JOASH WAS SEVEN years old when he began to reign. 12:1In the seventh year of Jehu, Joash became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem forty years. His mother’s name was Zibiah; she was from Beersheba. 2Joash did what was right in the eyes of the LORD all the years Jehoiada the priest instructed him. 3The high places, however, were not removed; the people continued to offer sacrifices and burn incense there.
4Joash said to the priests, “Collect all the money that is brought as sacred offerings to the temple of the LORD—the money collected in the census, the money received from personal vows and the money brought voluntarily to the temple. 5Let every priest receive the money from one of the treasurers, and let it be used to repair whatever damage is found in the temple.”
6But by the twenty-third year of King Joash the priests still had not repaired the temple. 7Therefore King Joash summoned Jehoiada the priest and the other priests and asked them, “Why aren’t you repairing the damage done to the temple? Take no more money from your treasurers, but hand it over for repairing the temple.” 8The priests agreed that they would not collect any more money from the people and that they would not repair the temple themselves.
9Jehoiada the priest took a chest and bored a hole in its lid. He placed it beside the altar, on the right side as one enters the temple of the LORD. The priests who guarded the entrance put into the chest all the money that was brought to the temple of the LORD. 10Whenever they saw that there was a large amount of money in the chest, the royal secretary and the high priest came, counted the money that had been brought into the temple of the LORD and put it into bags. 11When the amount had been determined, they gave the money to the men appointed to supervise the work on the temple. With it they paid those who worked on the temple of the LORD—the carpenters and builders, 12the masons and stonecutters. They purchased timber and dressed stone for the repair of the temple of the LORD, and met all the other expenses of restoring the temple.
13The money brought into the temple was not spent for making silver basins, wick trimmers, sprinkling bowls, trumpets or any other articles of gold or silver for the temple of the LORD; 14it was paid to the workmen, who used it to repair the temple. 15They did not require an accounting from those to whom they gave the money to pay the workers, because they acted with complete honesty. 16The money from the guilt offerings and sin offerings was not brought into the temple of the LORD; it belonged to the priests.
17About this time Hazael king of Aram went up and attacked Gath and captured it. Then he turned to attack Jerusalem. 18But Joash king of Judah took all the sacred objects dedicated by his fathers—Jehoshaphat, Jehoram and Ahaziah, the kings of Judah—and the gifts he himself had dedicated and all the gold found in the treasuries of the temple of the LORD and of the royal palace, and he sent them to Hazael king of Aram, who then withdrew from Jerusalem.
19As for the other events of the reign of Joash, and all he did, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Judah? 20His officials conspired against him and assassinated him at Beth Millo, on the road down to Silla. 21The officials who murdered him were Jozabad son of Shimeath and Jehozabad son of Shomer. He died and was buried with his fathers in the City of David. And Amaziah his son succeeded him as king.
Original Meaning
JOASH IS INTRODUCED with the usual regnal summary including his age, a synchronism with Jehu, the length of his reign, the name of his mother, and a verdict on the worthiness of his rule.1 The greatest part of the account is devoted to the efforts of Joash to restore the temple (12:4–16), exceeding the efforts of the priests in accomplishing the task. The account concludes with the attack of Hazael, in which the temple is raided and much of the effort to restore the temple is lost (vv. 17–21). The concluding summary includes the typical formula but has the added details of the plot and assassination of Joash, which bring an abrupt end to his reign. Relatively little is recorded for the lengthy reign of forty years.
The Repair of the Temple (11:21–12:16)
THE REIGN OF Joash is linked with the preceding narrative by giving his age at the time he begins to reign followed by the synchronism with Jehu (11:21–21:1). This reverses the more usual order (cf. 8:16, 25).2 The name of his mother, Zibiah (“gazelle”), is likely for a woman from Beersheba. Jehoiada has taught the king well and apparently has considerable influence early in his reign, even choosing his wives (2 Chron. 24:3). The priestly training of Joash influences him to take the initiative in temple restoration, with Jehoiada playing a minor role.
In repairing the temple (12:4–16), Joash is compelled to introduce a new method of financing temple maintenance. This method continues to be used until the Exile and eventually is established as a regulation (Neh. 10:32). The temple restoration under Joash refers to two sources of income for repair: the funds brought to the temple (2 Kings 12:4) and the money in the possession of the priests (v. 5), which never comes to the temple (v. 16).3
The money that is the possession of the priests is obtained from the “guilt offerings” (ʾāšām) and “sin offerings” (ḥaṭṭāʾâ).4 These offerings become the property of the priests and can only be eaten by them (Lev. 6:26, 29; 7:6–7). Though they belong to the officiating priest, it can be eaten by any priest. Since the offerings must be eaten quickly, they are distributed to fellow priests who pay for them.5 This explains the money of the “treasurers” of the priests (2 Kings 12:5, 7); it is obtained from the sale of the offerings.6 The refusal of the priests to give up their personal income depletes funds for repairs, forcing Joash to find alternate revenues.
