2 kings 12 commentary

2 KI GS 12 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
Joash Repairs the Temple
1 [a]In the seventh year of Jehu, Joash[b] became
king, and he reigned in Jerusalem forty years. His
mother’s name was Zibiah; she was from
Beersheba.
GILL, "For Jozachar the son of Shimeath; called in Chronicles "Zabad," probably
through a corruption of the text. His mother, Shimeath, was, according to
Chronicles (2 Chronicles 24:26), an Ammonitess. And Jehozabad the son of Shomer.
For "Shomer" we have in Chronicles "Shimrith," which is the feminine form of
"Shomer," and we are told that she was a Moabitess. The Jews were at all times
fond of taking wives from Moab and Ammon (Ruth 1:4; 1 Kings 11:1; Ezra 9:1,
Ezra 9:2; ehemiah 13:23), despite the prohibition of mixed marriages in the Law
(see Deuteronomy 7:3). His servants, smote him, and he died (for their motives, see
the introductory paragraph), and they buried him with his fathers in the city of
David. Some critics (as Thenius and Dean Stanley) see a contradiction between this
statement and that of 2 Chronicles 24:25, that he was "not buried in the sepulchers
of the kings;" but, as Bertheau, Keil, and Bahr observe. "the two statements are not
irreconcilable," since he may have been regarded as "buried with his fathers," if his
grave was anywhere in Jerusalem, even though he was excluded from the royal
burying-place. And Amaziah his son reigned in his stead. (For the reign of Amaziah,
see 2 Kings 14:1-20.)
HE RY 1-3, "The general account here given of Joash is, 1. That he reigned forty
years. As he began his reign when he was very young, he might, in the course of nature,
have continued much longer, for he was cut off when he was but forty-seven years old,
2Ki_12:1. 2. That he did that which was right as long as Jehoiada lived to instruct him,
2Ki_12:2. Many young men have come too soon to an estate - have had wealth, and
power, and liberty, before they knew how to use them - and it has been of bad
consequence to them; but against this danger Joash was well guarded by having such a
good director as Jehoiada was, so wise, and experienced, and faithful to him, and by

having so much wisdom as to hearken to him and be directed by him, even when he was
grown up. Note, It is a great mercy to young people, and especially to young princes, and
all young men of consequence, to be under good direction, and to have those about them
that will instruct them to do that which is right in the sight of the Lord; and they then
do wisely and well for themselves when they are willing to be counselled and ruled by
such. A child left to himself brings his mother to shame, but a child left to such a tuition
may bring himself to honour and comfort. 3. That the high places were not taken away,
2Ki_12:3. Up and down the country they had altars both for sacrifice and incense, to the
honour of the God of Israel only, but in competition with, and at least in tacit contempt
of, his altar at Jerusalem. These private altars, perhaps, had been more used in the late
bad reigns than formerly, because it was not safe to go up to Jerusalem, nor was the
temple-service performed as it should have been; and, it may be, Jehoiada connived at
them, because some well-meaning people were glad of them when they could not have
better, and he hoped that the reforming of the temple, and putting things into a good
posture there, would by degrees draw people from their high places and they would
dwindle of themselves; or perhaps neither the king nor the priest had zeal enough to
carry on their reformation so far, nor courage and strength enough to encounter such an
inveterate usage.
JAMISO , "2Ki_12:1-18. Jehoash reigns well while Jehoiada lived.
K&D, "(1-5). Reign of Joash. - 2Ki_12:1 (1, 2). His age on ascending the throne, viz.,
seven years (cf. 2Ki_11:4). - Commencement and length of his reign. His mother's name
was Zibiah of Beersheba.
COFFMA , "THE REIG OF JOASH: SOLOMO 'S TEMPLE REPAIRED
A full century had passed since the death of Solomon. Rehoboam reigned for 17
years (1 Kings 14:21); Abijah reigned for 3 years (1 Kings 15:2); Asa reigned for 41
years (1 Kings 15:10); Jehoshaphat reigned for 25 years (1 Kings 22:42); Jehoram
reigned for 8 years (2 Kings 8:17); Ahaziah reigned for 1 year (2 Kings 8:25-26);p
and the usurper, Athaliah, reigned for 6 years (2 Kings 11:1-3) - a total of 101 years.
