Original Meaning

Joash (24:1–27)

Opening Regnal Résumé (24:1–3)

OPENING REGNAL RÉSUMÉ (24:1–3). The opening résumé for the most part repeats the information found in 2 Kings 12:1–2. Given his almost exclusive focus on the kingdom of Judah, the Chronicler characteristically omits the synchronism to the king of Israel (i.e., the seventh year of Jehu). He also fails to mention the “instruction” (yarah) of the priest Jehoiada that keeps Joash faithful to Yahweh’s covenant (cf. 2 Kings 12:2). The forty-year reign of Joash is dated variously between 840 and 796 B.C. The Old Testament chronology informing this study dates his rule from about 835 to 796 B.C.

The Chronicler divides the reign of Joash into two distinct and contrasting periods: the good years of his early rule under the tutelage of Jehoiada and the later years of apostasy. For this reason, the reference to the “high places” in the regnal résumé of 2 Kings 12:3 is lumped together with the events associated with Joash’s unfaithfulness (cf. 2 Chron. 24:18). Instead, the Chronicler refers to the progeny of Joash (24:3), perhaps using the source mentioned in the closing résumé (24:27). This information is unique to Chronicles, and one assumes it is registered as part of the king’s favorable theological review since children are a sign of divine blessing (cf. 11:18–21; 13:21). The arrangement of two marriages for Joash by the priest Jehoida (24:3) is in keeping with the Mosaic law (cf. Ex. 21:10–11). It is probably an attempt to ensure the viability of the Davidic line, given the recent episodes of fratricide and infanticide against the royal family.

Jehoiada and Joash (24:4–16)

Jehoiada and Joash (24:4–16). The favorable report concerning Joash’s reign centers on the dual themes of the renovation of Yahweh’s temple and the figure of Jehoiada as the ideal high priest. The temple of Solomon has apparently fallen into a general state of disrepair. In addition, Athaliah not only usurped the Davidic throne but also seized the temple and implemented Baal worship there. The desecration of the sanctuary included structural damage as well (24:7). The reference to the “sons of … Athaliah” (24:7) is puzzling, since she had them murdered. Perhaps the expression is used figuratively to denote her followers or adherents, or perhaps her sons conspired in the desecration of the temple before their own deaths.

This portion of Chronicles is only loosely tied to the parallel in 2 Kings 12:4–16, making the reconstruction of the events related to the royal initiative for fund raising and the eventual temple repair difficult to piece together. The lack of specific chronological referents compounds the ambiguity (cf. 2 Kings 12:6, where we learn that the compromise hammered out between the king and the priests takes place in the twenty-third year of Joash’s reign). The sequence of events recorded in Kings and Chronicles resulting in the renovation of Yahweh’s temple in Jerusalem may be harmonized as follows:

• Joash orders the priests to go to the people town by town and solicit money for the renovation of the temple (2 Kings 12:4–5; 2 Chron. 24:4–5).

• Kings mentions three sources of revenue (2 Kings 12:4), but Chronicles highlights only one—the annual tax imposed by Moses for the construction and maintenance of the tabernacle (2 Chron. 24:5–6; cf. Ex. 30:12–16). The description of the Mosiac tabernacle as the “Tent of the Testimony” (Heb. ʾedut) is unique in Chronicles and occurs elsewhere only in Numbers 9:15; 17:7, 8; 18:2.

• The priests and Levites stall in obeying the king’s command—perhaps balking at the idea of reallocating funds intended for the support of temple staff (2 Kings 12:6; 2 Chron. 24:5). (This report of insubordination on the part of priests and Levites is a rare negative review of Levitical behavior in Chronicles.) Joash may also be attempting to reassert royal authority over an area that Jehoiada assumed responsibility for while the king was still the ward of the high priest. It is even possible that the royal coffers are empty as a result of Athaliah’s mismanagement (or Joash is simply hoarding royal funds for other purposes). The insertion concerning the desecration of the temple by Athaliah’s sons (2 Chron. 24:7) is perhaps instructive. In view of recent precedent, the priests and the people may be skeptical of royal intentions for the temple.

