2 Chronicles 24:1–27

24:4–14 The Chronicler both simplifies the process of temple restoration and expands on aspects that continue to be relevant for the postexilic community.¹ While, as in Kings, Jehoiada had a key role (vv. 6, 12), the initiative throughout was from the king, matching a common ancient Near Eastern royal function of refurbishing national temples (cf. 29:3–36: Hezekiah; 34:8–13: Josiah).² He “decided [“had it in his heart,” as in 1 Chron. 22:7; 28:2; 2 Chron. 6:7; etc.] to restore the house of the Lord.”

The Chronicler places emphasis on the project’s financing. As elsewhere, Levites were explicitly involved alongside priests in the collecting of the money (2 Chron. 24:5–6, 11). Mention of the “tent of testimony” (v. 6; elsewhere only Num. 9:15; 17:7, 8 [22, 23 MT]; 18:2) and the “tax levied by Moses” (2 Chron. 24:6, 9) gave contemporary application, with Mosaic authority: the census “half shekel” for the tabernacle materials in the wilderness (Ex. 30:11–16; 38:26) was now applied to ongoing maintenance of the temple, which continued the function of the tent.³ Further, it was specified as an annual obligation (2 Chron. 24:5: “from year to year”; cf. postexilic Neh. 10:32; Matt. 17:24–27).⁴ The people’s active role is important to the Chronicler: this tax was originally agreed by “Moses . . . and the congregation of Israel” together, and so here, when the tax was brought by “all the princes and all the people,” it was not an unwelcome imposition but an occasion for “rejoicing,” and giving was “in abundance” (2 Chron. 24:10–11; cf. Ex. 36:3–7). Implied is an encouragement of similar mutual commitment by hearers (cf. Neh. 10:32).

Criticism of Jehoiada is brief (2 Chron. 24:6; cf. 2 Kings 11:6–8); focus shifts instead to the idolatrous use of temple items by the “sons of Athaliah” (2 Chron. 24:7; in view of 22:10, Hb. baneha may refer to her associates or, with different vowels, boneha, to “her builders”). Athaliah’s description as “that wicked woman” may allude to the vision in Zechariah 5:7–8 of the removal of the woman “wickedness” from the land.⁵ A contrast is seen between her misuse of “dedicated things” and the way that generosity enabled “the rest of the money” to fund the making of utensils (2 Chron. 24:14). This may be compared with the tabernacle construction, when offerings were used also for furnishings (Ex. 25:1–40; 31:1–11).⁶

Details in 2 Kings 11:6–8 suggest that Jehoiada regarded his first priority to be the support of priests, with little attention given to the building (a question of budget allocations!). The citing of Mosaic law gave more than royal authority to contributing for the building, and oversight by a representative of both king and chief priest demonstrated joint commitment (2 Chron. 24:8–12). The hiring of “masons and carpenters, and also workers in irons and bronze” to “restore” (or “renovate, repair”) recalls similar arranging of artisans (resident aliens) by David for the original building (1 Chron. 22:2–3, 15). The work of “restoring” (or “renewing”) the temple (2 Chron. 24:4, 12) culminated not in the building itself and its utensils but in sacrificial activity: “They offered burnt offerings in the house of the Lord regularly all the days of Jehoiada” (v. 14).

24:15–16 Jehoiada was given unique recognition and honor. Apart from him, the Chronicler tells of the death and burial only of kings. His age was a sign of blessing: “old and full of days” is elsewhere said only of David (1 Chron. 23:1; 29:28), while “130 years” is older than Moses or Joshua. This contrasts with Joash’s assassination and lack of honor in his burial place (2 Chron. 24:25). The close recounting of both serves to contrast the blessings flowing from concern for worship of the Lord in his house with judgment in the case of apostasy.

24:17–22 “All the princes” were included previously in the group that “rejoiced” (v. 10), but they may have simply been conforming to the king’s policy under Jehoiada. Now that Jehoiada had died, they paid their “homage” to the king (“bowed low”); it looked like flattery, as they professed, “Now you are truly in charge.” Just as Joash had followed Jehoiada’s advice, now he follows theirs as together “they abandoned [ʻazab, “forsake”] the house of the Lord, the God of their fathers.”⁷ The worship of “the Asherim and the idols” (cf. comment on 14:2–6) had persisted for generations despite efforts of reform and resurged in the latter part of the reign of Jehoram through his marriage with Athaliah (cf. 14:3; 15:16–17; 17:6; 20:33; 21:11–13). Lasting reform requires more than top-down change.

Apostasy or lack of trust in the Lord leads to “wrath” (cf. 12:7, 12; 19:2, 10; 1 Chron. 27:24), but as elsewhere it could be averted by listening to the warning⁸ of “prophets” and “turning back” to the Lord (“bring them back” is a form of the verb shub, “turn,” as in 2 Chron. 7:14; cf. comment on 19:1–3;). How tragic is the blunt statement “But they would not pay attention [lit., “use their ear”].” This led to the fatal appeal of “Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest” (for “the Spirit of God” and prophecy, cf. 15:1; 20:14; 1 Chron. 12:18). His words repeated a common motif in Chronicles: obeying the Lord’s commands given through Moses was a prerequisite to “prosper/succeed” (cf. comment on 1 Chron. 22:11–16). This was also a quotation of Numbers 14:41, an example of a prophet’s expounding earlier Scripture.⁹ God’s “forsaking” them when they “forsake” him is another frequent motif (cf. comment on 1 Chron. 28:9–10).

Jehoiada had been careful to ensure that the temple court was not desecrated (cf. 2 Chron. 23:14), but that did not worry the conspirators, as Zechariah was killed in the very place where Zechariah’s father had anointed Joash as king. The tragedy is expressed: Joash “did not remember” (from Hb. zakar), a play on the name “Zechar-iah” (“The Lord has remembered”); to “remember” involves acting on the basis of what is called to memory. A further wordplay is evident as Zechariah called for the Lord to “avenge” (Hb. darash, “seek” [cf. ESV mg.]); since the king did not “seek” God, the Lord was to “seek” the king, leading to judgment. While one might think of forgiving responses by Jesus and Stephen (Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60), Jesus himself cites the killing of prophets (possibly including this incident¹⁰) as reason for God’s judgment; Zechariah does what later Paul exhorts, “Never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord’” (Rom. 12:19).

24:23–24 The Syrian attack under Hazael was one result of Judah’s “forsak[ing] the Lord.” Previously, the Chronicler has told of occasions when Judah, though “few,” had defeated a “very great army” (13:3, 13–18; 14:9–15; 20:1–2, 20–30). Now the numbers are reversed, as the “few” Syrians defeated Judah, proof of God’s activity this time against Judah. The “princes” who had advised Joash (24:17) were “destroyed,” a word used by the Chronicler to denote the punishment for the worship of foreign gods (v. 18; 12:7, 12; 21:7; 25:15–16).¹¹

24:25–27 In 2 Kings 12:20 no reason is given for the conspiracy that led to the killing of Joash, but the Chronicler sees it as a further example of retribution for the “blood of the son of Jehoiada the priest,” this phrase being a reminder again of the importance of Jehoiada. It is unclear why the Chronicler includes the names and ethnic background of the conspirators’ mothers.

After its absence for Jehoram and Amaziah, additional material concerning the king’s reign is supplied. The two foci of the chapter are specified: negative are the “many oracles against him” (so focusing on God’s acting), but the ending is positive, leading into the future—“the rebuilding of the house of God.”