Other sources of income to be used for temple repairs consist of monies brought to the temple (12:4). These include funds that are part of a census tax (cf. Ex. 30:11–16) and any voluntary offerings.7 In course of time enthusiasm for the maintenance of the temple wanes, and the priests no longer contribute personal money. The specific date of the twenty-third year of Joash’s reign may have been obtained from a building inscription that also made reference to the sources of money for restoration at the time of the temple’s dedication (2 Kings 12:6).8 Joash reaches a new agreement with the priests (v. 7); they will be absolved of responsibility to repair the temple, but they will no longer be in charge of the offerings brought to the temple. A cash box is installed south of the altar to provide for voluntary donations; when an Israelite enters the temple, the Levitical guards at the entrance will receive offerings and deposit them in the box.
This system of collecting voluntary contributions is effective. Periodically the king’s recorder and the high priest collect the money and count it. The suggestion that the metal is smelted makes good sense (NEB), since it was common to melt down miscellaneous objects donated to the temple into standard size ingots. Though this may have been done, only the initial stage of binding the coins in bags (ṣûr) is described, not the further stage of smelting it (yṣr). Once the silver is valued, it is used to pay the workers for repairs (v. 11) and the craftsmen needed to prepare the wood and the stone (v. 12). The refurbishing of the temple artifacts used in worship is temporarily suspended to concentrate on the building itself. The monies are entrusted to the workmen, who apparently are more reliable than the priests in using it responsibly.
The Invasion of Hazael (12:17–21)
THE OCCASION OF Hazael’s attack is not given, but the sequence of the narrative correlates with the activities of the Assyrians and Arameans. During the reign of Jehu, Hazael took control of the entire Transjordan to the boundary of Moab at the Arnon River (cf. 10:32–33). When Jehu began to reign (841 B.C.), Shalmaneser III appeared in southern Syria and decimated Hazael, confining him to Damascus. Shalmaneser returned a few years later (838 B.C.) to raid towns belonging to Hazael and to collect dues. Jehu submitted to the Assyrians, and Assyrian dominance provided initial respite from the advances of the Arameans.
Assyrian expansion declined during the reign of Shamshi-Adad V (824–811 B.C.). The reforms of Joash in his twenty-third year (813 B.C.) take place just after the end of the twenty-eight-year reign of Jehu (814 B.C.). His death ends the treaty he had with the Assyrians, and Hazael may have taken that opportunity to extend his control in his war with Assyria.
Biblical Gath (“winepress”) is one of five cities of the Philistines as well as several others with that name. Not enough detail is given to know with certainty which city Hazael captures here (12:17).9 Gath is well known in Samuel as the home of Goliath (1 Sam. 17:4; 2 Sam. 21:20–22) and the place where David took refuge when fleeing from Saul (1 Sam. 27:2). It was strategically located on the road leading up to Jerusalem through the Elah Valley by way of Bethlehem. Hazael exploits this route as he extends his control southward down the Philistine plain; from there he is able to make threats against the capital city.
Joash successfully buys him off with the sacred vessels and temple treasures. Hazael does not seriously consider a conquest of Judah; his goal is to subjugate and control Joash, providing himself taxation revenues in the process. Hazael may have expected Judah to renew its alliance with Assyria in the event of future battles involving control of the western territories. His main goal is to control trade routes along the coast, as he had in the Transjordan.
The summary of the reign of Joash tells of his assassination by his own court officials. No explanation is given, but his capitulation to Hazael and stripping the temple to meet the demands of the Arameans bring about political discontent. Chronicles further tells of dissension with the priesthood that results in Joash’s killing Zachariah, son of Jehoiada (2 Chron. 24:20–21). The location of Joash’s murder is given as the Millo House on the road down to Silla. The name Millo suggests a built-up terrace, possibly supporting the steep slopes of the Kidron wall to enlarge the area of the palace fortress. It may be the Ophel of later time (cf. 2 Chron. 27:3).
The names of the assassins are identical in the Hebrew and are not unusual (cf. 2 Chron. 17:18; Ezra 8:33).10 The Chronicler identifies them as the sons of foreign women, Shimeath from Ammon and Shimrith from Moab (2 Chron. 24:26). The Chronicler himself may have supplied this information, in accordance with his belief that when the people turn to alien gods they will suffer divine judgment from alien intervention.11 It is gratuitous to assume the Chronicler invented the idea that foreigners came to power in the Judean court; it may have been information simply omitted by Kings.12 The assassins are probably professional soldiers hired to do the job, but no details are given as to who is behind the conspiracy.