• Joash brokers a compromise with the priests to the effect that the people will bring their taxes and offerings to the temple rather than contribute to Levitical “collection agents” (2 Kings 12:6–8; 2 Chron. 24:8–11). In addition, laborers are contracted to do the repair work instead of using the Levites as construction workers.

• The Chronicler reports that both people and officials give joyously and generously, furthering his theme of tabernacle-temple typology (2 Chron. 24:10; cf. Ex. 36:4–7).

• A chest or collection box is stationed near the altar (in the courtyard) outside the gate of the temple building (2 Kings 12:9; 2 Chron. 24:8). Joint oversight of the funds deposited in the chest is provided by a royal and priestly official (2 Kings 12:10; 2 Chron. 24:11).

• Workers, including carpenters, masons, and smiths, are hired and paid directly from the funds deposited in the temple collection box (2 Kings 12:10–12; 2 Chron. 24:12–13). Presumably these funds include the three types of revenues specified by Joash: the annual tax, personal vows, and freewill offerings (2 Kings 12:4).

• The temple repairs are made according to the original architectural design and completed under budget (2 Chron. 24:14).

• Surplus funds are used to make the implements necessary for the temple rituals (2 Kings 12:13–16; 2 Chron. 24:14).

Jehoiada is the model high priest for the Chronicler because of his role as royal guardian and adviser. The ideal of shared power between the civil and religious sectors in the oversight of Israel can be traced back to the leadership of Moses and Aaron after the Exodus. In one sense Jehoiada is a prototype for the high priests of the later postexilic period since he wields considerable civil authority. Unlike those priests of the later period, however, Jehoiada shows great concern for the preservation of legitimate kingship in Israel.

The expression “old and full of years” is an idiom signifying honor and respect, and Jehoiada’s longevity is a sign of divine favor (24:15). Jehoiada (who dies at the age of 130) actually outlives several prominent Old Testament figures, such as Sarah (127, Gen. 23:1), Joseph (110, Gen. 50:26), Moses (120, Deut. 34:7), Aaron (110, Num. 33:39), and Joshua (110, Josh. 24:29). Jehoiada is remembered especially for two things: leading Israel in covenant faithfulness (2 Chron. 24:16; cf. the reference to the continual maintenance of the burnt offerings during his tenure as high priest, 24:14), and leading in the initiative to refurbish the temple (24:16). Ironically, Jehoiada is accorded a better burial than Joash eventually receives (“buried with the kings,” 24:16; cf. v. 25).

Joash’s Apostasy (24:17–26)

Joash’s apostasy (24:17–26). Joash’s apostasy is recounted in the second half of his royal review. The Chronicler informs us that the king is led astray by the counsel of the officials of Judah (24:17). The expression “paid homage” (ḥwh; lit., “do obeisance”) may suggest that the leaders of the clans of Judah exploit a character weakness in Joash through flattery. The elders prefer to return to the policies of Joash’s father, Ahaziah, for unspecified reasons. Perhaps the “old ways” are now custom in Judah, or such religious policy is advantageous socially and economically. For the Chronicler, however, to abandon the temple is to abandon God (24:18).

Asherah was a Canaanite fertility cult goddess whose symbol was a tree represented by an upright wooden pole. She was the wife of El and the mother of the gods in Canaanite mythology. Like the Baal fertility cult, the worship of idols accompanied the veneration of Asherah (cf. 2 Kings 23:4). God voices his displeasure with Judah through the message of an unspecified number of prophets—but to no avail, as the people will “not listen” (24:19).

One of those divine messengers is the priest Zechariah, son of Jehoiada (24:20), the priest who earlier showed “kindness” (ḥesed) to King Joash by installing him on the throne of Judah as rightful heir of David’s dynasty (24:22). The phrase “the Spirit [of God/the LORD] came upon” (24:20; Heb. lbš, lit., “clothed”) occurs elsewhere only in Judges 6:34 and 1 Chronicles 12:18 (the expression connotes a gift of prophecy similar to that found in 2 Chron. 15:1 and 20:14).