Furthermore, the repair of the breaches in the temple did not take place until the
23year of the reign of Joash (2 Kings 12:6). Thus, a total of 124 years had elapsed
following the death of Solomon, which was plenty of time for extensive deterioration
of the temple and related structures. Also, Athaliah had been using the materials
from it to construct and embellish her temple of Baal. Solomon's temple must
therefore have been in serious need of reconstruction.
The length of the reign of Joash is given as 40 years (2 Kings 12:1), but nothing of
any great significance occurred in his reign other than the efforts to repair
Solomon's temple. As long as Jehoiada lived to advise and instruct Joash, he did
what was right in God's sight, but following the death of Jehoiada, he lapsed into
paganism and even approved the murder of the prophet Zechariah, the son of
Jehoiada (2 Chronicles 24:20-22).

It is amazing that James Montgomery in the International Critical Commentary
wrote that, "A reminiscence of this crime is preserved in Matthew 23:35."[1]
However, that passage in Matthew has no connection whatever with the murder of
this particular Zechariah. Christ, in that passage, was rebuking the Pharisees and
exposing them as the secret murderers of another Zechariah, the son of Barachiah,
not the son of Jehoiada. (See our comment on this in Vol. 1 (Matthew), of my .T.
Commentaries, pp. 378-379.)
A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE REIG OF JEHOASH (JOASH)
"Jehoash was seven years old when he began to reign. In the seventh year of Jehu
began Jehoash to reign; and he reigned forty years in Jerusalem: and his mother's
name was Zibiah of Beersheba. And Jehoash did that which was right in the eyes of
Jehovah all his days wherein Jehoiada the priest instructed him. Howbeit the high
places were not taken away; the people still sacrificed and burnt incense in the high
places."
"Jehoash did ... right ... all his days wherein Jehoiada the priest instructed him" (2
Kings 12:2). The author of this passage was evidently one who loved Jehoash,
because he refrained from recording the shameful lapses of this king after the death
of Jehoiada. 2 Chronicles 24 gives us the "rest of the tragic story." The words
"wherein Jehoiada ... instructed him" are ample witness and confirmation of the
fuller account in Chronicles.
"Howbeit the high places were not taken away" (2 Kings 12:3). "These vestiges of
the ancient paganism remained a constant snare. It was all too easy to slip into the
nature and fertility rituals which the Canaanites had preserved for centuries at such
shrines."[2] It finally came to pass that racial Israel turned away from God and
embraced the gross sensuality of pagan worship almost (but not quite) totally. When
it became evident that this was the determined will of practically the whole nation,
God sent them into captivity in Babylon, where they were finally cured of their
idolatry.
ELLICOTT, "(1) Forty years.—A common round number. David and Solomon are
each said to have reigned forty years.
His mother’s name.—The author of these short abstracts generally gives this
particular in regard to the kings of Judah.
Beer-sheba.—A famous Simeonite sanctuary, and resort of pilgrims (Amos 5:5;
Amos 8:14).
GUZIK, "A. Jehoash repairs the temple.
1. (2 Kings 12:1-3) A summary of the reign of Jehoash.

In the seventh year of Jehu, Jehoash became king, and he reigned forty years in
Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Zibiah of Beersheba. Jehoash did what was right
in the sight of the LORD all the days in which Jehoiada the priest instructed him.
But the high places were not taken away; the people still sacrificed and burned
incense on the high places.
a. He reigned forty years in Jerusalem: This was a long and mostly blessed reign.
