
Indeed the more honest a man is, the more he should want his actions carefully examined by others. So too, anyone trusted to handle money in a church should make sure that others closely check the amounts and how the funds are used.
- Contrast — The verse praises builders, not priests. The priests used the offerings on themselves. The masons and carpenters handled money no one asked them to account for.
- Character — "Dealt faithfully" describes men whose whole conduct had shown selflessness. The trust placed in them recognised something real. It was not a blind risk.
- Communion — Where the house of God comes first, trust grows between people, and nothing slows the work down.
- Caution — Commentators warn against turning this into normal practice. Revival made safeguards unnecessary then. That does not make careless bookkeeping right now.
- Continuity — One word carries across the centuries. God requires stewards to be faithful, and the most honest people welcome having their accounts checked.
The money of trespass-offerings, and the money of sin-offerings, was not brought into the house of Jehovah it was for the priests.
The great account of the temple repairs ends with a line of bookkeeping: some money never went into the collection chest at all. It went straight to the priests — and that small exception says a great deal about how God funds both His house and His servants.
The repair fund had stalled because the priests were absorbing the people's gifts. H. L. Rossier weighs what their fault actually was:
It was not that they had no right to live from the things offered at the altar. But in their hearts their own interests came before those of the Lord and of His house, and their conduct showed it. They lived from their gifts, and the house of God kept its broken places. Jehoiada himself let them do it without protesting.
William Kelly puts the act itself in one line:
That is, instead of applying the contributions for the house of Jehovah they had applied them to themselves.
This was not general donation money. It came from a specific law about wrong done in holy things.
There was another element that marked out the Trespass or Guilt offering. "He shall make restitution for what he has done amiss in the holy thing." And there was more. Jehovah commanded a tithe of the Israelite's produce as blessed by Him. In the same way He demanded a fifth part, or a double tithe, as the fine of the Trespass offering. All this was to go to the priest.
So this money already had an owner, fixed by God's own law.
One writer points to this verse as one of several clear echoes of the law of Moses in Joash's reign:
In the reign of Joash there are several obvious allusions to the Pentateuch. This verse agrees with the laws in Lev. 5:15-16, Lev. 7:7 and Num. 5:18.
The reform did not touch the priests' own portion:
Despite this, the needs of the priests were not forgotten. Certain sums (the money from the trespass and sin offerings) did not go into the chest at the entrance of the house of the Lord. They stayed set apart for the priests (v. 16). So everything was provided for with order and measure.
The same pattern runs right through Israel's history. The altar and the priest draw on one supply.
Look through the history of Israel. Whenever things were in anything like a healthy condition, the altar of God was well cared for, and as a result the priests and Levites were well supplied. If Jehovah had His portion, His servants were sure to have theirs. If He was neglected, so were they. They were bound up together. The people were to bring their offerings to God, and He shared them with His servants.
The same principle carries over under the gospel:
Since Jehovah was the portion and inheritance of the priestly name among the sons of Israel, He gave them a share in His offerings and sacrifices. So now under the gospel the Lord does not forget those who preach it, but appoints them to get their living from it.
- Portion given. God assigned the restitution money from guilt and sin offerings to the priests. It was theirs by law, not by the king's choice.
- Portion abused. Their fault was not taking support. They put their own interests first, so they lived off the gifts while the house stayed broken.
- Portion protected. Joash ended the abuse without cutting the provision. The priests' money stayed outside the chest, everything in order and measure.
- Portion known. This rule matches Leviticus and Numbers point by point, a sign that the law of Moses was still followed in Judah.
- Portion continued. When God's house has its portion, His servants have theirs. The same Lord now appoints those who preach the gospel to live by it.
Then Hazael king of Syria went up, and fought against Gath, and took it. And Hazael set his face to go up against Jerusalem.
Hazael of Syria has just taken the Philistine city of Gath. Now he turns his army toward Jerusalem. The king who must face him is Joash, the same man who spent years repairing the temple. The chapter has been full of careful giving to the house of God; this verse asks what that devotion was actually worth when an enemy appeared at the door.
One writer sees a purpose behind this invasion, and a hard question behind Joash's answer to it.
Hazael, the king of Syria, is God's rod. He comes up against Jerusalem after seizing Gath. That city lay at the foot of the mountains of Judah, and it was the key to the land on the Philistine side. To pay his ransom to Hazael, Joash sent him all the hallowed things of the house of God. What had become of his wonderful zeal for everything that belonged to the Lord?