Zechariah’s message is delivered in two parts typical of prophetic speech: an indictment followed by a pronouncement of judgment. The indictment is posed in the form of a rhetorical question, rebuking the king’s disobedience to divine commands, presumably the Mosaic injunctions concerning the worship of Yahweh only (24:20b; cf. Ex. 20:3–4; Deut. 16:21–22). The pronouncement of judgment is built on the wordplay of “abandon” (ʿzb; NIV “forsake”) and echoes the retribution theme: Even as God returns to those who return to him, he also abandons those who abandon him (2 Chron. 24:20c; cf. Zech. 1:3).

Ironically, Joash has Zechariah murdered in the courtyard of the temple, the very site where “Jehoiada and his sons” anointed Joash as king of Judah (24:21; cf. 23:11). Zechariah’s dying words (24:22b) should not be regarded as a plea for vengeance. Rather, it is a petition for God to mete out divine justice according to his righteousness. Zechariah’s prayer includes a haunting wordplay on the Hebrew word drš (“seek”), in that God will “call to account” (drš) for judgment since the king does not seek (drš) God. Zechariah’s words soon come to pass with the assassination of Joash (24:25). This may be the same Zechariah mentioned by Jesus in reference to the martyrs of the Old Testament era (“from Abel to Zechariah,” Matt. 23:35; Luke 11:51).3

The reference to the “turn of the year” probably indicates the spring season. This is the time for military campaigns in the ancient world since the dry season is beginning and agricultural activity slackens (24:23a; cf. 2 Sam. 11:1; 1 Chron. 20:1). The kingdom of Aram occupied the region north and northeast of Israel, including the territory around the capital city of Damascus. King Hazael of Aram (and his son Ben-hadad) sporadically oppressed both the kingdoms of Israel and Judah during the ninth century B.C. (cf. 2 Kings 12:17–18; 13:4–7, 22; etc.). Since the Chronicler’s account of Aram’s invasion of Judah differs at several points from 2 Kings 12:17–18, it is assumed that the Chronicler relies on an alternative historical source.4

As the prophet Habakkuk learned just prior to the Babylonian exile, God often accomplishes the judgment of sin among his people by means of foreign invasion (cf. Hab. 1:6–11). Such is the case here, including the slaying of Judean officials and the plundering of Jerusalem (2 Chron. 24:23b–c). The motif of “tit for tat” retribution is seen again in the killing of the Judean leaders, most likely the same individuals who led King Joash into apostasy after the death of Jehoiada (24:23b; cf. v. 17).

To remove any doubt that the Aramean invasion is divinely ordained as punishment for Joash and Judah, the Chronicler reports that the small contingent of Aramean soldiers is victorious because “the LORD delivered” the larger army of Judah into the hands of the Arameans (24:24a). The sovereignty of God as just judge and Lord of history is further highlighted in the extensive wordplay in the Chronicler’s account. For example, King Joash is gravely wounded by the Aramean invaders and is subsequently assassinated by members of his cabinet while recovering in bed (24:25a). The same Hebrew verb (hrg) is used to describe the killing of Zechariah (24:22) and Joash (24:25). Even as Joash has abandoned God (24:20), so the Arameans “leave” or abandon the king for dead (24:25). All of this comes about because Judah has “forsaken” or abandoned the Lord (24:24). In each case, the same word is employed (ʿzb).

According to the Chronicler, Joash’s officials conspire against him in retaliation for the murder of Zechariah (24:25b). Interestingly, the writer is careful to note that prominent among the conspirators are Zabad and Jehozabad—both sons of non-Hebrew women (24:26). It is as if the Chronicler seeks to emphasize the irony of the situation since these “mixed-blood” Israelites have a greater sense of justice than the king and citizens of Judah.