Jehoash fell short of full commitment and complete godliness, but he did advance
the cause of God in the kingdom of Judah.
b. Jehoash did what was right in the sight of the LORD all the days in which
Jehoiada the priest instructed him: This implies that when Jehoiada died, Jehoash
no longer did what was right in the sight of the LORD. 2 Chronicles 24:15-23 tells
us that he turned to idolatry when Jehoiada died, and judgment followed.
i. “After the death of the godly high priest, Jehoash fell into the hands of godless
advisors who turned his heart to Canaanite practices.” (Patterson and Austel)
c. The high places were not taken away: This indicates that Jehoash implemented a
half-way reformation and not a total reforming of Israel’s worship. He did not take
on the more difficult job of removing the high places.
i. “The people were so fondly and strangely addicted to the high places, that the
foregoing kings, though men of riper years, and great power and courage, and
finally settled in their thrones, could not take them away; and therefore it is not
strange if Jehoiada could not now remove them.” (Poole)
PETT, "The Reign Of Jehoash (Joash) King Of Judah c. 835-796 BC (2 Kings 12:1-
21).
As usual the prophetic author has been extremely selective in what material he has
used. His concern was with response or otherwise to YHWH, not with general
history. Thus after the usual initial summary in which he gave Jehoash qualified
approvalwhile Jehoiada was still alive(as so often he does not explain the
qualification but leaves us to make what we an of the hint), he first explained the
way in which the Temple was restored after its years of neglect and mistreatment by
Jehoram, Ahaziah and Athaliah, and went on to indicate how later Jehoash split
with the priests (presumably once Jehoiada’s influence had declined), and took over
the arrangements for the maintenance of the Temple. He then finished off with a
description of how the accumulated wealth of Judah finally passed into foreign
hands, and how Jehoash was assassinated. We are left to draw the conclusion that in
the later years of his reign Jehoash had made himself liable to God’s judgment.
The denuding of the state of its treasures was a common way in which the author
indicated that all was not quite right with what were, in some cases, otherwise to be

seen as ‘good’ kings as far as Yahwism was concerned. Compare 2 Kings 11:18 with
2 Kings 14:14; 2 Kings 18:15; 1 Kings 15:18; and see also 2 Kings 16:8; 2 Kings
24:13; 1 Kings 14:6. It is only when we turn to Chronicles that we discover the
details of the failures that lay behind what happened to these ‘good’ kings.
Analysis.
a 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 (2 Kings 12:1).
b And Jehoash did what was right in the eyes of YHWH all his days in which
Jehoiada the priest instructed him. However the high places were not taken away.
The people still sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places (2 Kings 12:2-3).
c And Jehoash said to the priests, “All the money of the hallowed things which
is brought into the house of YHWH, in current money, the money of the persons for
whom each man is rated, and all the money that it comes into any man’s heart to
bring into the house of YHWH, let the priests take it to them, every man from his
acquaintance, and they shall repair the breaches of the house, wherever any breach
shall be found” (2 Kings 12:4).
d But it was so, that in the three and twentieth year of king Jehoash the priests
had not repaired the breaches of the house (2 Kings 12:5).
e Then king Jehoash called for Jehoiada the priest, and for the other priests,
and said to them, “Why do you not repair the breaches of the house? ow therefore
take no more money from your acquaintance, but deliver it for the breaches of the
house.” And the priests consented that they should take no more money from the
people, nor repair the breaches of the house (2 Kings 12:6).
f But 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 comes into the house of YHWH, and the
priests who kept the threshold put in it all the money which was brought into the
house of YHWH (2 Kings 12:9).
g And it was so, when they saw that there was much money in the chest, that
the king’s scribe and the high priest came up, and they put up in bags and counted
the money that was found in the house of YHWH (2 Kings 12:10).
h And they gave the money which was weighed out into the hands of those who
did the work, who had the oversight of the house of YHWH, and they paid it out to
the carpenters and the builders, who wrought on the house of YHWH, and to the
masons and the hewers of stone, and for buying timber and hewn stone to repair the
breaches of the house of YHWH, and for all that was laid out for the house to repair
it (2 Kings 12:11-12).
g But there were not made for the house of YHWH cups of silver, snuffers,
basins, trumpets, any vessels of gold, or vessels of silver, of the money that was
brought into the house of YHWH, for they gave that to those who did the work, and
repaired therewith the house of YHWH (2 Kings 12:13-14).
f Moreover they did not make a reckoning with the men, into whose hand they
delivered the money to give to those who did the work, for they dealt faithfully (2
Kings 12:15).
e The money for the trespass-offerings, and the money for the sin-offerings,
was not brought into the house of YHWH. It was the priests (2 Kings 12:16).