The invasion is not random. It follows the death of Jehoiada the priest, and the turn Judah took right after.
After his death it became clear that the revival had rested on the good priest. Joash's convictions and faithfulness to the Lord were only skin-deep. A reaction set in, as it has so often in the history of the Church. He listened to the evil advice of the princes of Judah. Then they left the house of the LORD God and became idolaters. The result was wrath from God upon Judah and Jerusalem for this trespass.
Notice what the record does not say about the king.
Then Hazael began his wicked work and threatened Jerusalem. Joash bought him off by handing over all the hallowed things of the temple and the treasures of the palace. Not a word says that Jehoash sought the Lord or prayed. It shows only too clearly that the Lord, the present help in time of trouble, had been forgotten.
The payment that bought Hazael off came out of the temple. One writer presses the question of ownership, and turns it on the reader.
Did he not stop to think that the treasures he gave to Hazael actually belonged to the Lord, so that he had no right to give them away? Do we also make the serious blunder of giving up any truth of the Word of God to satisfy the enemy of our souls? The Word of God tells Timothy, "O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you." When God entrusts us with His truth, let us not dare to give it up, whatever enemy threatens us.
Paying Hazael off looked like a way out. But Syria came back, and one writer links the two invasions.
2 Kings 12:17-18 records an earlier invasion by the Syrians under Hazael. Joash bought him off with gold and other treasures taken from the temple and the king's palace. That is when the Syrians discovered the real weakness of Joash's army, even though it was "a very great host." So the second expedition against him was only "a small company of men." "The king is not saved by his great army," wrote that king (Ps. 33:16) whose throne Joash so unworthily filled.
Hazael did not come from nowhere. One reference work traces how he took the throne and how far his conquests reached.
About 890 B.C. Hazael murdered Ben-hadad and became king of Syria. We read that the LORD began to cut Israel short, and He used Hazael as His instrument. He struck all the coasts of Israel, from the Jordan eastward, in Gilead and the lands of Gad, Reuben, and Manasseh. He also took Gath, and only turned away from Jerusalem when Jehoash gave up the royal and temple treasures.
- Rod. Hazael takes Gath, the key to the land on the Philistine side, and turns on Jerusalem. Yet he is God's rod, the instrument God used to cut Israel short.
- Root. The threat follows Jehoiada's death. A revival that leaned on him gave way to idolatry, and wrath came on Judah and Jerusalem.
- Silence. Not one word says Joash sought the Lord or prayed. He had forgotten the Lord, the present help in time of trouble.
- Ransom. He paid with the hallowed things of the temple. That treasure belonged to God, and the king who had once repaired His house had no right to hand it over.
- Cost. The bribe bought time and showed Syria his weakness. The next force sent against him was only a small company, because no king is saved by a great army.
And Jehoash king of Judah took all the hallowed things that Jehoshaphat and Jehoram and Ahaziah, his fathers, kings of Judah, had dedicated, and his own hallowed things, and all the gold found in the treasures of the house of Jehovah and in the king's house, and sent it to Hazael king of Syria; and he went away from Jerusalem.
Hazael of Syria had taken Gath and was marching on Jerusalem, where Joash had spent his reign repairing the temple. Joash then emptied that same temple to buy Hazael off, handing over gifts three generations of kings had set apart for God.
The Syrian advance was no accident. One writer names Hazael's role, then measures Joash against his own past:
Hazael, the king of Syria, God's rod, comes up against Jerusalem. He had already seized Gath, which lies at the foot of the mountains of Judah and was the key to the land on the Philistine side. To pay his ransom to Hazael, Joash sent him all the hallowed things of the house of God. What had become of his wonderful zeal for everything that belonged to the Lord?
Joash had rebuilt the temple once already. His answer to Hazael has one striking gap:
The leading work of Jehoash's reign was repairing the temple. This had become necessary because Athaliah's family had broken it up and used the dedicated things in the worship of Baal (2 Chron. 24:7). ... Then Hazael began his wicked work and threatened Jerusalem. Joash bought him off by handing over to him all the hallowed things of the temple and the treasures of the palace. Not a word is said that Jehoash sought the Lord or prayed. It shows only too clearly that the Lord, the present help in time of trouble, had been forgotten.