Concluding Regnal Résumé (24:27)

Concluding regnal résumé (24:27). The closing regnal résumé combines information taken from 2 Kings 12:19, 21. The citation of source formula differs from that of Kings—one clear example of additional documents available to the Chronicler. The reference to the children of Joash and other details unique to Chronicles may be attributable to that now lost source. The word “annotations” (midraš) occurs elsewhere only in 13:22, where the historical source is associated with Iddo the prophet. Presumably the idea of “midrash” here is theological commentary on the annals of the monarchy. If the prophetic oracles or burdens (maśśaʾ; NIV “prophecies”) mentioned in this concluding résumé refer to the prophetic ministry of 24:19, then the rendering “prophecies about him” is perhaps a charitable reading. The translation “oracles against him” (e.g., NRSV) may be closer to the Chronicler’s intended meaning.

Amaziah (25:1–28)

Bridging Contexts

FEAR THE LORD AND LISTEN. We have already noted affinities between Chronicles and Old Testament wisdom literature, especially Proverbs, in our study of kingship during the united and divided monarchies. Themes or characteristics shared by the two books include the retribution principle (i.e., God rewards faithfulness and punishes apostasy), the idea of the twofold path of wickedness versus righteousness as seen in the evil and good behavior of the Israelite kings, the wisdom of obeying God’s commandments, and the testing of motive and the evaluation of the heart—whether or not the heart of the people or the king is fully committed to the Lord.

To this list we may add another feature of wisdom literature that Chronicles and Proverbs have in common: one’s capacity to receive instruction and accept wise counsel. According to Proverbs, those who “listen to advice and accept instruction … will be wise” (Prov. 19:20); those who are wise will “listen to advice” (12:15) and to “a life-giving rebuke” (15:31).

Tragically, one of the distinguishing behavioral traits unifying the accounts of the reigns of Joash, Amaziah, and Uzziah is their failure to receive instruction and accept wise counsel. In the case of King Joash, not only does he listen to bad advice (24:17), but he also refuses to receive a Spirit-prompted, “life-giving rebuke” from Zechariah the priest (24:20–21). This happens, according to the Chronicler, because Joash “did not remember the kindness Zechariah’s father Jehoiada had shown him but killed his son” (24:22).

In similar fashion, King Amaziah refuses to listen to the counsel of God’s prophet warning him against the folly of idolatry (25:15–16). Not long after, Amaziah does not listen to the “life-giving rebuke” of King Jehoash of Israel when he advises the king of Judah against going to war with their rival kingdom to the north (25:19–20). Jehoash rightly observes that Amaziah’s success against Edom incited a blinding arrogance and pride in him that proves self-destructive (25:19).

Last, but in like manner, King Uzziah rejects the counsel of the priests who advise him to leave the temple and not commit the sacrilege of offering incense to the Lord (26:16–20). Uzziah’s failure to heed this “life-giving rebuke” from the eighty priests who courageously confront him results in divine judgment in the form of leprosy—a stigma he carries to his grave (26:19–20; cf. 26:23). Sadly, Uzziah “inherits” the same character flaw that compromised his father’s reign—the sin of pride spawned by fame and power (26:15–16).

Biblical scholars have suggested that the wisdom literature of Proverbs was in effect a school textbook for the royal family and the elite of society. The youth of these social strata were trained in the ways of wisdom so that in the future they might be wise and productive leaders of the next generation of Israelites. Ironically, the instruction of Proverbs not only addresses the subject of receiving instruction and accepting counsel but also treats topics like the dangers in listening to bad advice (Prov. 12:5; 17:4; 21:28) and the folly of pride (8:13; 11:2; 16:18). Obviously, this practical teaching proves ineffective in the lives of the three kings featured in this section. When kings are directed to “take pleasure in honest lips” and to “value a man who speaks the truth” (16:13), why do Joash, Amaziah, and Uzziah spurn the wise and true counsel of God’s spokesmen?