d Then Hazael king of Aram went up, and fought against Gath, and took it,
and Hazael set his face to go up to Jerusalem (2 Kings 12:17).
c 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 which was found in the treasures of the house of
YHWH, and of the king’s house, and sent it to Hazael king of Aram, and he went
away from Jerusalem (2 Kings 12:18).
b ow 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? (2 Kings 12:19).
a And his servants arose, and made a conspiracy, and smote Joash at the house
of Millo, on the way which goes down to Silla. For Jozacar the son of Shimeath, and
Jehozabad the son of Shomer, his servants, smote him, and he died, and they buried
him with his fathers in the city of David, and Amaziah his son reigned instead of
him. (2 Kings 12:20-21).
ote that in ‘a’ we are told about Jehoash’s reign and its commencement, and in the
parallel of its cessation. In ‘b’ we learn of Jehoash’s behaviour and in the parallel
are referred for further details to the annals of the kings of Judah. In ‘c’ all the
hallowed things are brought into YHWH’s house and wealth built up there, and in
the parallel YHWH’s house is denuded of its hallowed things and of its wealth. In
‘d’ there were still breaches in the house of YHWH, and in the parallel Hazael sets
his face to breach the walls of Jerusalem. In ‘e’ the priests were to take no more
money from either their fellow-priests or the people, and in the parallel the money
for the trespass and sin offerings was for the priests. In ‘f’ money was brought into
the house of YHWH, and in the parallel that money was handed out to faithful men
who did the work. In ‘g’ when sufficient money had been accumulated it was
counted and bagged, and in the parallel it was not used for any purpose other than
the repairing of the house of YHWH. Centrally in ‘h’ the money was paid out to
those who repaired the breaches in the house of YHWH.
2 Kings 12:1
‘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 (also called Joash) began to reign over in the seventh year of Jehu. Had it
been reckoned as was customary in Judah that would have been six years (excluding
the accession year). Thus Jehoash, being seven years old, was born before Jehu
came to the throne. Jehoash then reigned for forty years, and yet we are told little
about his reign. The prophetic history was only interested in the activity which
demonstrated his attitude and behaviour with regard to YHWH. It is a reminder to
us that that is also what God is concerned about with us. Forty years slipped by and
in the end he had accomplished little that according to the prophetic author was
worth recording. Will it be the same with us?
The name of the Queen Mother was Zibiah (gazelle) of Beersheba, a marriage which
had strengthened the previous kings’ hold over the egeb through which there were
important trade routes.

PULPIT, "2 Kings 12:1-3
The writer of Kings is extremely brief and incomplete in his account of the reign of
Joash. He seems to have had a great tenderness for him, and to have determined
that he would put on record nothing to his discredit. We have to go to Chronicles (2
Chronicles 24:1-27.) for a complete account, and for an estimate of the real
character of the king and of his reign. Both writers appear to have drawn from the
same original document, but the writer of Kings made large omissions from it. In a
few points only is his narrative fuller than Chronicles.
2 Kings 12:1
In the seventh year of Jehu. Athaliah began to reign very soon after the accession of
Jehu (2 Kings 11:1), and reigned six full years (2 Kings 12:3). The first year of Joash
was thus parallel with Jehu's seventh. Jehoash—or Joash, as he is called sometimes
in Kings (2 Kings 11:2; 2 Kings 13:1, 2 Kings 13:10), and always in Chronicles—
began to reign; and forty years reigned he in Jerusalem—the writer of Chronicles (2
Chronicles 24:1) and Josephus ('Ant. Jud.,' 2 Kings 9:8. § 4) agree—and his
mother's name was Zibiah of Beersheba. Josephus calls her "Sabia."