The verse calls them sacred gifts: treasure earlier kings had handed over to God. One commentator asks who owned it, then turns the question on us:
Jehoash made the sad blunder of not appealing to the Lord. Instead he sacrificed the sacred wealth in the temple, compromising himself to satisfy Hazael's greed (v. 18). Did he not stop to think that the treasures he gave to Hazael actually belonged to the Lord? He had no right to give them away. Do we also make the serious blunder of giving up any truth of the Word of God to satisfy the enemy of our souls? The Word of God tells Timothy, "O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you" (1 Tim. 6:20). When God entrusts us with His truth, let us not dare to give it up, whatever enemy threatens us!
Hazael went away, but not for good. The payment also taught Syria something about Judah:
"The king is not saved by his great army," wrote the king (Ps. 33:16) whose throne Joash so unworthily filled.
Why did the zeal collapse? Two writers trace it to the same root:
Joash walks more by Jehoiada's faith than by his own. After the death of the high priest he leans on the princes of Judah and serves idols. He even puts to death the son of Jehoiada, through whom the Holy Spirit had testified against him. Joash, forsaken by God, is defeated by the Syrians.
Another writer weighs Joash's early record and finds influence where faith should have been:
Everything seemed bright and hopeful for the king of Judah, but it lasted only a passing season. "And Joash did what was right in the eyes of the LORD all the days of Jehoiada the priest." Yes, but it was more the influence of Jehoiada than faith in the living God. An influence, sooner or later, must fail. The influence of man is not the faith of God's elect.
- Rod — One writer calls Hazael God's rod. The army at the gate was God's discipline, not just a political crisis.
- Silence — The record says nothing of Joash seeking the Lord or praying. He met the crisis without God, and that silence shows a God already forgotten.
- Surrender — The hallowed things belonged to God. Joash gave away what he had no right to give. That is the pattern of surrendering entrusted truth to quiet an enemy.
- Exposure — The bribe moved Hazael on for the moment. It also exposed Judah's weakness, and a few Syrians later overran a very great army.
- Root — Joash walked by Jehoiada's faith, not his own. Borrowed influence fails in the end. The man of God's house became the man who emptied it.
And the rest of the acts of Joash, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?
Joash's story in Kings ends by pointing the reader to another book for the rest of his acts. Two questions follow: what was that record, and why does Scripture tell us so little about a king who began so well?
Kings points again and again to other records of the kings. One writer explains what those records were, and why their loss costs the believer nothing:
Men drew up these chronicles during the reign of every ruler of those times, Jewish or Gentile. They have nothing to do with the Word of God. They record what the Lord was not pleased to record or explain. These chronicles have been lost; perhaps someone will one day find some fragments of them. The believer has no need for any of them; he has God's Word. There, in God's account, he finds all that is necessary for him, as well as the divine evaluation of people, events, and things. Writings that are not inspired may record certain deeds, even with great exactness. But nothing more than human evaluation ever comes with them. Men of God, prophets and seers could be used to draw up these chronicles, yet these writings are still not the inspired Word of God. And so they have disappeared, while the Word of God remains.
Kings ends Joash's story here and leaves out a large, painful part of his life. Another writer shows where the gap falls:
Kings says no more about the further failure of Jehoash. But 2 Chronicles 24:15-22 shows us how far astray he went in disobedience to God after the death of Jehoiada. He even put to death Zechariah the prophet, who reproved his transgression.
Joash did right for as long as Jehoiada the priest lived. One writer explains why outside pressure has such limits, and applies it to families:
All the days of Jehoiada the priest, Joash did right in the sight of the Lord. He even seems to take the lead, giving orders to repair the damage Athaliah had done (2 Chron. 24:6-11). But outside influence, however holy, can never change the heart. The heart is like a bow held bent: it springs back to its natural shape the moment the pressure stops. How often this solemn fact is seen in Christian families! How often a son leaving the godly restraints of his father's house plunges with greater eagerness into the sinful pleasures of the world!
The same closing words appear for king after king. Writing on Ahaziah, one commentator looks past the earthly record:
"Now the rest of the acts of Ahaziah that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel?" Yes — and the wicked acts recorded here as well. All of them are written in God's books above. Those books are not merely the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel. They hold the deeds and doings of every man's life, whether good or evil. Solemn facts for us all!
One writer reads Joash's reign as a picture of a greater kingdom. The brightness lasted while priest and king stood together:
But as with Solomon, so with Joash, this is only for a season… And Joash now, as soon as Jehoiada is gone, tarnishes all this brightness. But we see this: as long as Jehoiada the priest lived, king Joash kept the kingdom in its holiness and beauty. And this shows us again, in a picture, that in the coming kingdom, when we shall see the King and the Priest together, all shall be well… The Priest of that kingdom cannot die, for He is made "by the power of an indestructible life." The King of that kingdom cannot fail or do wrong, for His sceptre is one of righteousness. So this peace and honour will last through His times.