Bridging Contexts
KING AND PRIEST in cooperation. The main intent of this narrative is to present Joash’s reign in an approving light, though there are elements of compromise. Although there is no indication that the altars allowed by Joash are places of pagan worship, they are not regarded as acceptable for worship of Yahweh (12:3). No mention is made of the “other gods” common in the condemnation of unfaithful monarchs.
Joash is one of the few kings given a positive evaluation; his rule is characterized by a convergence of priestly and royal interests. Initially the high priest installs Joash and then also instructs him (v. 2). Joash in turn takes the initiative in restoring the temple, overcoming the reluctance of the priests to raise the necessary funds to make repairs possible.
Kings gives an ideal portrayal of the cooperation between royalty and priesthood during the reign of Joash. The high priest enables the dynasty to continue, and the young king follows the instructions of the high priest (12:3). The mutual support of priest and king are the ideal in terms of the covenant. The king is both subject to the covenant and responsible to ensure that the covenant values determine the law of the land (Deut. 17:14–20). The priests are responsible to provide for worship at the temple and to live from the proceeds of the offerings brought to the temple (18:1–8). The stripping of the temple to satisfy the demands of Hazael is not condemned, and the assassination by members of his own court is not explained.
The Chronicler, however, gives a more qualified portrayal of the faithfulness of Joash. While Kings says Joash does what is right all the days of his life (12:2), Chronicles says he does right only during the time that Jehoiada the priest instructs him (2 Chron. 24:2).13 The Chronicler divides Joash’s reign into the years when Jehoiada is alive and the years after his death. His reign after Jehoiada’s death is characterized by covenant failure and the development of hostilities between Joash and the priests (24:17–22). The king comes under the influence of the princes of Judah and is led into idolatry. Zechariah the son of Jehoiada publicly chastises Joash, so the king has him publicly stoned. This act of rebellion leads to defeat at the hands of the Arameans and the assassination of Joash by two of his own courtiers (24:23–25).
As is typical in Chronicles, the apostasy of Joash explains his defeat by the Arameans and his assassination by his own servants. In that version, a small contingent of Arameans is able to penetrate right into Jerusalem and wound the king because of his unfaithfulness (2 Chron. 24:24). The Chronicler seems to have had additional sources about the role of Zechariah son of Jehoiada and the conflict between the king and the priests that eventually lead to his death.14 This expansion of Joash’s reign in Chronicles provides a theological consistency in that work, in which every calamity is viewed as a punishment for sin.
The achievements of a life can always be viewed in more than one way, depending on the perspective of the observer. The presentation of Joash in Kings is a problem for the Chronicler, since it leaves the attack of the Arameans and the assassination of the king without explanation. The Chronicler could have made his presentation quite differently and been consistent with his goals, as in the lives of David and Solomon. All he needed to do was omit or alter the notices of the Aramean war and the king’s murder. Instead, the Chronicler provides us with an explanation that reveals a contrasting aspect to the good reign of Joash. This information is found in the “annotations on the book of the kings” (24:27), in which the acts of the king are given in much more detail.
The Deuteronomistic History is concerned to show the legitimacy of Joash’s reign as the successor to Athaliah the usurper. As the legitimate king he takes the initiative in temple reform (2 Kings 12:4), then takes charge when the project begins to fail (v. 6). The funds are under the control of his secretary (v. 10), who makes the allotments to the faithful workmen (v. 15). These activities are singled out for attention to set the pattern for the authority and validity of the Judean kings. Joash’s failures are a harbinger of the fact that ultimate judgment for the failure of the covenant cannot be avoided. Even so the promise of the “lamp of David” endures.
The relation of king and priest in Israel is an anomaly in the ancient world. In other nations the king mediated the rule of the gods to the nation; in Israel God’s will was mediated through the covenant, which made the king subservient to the rule of God as taught and practiced by the priest. This was especially true for Joash, who was spared as an orphan and raised under the instruction of the priest.
Joash naturally has a special interest in the temple and its maintenance. This symbiotic relationship has its tensions; the dominance of royal influence leads to a reduction of the priestly responsibility, so they no longer receive the offerings of the people, nor are they responsible for repairing the building (v. 9). This breach in the relationship deteriorates to the point of hostility, as seen in Chronicles. Though Joash’s reign is remarkable in its achievement, it is equally tragic in its failures; it ends with domination by the Arameans and assassination by court members. Though state and temple are in a mutual interdependent relationship, it is impossible to avoid competing interests between king and priests.