2 Joash did what was right in the eyes of the Lord
all the years Jehoiada the priest instructed him.
BAR ES, "All his days ... - i. e., so long as Jehoiada was his adviser” (compare
2Ch_24:15-22). Jehoida was, practically speaking, regent during the minority of
Jehoash, i. e., 10 or 12 years. An increase of power to the priestly order was the natural
consequence. Jehoiada bore the title of “high priest” 2Ki_12:10, which had been dropped
since the time of Eleazar Jos_20:6, and the Levitical order from this time became more
mixed up with public affairs and possessed greater influence than previously. Jehoiada’s
successors traced their office to him rather than to Aaron Jer_29:26.
CLARKE, "Jehoash did - right in the sight of the Lord - While Jehoiada the
priest, who was a pious, holy man, lived, Jehoash walked uprightly; but it appears from
2Ch_24:17, 2Ch_24:18, that he departed from the worship of the true God after the
death of this eminent high priest, lapsed into idolatry, and seems to have had a share in
the murder of Zechariah, who testified against his transgressions, and those of the

princes of Judah. See above, 2Ki_11:20-21 (note).
O how few of the few who begin to live to God continue unto the end!
GILL, "And Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all his
days,.... Worshipping the only true God, and ruling and walking according to the law of
God:
wherein Jehoiada the priest instructed him; and so long as he observed his
instructions, and as long as that priest lived, he reigned well; for to that period "all his
days must be limited"; for after his death he was seduced by the princes of Judah to
idolatry, and lived scandalously, and died ignominiously; see 2Ch_24:2.
JAMISO , "Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord — so
far as related to his outward actions and the policy of his government. But it is evident
from the sequel of his history that the rectitude of his administration was owing more to
the salutary influence of his preserver and tutor, Jehoiada, than to the honest and
sincere dictates of his own mind.
K&D, "2Ki_12:2
(3). Joash did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord ‫וגו‬ ‫ר‬ ֶ‫שׁ‬ ֲ‫א‬ ‫ין‬ ָ‫מ‬ָ‫ל־י‬ ָⅴ, “all his days
that,” etc., i.e., during the whole period of his life that Jehoiada instructed him (for ‫ר‬ ֶ‫שׁ‬ ֲ‫א‬
after substantives indicating time, place, and mode, see Ewald, §331, c., 3; and for the
use of the suffix attached to the noun defined by ‫וגו‬ ‫ר‬ ֶ‫שׁ‬ ֲ‫,א‬ compare 2Ki_13:14); not “all his
life long, because Jehoiada had instructed him,” although the Athnach under ‫ין‬ ָ‫מ‬ָ‫י‬ favours
this view. For Jehoiada had not instructed him before he began to reign, but he
instructed him after he had been raised to the throne at the age of seven years, that is to
say, so long as Jehoiada himself lived. The ‫ע‬ ָ‫ד‬ָ‫ּוי‬‫ה‬ְ‫י‬ ‫י‬ ֵ‫מ‬ְ‫ל־י‬ ָⅴ of the Chronicles is therefore a
correct explanation. But after Jehoiada's death, Joash yielded to the petitions of the
princes of Judah that he would assent to their worshipping idols, and at length went so
far as to stone the son of his benefactor, the prophet Zechariah, on account of his candid
reproof of this apostasy (2Ch_24:17-22).
BE SO , "2 Kings 12:2. Jehoash did what was right, &c. — Having, 1st, such a
good director as Jehoiada was, so wise, experienced, and faithful: and, 2d, so much
wisdom as to hearken to him, and be directed by him. Here we learn of what
advantage it is to princes, especially while they are young, and indeed to young
people in general, to have good instructers and counsellors about them. And they
then act wisely for themselves, when they are willing to be counselled and ruled by
such.