The answer to this question is found in the wisdom concept of the “fear of the LORD”—the first step toward the “knowledge of God” (Prov. 1:7; 2:5). The fear of the Lord is a complex idea comprised of interrelated attitudes, actions, and outcomes:

• the desire to get understanding that arises from a decision grounded in the human will (Prov. 1:29–30; 2:5)

• faith and trust in God’s plan for human life and a rejection of self-reliance (Prov. 3:5–6)

• a proactive righteousness that hates and avoids evil and refuses to envy sinners (Prov. 3:7; 9:13; 16:6)

• a posture of awe and reverence for the God of creation and redemption that elicits genuine worship and willing obedience to his commands (Prov. 24:21)

Hence, it is the “fear of the LORD” that enables one to “listen to advice and accept instruction” for the sake of becoming wise (Prov. 19:20). The story of Uzziah bears out this truth because he “sought God,” and “God gave him success” during the days he was mentored in the “fear of God” by one (otherwise unknown) Zechariah (2 Chron. 26:5). If one does not have the fear of the Lord, kings and people alike turn in self-reliance to their “own wisdom” (Prov. 3:5, 7; 18:2; 26:12). Although this “way” of one’s own wisdom seems right, it leads to death in the end (14:12; 16:25). This too is confirmed by Uzziah’s example. The king is “unfaithful to the LORD his God” because after he becomes powerful, “his pride led to his downfall” (2 Chron. 26:16).

Perhaps the more important question for us is how to develop the capacity to “fear the LORD” so that we may receive sound instruction and accept wise counsel. The key to answering this question is found in the word “listen,” since it is the wise who “listen and add to their learning” (Prov. 1:5). In fact, the exhortation to “listen” to the instruction of the biblical wisdom tradition is repeated more than a dozen times in Proverbs (e.g., 1:8; 4:1, 10). We take up that discussion in the application section that follows.

Contemporary Significance

Contemporary Significance

ON ACCEPTING WISE COUNSEL. A plethora of “how-to” books have been written on every subject imaginable. Typically one or more books of this genre will appear on bestseller lists at any given time. One highly successful example is Stephen Covey’s The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.21 The book offers principles for the development of personal and interpersonal effectiveness and has sold more than twelve million copies in thirty-two languages. The 7 Habits are especially popular with the business sector of society, since effective management and organization are essential to profit margins. It has spawned a couple of sequels and a collection of testimonials from people who have successfully applied the seven principles to the problems and challenges of real-life experiences.22 Naturally, the book’s popularity has generated numerous “effective habits” spinoffs aimed at the Christian subculture.23 Covey advocates a personal philosophy of life that moves from dependence to independence and culminates in interdependence.

Of special interest to our study is his chapter entitled “Principles of Empathic Communication.”24 There are four basic types of communication: reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Covey has correctly observed that most of us have had little, if any, training in the communication skill of listening. To counter this deficiency, he promotes what he calls “empathic listening.” By this he means an approach to communication that seeks first to understand rather than to be understood. “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply. They’re either speaking or preparing to speak. They’re filtering everything through their own paradigms, reading their autobiography into other people’s lives.”25 Empathic listening does not necessarily mean agreement with the speaker, but it does seek to truly understand the verbal communication of another individual by getting inside the speaker’s frame of reference. “The essence of empathic listening is not that you agree with someone; it’s that you fully, deeply, understand that person, emotionally as well as intellectually.”26

I find it interesting, if not amusing, when pop-culture or pop-psychology catches up with biblical teaching. What the popular media may describe as “penetrating truth,” “profound principles,” and “fresh insights” are often not that fresh or that profound. The Bible has usually “been there and done that” centuries earlier.

Take, for instance, the teaching of James, a book that in many ways is the New Testament counterpart to the Old Testament book of Proverbs. James exhorts the Christian to “be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry” (James 1:19). The Greek verb “to listen” (akouo) means not only to hear with reference to sense perception but also to listen with understanding—as Ropes summarizes, “Let your aim be not speech, but attentive hearing.”27 Unlike The 7 Habits, however, the goal or outcome of listening in the biblical tradition is “the righteous life that God desires” (James 1:20), not effectiveness in managing one’s personal life or successful management of business enterprises.