Contemporary Significance
CHURCH AND STATE: partners or conflict? The situation is different for the church today; the church is best served when it is not supported by the state. It has the right to be protected by the state, as do all other citizens. Often the church faces the hostility of the state; this should not be surprising. The state represents the world, the powers of this age. Jesus warns his followers to expect the hostility of the world:
If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: “No servant is greater than his master.” If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. (John 15:18–20)
The church cannot expect understanding from the world; it can only hope for tolerance and equal treatment with all other groups in society.
The conflict between the church seeking to be faithful to its calling and the church empowered by the military forces of state is the story of the Reformation. When Martin Luther attempted to reform the church, he came into confrontation with the forces of state. He ended up as a refugee in Wartburg Castle after the Diet of Worms.
Though a victim of the power of state, Luther also used the state to his own ends. He initially survived under the protection of Frederick the Wise, and as the Reformation went on he became involved increasingly with the political maneuvering of the German princes. Luther did not hesitate to use state power against the Jews as well as the Anabaptists (who denied the validity of infant baptism). After Emperor Charles V rejected the Augsburg Confession, Luther was ready to use force against him with the Protestant princes leagued in defense. The year Luther died (1546) Europe was plunged into a century of religious wars.
There was one group at the time of the Reformation who attempted to move the church away from identity with and dependence on the state. A group known as the Swiss Brethren formed their first congregation on January 21, 1525, in the face of imminent persecution for their nonconformity to the demands of the state church led by the Reformation theologian Huldrych Zwingli (1484–1531). The immediate question was over infant baptism, which George Blaurach, Conrad Grebel, Felix Manz, and others questioned on the basis of biblical studies; but the real issue was the nature of the church. According to the Brethren, only those who submitted to the lordship of Christ could be true members of his body. The body of Christ received its guidance through the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit, not from or through the civil magistracy.15 Persecution scattered the Swiss Brethren across Europe, but the movement grew as these doctrinal views found favor with many people.
The relationship between church and state became a perpetual issue for the Anabaptists, as the radical Reformers came to be known. Baptism was not central to their faith and “Anabaptist” was not a name they chose for themselves. Baptism was important to governments for social and political control, but what was important for Anabaptists was a regenerated church of believers, which required instruction and accountability, followed by baptism.16 They believed the apostolic church had fallen beyond reform with its increasing reliance on the state in the fourth and following centuries. Baptism was required as a sign of a new beginning.
For some Anabaptists a strict dualism existed between believers and society, leading to rigorous attempts at living a separated life. The first “Brotherly Union,” a union of common affirmation of faith in the Schleitheim Confession (1527), adopted seven articles of belief. Article 4 dealt with living a separated life: “Now there is nothing else in the world and all creation than good and evil … darkness and light.… God … admonishes us therefore to go out from Babylon and from the earthly Egypt.”17 Though the lines between church and state were less sharply drawn in the Netherlands and North Germany, the continuum from strict dualism to accommodation was always present in their understanding of church-state relationships. Government should have no role in the church.
The separation of church and state was carried to the extent that it was questionable whether Christians could even participate in state affairs. Dyck provides a quote from Menno Simons, a later spiritual leader of the Anabaptists, in his Letter to Micron:
I agree wholeheartedly that the office of magistrate is of God and his order. But I hate those who are Christian, and want to be one, and then do not follow their prince, head, and leader Christ, but cover and clothe their unrighteousness, wickedness, pomp and pride, avarice, greed, and tyranny with the name of magistrate. For those who are Christian must follow the Spirit, Word, and example of Christ, whether they are emperor, king, or whoever.18
These words of Menno Simons are as applicable and true as when they were first written. The involvement of Christians in the affairs of government requires some level of compromise. The demands of government can so contradict Christian values that participation is impossible to maintain with integrity.
Modern societies are agreed on the necessity of the separation of church and state, a complete contrast to the covenant ideal committed to the state support of the temple. Such a separation is impossible to maintain fully, as was the harmony of priest and king in the days of Joash and Jehoiada. The Canadian government, for example, following the lead of the courts, has determined that true equality requires the recognition of homosexual marriages. Marriage has been the dominion of both church and state; it has always been an institution of the church in determining family life and an institution controlled by the state for purposes of taxation and ownership of property. The Canadian government has been unsuccessful in efforts to maintain religious freedom and instead has sought to legislate a marriage law, inclusive of same-sex unions, that is contrary to the beliefs and practices of many Christians.
The necessity of secular government is readily accepted in a pluralistic society. The tension between the secular and the sacred remains as difficult as the cooperation of royalty and priesthood under the covenant in Old Testament times. The story of Joash is a warning of the dangers that can lead to self-destructive conflict. Avenues of compromise will be found on many issues if church is to live in harmony with that state and if Christians are to participate in secular power with ethical integrity.