ELLICOTT, "(2) All his days wherein Jehoiada the priest instructed him.—The
Hebrew is ambiguous, but may certainly mean this, which is the rendering of the
LXX. and Vulg. (The accent dividing the verse ought to fall on “the Lord” rather
than on “his days.”) Perhaps the peculiar form of the sentence arose in this way: the
writer first set down the usual statement concerning kings who supported the
worship of Jehovah, and then, remembering the evils which ensued upon the death
of the high priest (2 Chronicles 24:17), added as a correction of that statement,
“during which Jehoiada the priest instructed him.” Thenius says the words can only
be rendered, all his life long, because Jehoiada had instructed him. They certainly
can, however, be rendered as our version renders them, and further, thus: “And
Jehoash did . . . all his days, whom Jehoiada the priest instructed.” But the
ambiguity of the statement gave an opportunity for discrediting the chronicler.
PETT, "2 Kings 12:2
‘And Jehoash did what was right in the eyes of YHWH all his days in which
Jehoiada the priest instructed him.’
Approval for Jehoash is qualified. The prophetic author often gives us a
disquietening hint and then leaves us to work it out. (He did it regularly in the case
of Solomon). In this case it was that he did right in the eyes of YHWHall the while
that Jehoiada was instructing him. This hint is expanded on when he gives details of
the judgments that fell on Jehoash towards the end of his reign. We are left to
gather that once Jehoiada’s influence had been removed Jehoash was unfaithful to
YHWH (something confirmed in 2 Chronicles 24).
PULPIT, "And Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all his days
wherein Jehoiada the priest instructed him. So the Septuagint, the Vulgate, Luther,
De Wette, Keil, Bahr, and our Revisers. Only Ewald and Thenius attempt to make
the passage contradict Chronicles by translating, "Jehoash did that which was right
in the sight of the Lord all his days, because Jehoiada the priest had instructed
him." But this translation is very forced and unnatural. The writer evidently
intended to add a qualifying clause to his statement that Joash reigned well "all his
days," but did not wish to draw too much attention to it.
BI, "And Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord.
Influence
For the right understanding of the character and reign of Jehoash we should consult not
only the account given in the present chapter, but also that in the parallel chapter in the
book of Chronicles; the narrative in the book of Kings being more full of matters
pertaining to the early piety of the monarch, while that of the Chronicles details with
more minuteness the causes that led to his declension, and the occasion of his shameful
fall. During the minority of Jehoash the affairs of the kingdom went on comparatively
well. His beginnings were full of promise, and even for several years after he was of full
age the young king seemed chiefly anxious to carry out the plans and projects of

Jehoiada; not only on account of the comfort he would naturally feel in leaning on a
stronger arm, but in some degree, no doubt, from gratitude to one to whom he felt he
was indebted both for his life and his throne. So that, as both histories inform us, “All
the days of Jehoiada, Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord.” But
while the king was yet in his prime, his faithful adviser died, and very soon other and far
different counsels were in the ascendant. The princes of Judah, knowing that a want of
self-reliance was a great infirmity of the king’s character, seeing that his prop was gone,
and persuaded that he was as much dependant upon that prop for his religion as upon
anything else, plied him with audacious proposals to forsake the temple of God, and to
transfer his worship to the idols of the grove “And he hearkened to them.” From this
time his fall was rapid. The moral of it, the point which stands out from all others, is the
evil of a religion which is based upon the influence of another mind; which has no root in
itself, but which, being unstable as water, and flexible as a reed shaken with the wind,
will neither bear fruit unto holiness, nor have its end in everlasting life.