We have already learned from the lives of kings Joash, Amaziah, and Uzziah that receiving instruction and accepting counsel demand listening skills and that such skills are directly related to “the fear of the LORD.” It is the biblical notion of the fear of the Lord that fosters reliance on God and receptivity to divine wisdom, in contrast to self-reliance and dependence on one’s own understanding. But how do we as Christians learn to listen attentively to God and to others with empathy and understanding as the apostle James or a self-help guru like Covey suggests? By what strategies or techniques or formulas do we develop the communication skill of attentive listening?

According to Richard Foster, “Jesus calls us from loneliness to solitude.”28 The discipline of solitude that Foster encourages is a state of mind and heart that is dependent on silence. For Foster “though silence sometimes involves the absence of speech it always involves the act of listening,” and the purpose of silence and solitude is to be able to see clearly and hear truly, especially God but others as well.29

The Bible shows awareness of the importance of solitude and silence in attentive listening to others and to God. We have the example of Job, who understood that grasping instruction requires silence or “quiet” for “attentive listening” (Job 6:24). In another instance, Job reminisced about his own role as an elder when “men listened to me expectantly, waiting in silence for my counsel” (29:21). We also have the example of Jesus, who often retreated to “lonely places,” seeking solitude and silence for prayer (Luke 5:16). It seems certain that Jesus sought solitude and silence both to pray and to listen to his Father, since he only did exactly what the Father had commanded him (John 14:31).

The spiritual disciplines of solitude and silence are not an end in themselves but a means to the greater goal of the life of righteousness God desires for each Christian. Solitude and silence ready the heart and open the mind, so that like Samuel we may say, “Speak, LORD, for your servant is listening” attentively (1 Sam. 3:9). As we have already discovered, one outcome of solitude and silence is attentive listening. In the discomfort of our quietness God’s Spirit has an opportunity to do the preparatory work necessary for us to receive instruction and accept counsel from God and from the godly men and women who serve as “his voice” in our lives from time to time.

Another outcome of the disciplines of solitude and silence is freedom, for “silence frees us from the need to control others.”30 As Foster so painfully reminds us, “we are accustomed to relying upon words to manage and control others,” but “when we become quiet enough to let go of people, we learn compassion for them.”31

Like any of the other spiritual disciplines, solitude and silence are activities, things we must do or practice. Foster offers several helpful suggestions as the first steps for entering the realms of solitude and silence:

• taking advantage of the “little solitudes” that fill each day

• finding or developing a “quiet place” designed for solitude and silence in the home

• finding places outside the home designated specifically as “quite places” that may be visited regularly (e.g., a park or a chapel)

• learning to control our speech patterns after the counsel of Proverbs, which says, “a [person] of knowledge uses words with restraint” (Prov. 17:27)

• taking time to withdraw four times a year for three to four hours for the purpose of reorienting your life goals

• taking a retreat of two or three days once a year for no other purpose but solitude and silence.32

According to the teachings of the New Testament, a vital component of our Christian religion is “to look after orphans and widows in their distress” (James 1:27). Put another way, we are to continually offer the sacrifice of doing good and sharing with others (Heb. 13:15–16). In either case, such Christian behavior must be motivated by compassion for others. The fruit of solitude and silence is just that—an increased sensitivity and compassion for others, a “new attentiveness to their needs, new responsiveness to their hurts.”33 May we, like Thomas Merton, learn that “it is in deep solitude that I find the gentleness with which I can truly love my brothers [and sisters]. Solitude and silence teach me to love my brothers [and sisters] for what they are, not for what they say.”34

The same might be said for our relationship to God because in solitude and silence we learn to love God and attentively listen to his voice for who he is as Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer of all things, not for what he might do for us. Unlike stubborn Israel, who so often rejected God’s instruction, may we attentively listen to his divine counsel and learn that

in repentance and rest is [our] salvation,

in quietness and trust is [our] strength. (Isa. 30:15)