- Record one. The "Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah" was a human record, now lost. It carried only human evaluation, and it is not the inspired books of Chronicles.
- Record two. Kings closes Joash's account here. 2 Chronicles 24 tells of the collapse that followed Jehoiada's death.
- Record three. Every deed, good or evil, stands written in God's books above — the archive no king's summary can shorten.
- The cause. Outward restraint never changed Joash's heart; pressure removed, the bent bow sprang back.
- The contrast. Joash's kingdom shone only while his priest lived. The coming King is Himself a Priest who cannot die, so His peace and honour last.
And his servants rose up and made a conspiracy, and smote Joash in the house of Millo, at the descent of Silla.
Joash became king as a child, and his early years went well — this chapter has him repairing the house of the Lord. Here his own servants kill him, and the question is why a reign that started so well ended like this.
The manner of a man's death can close his story with terrible fitness. One writer reads the conspiracy as the mirror image of the king's own rebellion.
It is little wonder that the death of Jehoash was so tragic. When he rebelled against serving the Lord, his own servants rebelled against him, and as a result of a conspiracy, two of them killed Jehoash. So a reign that began well ended in disgrace and shame.
Joash had put to death Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada the priest. As he died, Zechariah asked God to see it and repay it. Commentators tie that prayer to the killers in this verse, and even say who they were.
Joash himself was left seriously diseased by the enemy. Then his own servants killed him, an Ammonite and a Moabite. Without knowing it, they were instruments of divine justice, avenging on the king the blood of the son of Jehoiada, according to the word of the prophet.
The timing matters as much as the fact. Zechariah's last words were not lost in the air.
"The Lord require it." And He did, and that quickly — for He does not disregard the dying prayers of men like Zechariah.
Why did such a promising king collapse? One answer: he leaned on someone else's faith instead of his own.
Joash was faithful at the start of his reign. Still, he walks more by Jehoiada's faith than by his own. After the death of the high priest he leans on the princes of Judah, and serves idols. He even puts to death the son of Jehoiada, through whom the Holy Spirit had testified against him. Joash, forsaken by God, is defeated by the Syrians. He falls into many diseases, and at last his own servants kill him.
The test of what is real, one writer argues, is not how hot it burns but how long.
Flesh may be even more zealous than faith. But there is this difference: faith continues, while the effort of flesh is short-lived. It may begin well, but the question is whether it continues. Its continuance is always the great proof of what is divine.
The warning is for every reader, not only for kings.
Human influence is a poor prop, a feeble barrier. We must be sustained by the power of God, or we shall sooner or later give way. Faith that rests merely in the wisdom of men, and not in the power of God, must prove a poor, flimsy, worthless faith.
The verse names the house of Millo and the way down to Silla. Both are hard to place on a map.
Millo was a part of ancient Jerusalem, though later said to be "built" by Solomon; Hezekiah repaired it. People have suggested various sites for it, but its location and its shape are unknown. In 2 Kings 12:20 Joash was killed in "the house of Millo, on the way that goes down to Silla." This may be another place, though it seems to have been in Jerusalem.
His burial carried its own verdict.
Like his grandfather Jehoram, Joash was not buried in the tombs of the kings of Judah.
The good years of this reign rested on one man's life, and that man died. One writer sees in them a picture of a kingdom where that cannot happen.
As long as Jehoiada the priest lived, king Joash kept the kingdom in its holiness and beauty. This shows us again, in a picture, that in the coming kingdom all shall be well. Then we shall see the King and the Priest together... The Priest of that kingdom cannot die, being made "by the power of an indestructible life." The King of that kingdom cannot fail or do wrong, for His sceptre is one of righteousness. So that peace and honour will last through His days.
- Mirrored. Joash rebelled against serving the Lord, and his own servants rebelled against him.
- Borrowed. He walked by Jehoiada's faith, not his own. Once that support was gone, he gave way — human influence is a poor prop.
- Tested. Zeal from the flesh can burn hotter than faith for a while. Only faith keeps going, and continuance is the proof of what is divine.
- Requited. God heard Zechariah's dying appeal. The servants who struck the king served, without knowing it, as instruments of God's justice.
- Fulfilled. The reign stayed beautiful only while the priest lived. It points to the King and Priest whose life cannot end and whose rule cannot fail.