1. And, first, let us advert to the habit of mind itself against which we are cautioned,
in order that we may detach from it for separate consideration so much as may be
due to a constitutional weakness of character—to a natural diffidence end dread of
having to go alone, which, as not coming within the scope of our moral powers
entirely to eradicate, we must believe either the mercy of God will pardon, or His
grace will rectify and render harmless. We cannot doubt that the existence of this is a
common form of mental infirmity, which allies itself to intellects of the highest
reach, and to souls of the most indomitable and commanding power. That tyrant,
who at the beginning of the present century made more than half the nations of
Europe tremble, had as little of the self-reliant element in his nature as the lowest
subaltern he ever ordered to the field. True, when he had resolved upon a step,
neither difficulty nor danger moved him; but to make him resolve upon it he must
have the consents of some trusted and approving mind; in private life, being as much
influenced by his empress, as in public matters, he leaned on the counsels of
Talleyrand. If this practical subjugation to the will and counsel of another, this
tendency to hang on, and hold on by what is felt to be a stronger judgment, be found
among the higher and more towering spirits of our race, how much more shall we
look for it in the humbler and more dependant ranks. Some men are born into the
world with a soft, pliant, treacherous debility of will. They must have somebody to
think after, and speak after, and act after. They hold their wills, as it were, by feudal
tenure under other people’s will, changing both Lord and service, if need be, seven
times a day. Such persons appear, at first sight, to be a good deal at the mercy of
their providential lot, in the power of those accidents and associations which shall
bring them under the permanent ascendant of a better or of a more corrupt mind; of
a Jehoiada who will lead them in the good and the right way, or of the dissolute
princes of Judah who will be as oracles to mislead, and as guides to destroy. But we
allow not that our soul’s life can be suspended on any such precarious issues we must
not make a god of temperament, nor a god of circumstances; but we must believe of
original tendencies of character as of any other cause which may be injurious to our
moral steadfastness, that there is provided for us, in the economy of grace, a way of
escape, an ordained antidote to our nature’s evil, whereby God may get honour upon
our infirmities, and out of weakness make us strong. But passing from the case of
any constitutional liability to be influenced by other minds, let us address ourselves
to the evil of the habit itself, when it allows others to think and act for us in the great
concerns of personal religion. And proceeding upon the example furnished by our
text, we ought to take a case where the influencing or ascendant mind is, according

to our common human estimates, a strong mind, a good mind, a mind formed to
lead, and honestly and earnestly bent on leading right. In many cases, no doubt, this
may be a great advantage. It is a happy thing for young people setting out in life to be
under the instruction and control of one whose desire is always to lead them in the
good and the right way. And yet we ought to show that if our religion stands only in
the power which this mental control wields over us, and goes no lower down to the
depths of our moral being than that example can reach, or that influence can
minister to, such religion will be vain, will never become more than a surface
religion, will not keep itself fixed and fastened in the roots of our moral nature, and
consequently in time of temptation we shall fall away. The relation out of which this
subordinating influence arises, makes no difference in the evil and danger of
becoming enslaved to it. It may be that of a parent exercising a control over the filial
conscience which belongs to him by the eternal prescription of heaven; or that of a
husband drawing the wife into assimilations of thought and feeling, almost before
she is aware of it—affection promoting the influence, and the marriage sanctities
giving to it the force of law. Or it may be that of a pastor, having begotten us, in
Christ Jesus through the Gospel. You will ask me why? I answer, first, because such a
religion is essentially false and defective in principle. It originates neither in love to
God, nor gratitude to Christ, nor deep views of sin, nor in delight in holy service, nor
in aspirations after the sanctity and bliss of heaven; but chiefly in a desire to approve
itself to some dominant and controlling influence. Water cannot rise above its level;
and as Jehoiada, whether from temperament or policy, had done nothing to remove
the high places of sacrifice, though confessedly a reproach to the temple service,
Jehoash would do nothing either; and so the eulogium, even of his early goodness,
has to be qualified by the remark, “But the high places were not taken away.” The
examples are rare where, in the race of goodness, the disciple outstrips his chosen
guide; and if he does so, it is because a better guide has taken him in hand, and the
master influence has become merged in the mightier power of the Spirit of God. But,
as a rule, the subject mind will keep below the religious standards and measures of
its superior. All its goodness is derived goodness, and it shines only in a borrowed
light. And as the standard of piety is low, so the acts of which it specially consists are
prompted, often by a feeble sentimentality, or perhaps with a view to the praise of
men. Conspicuous among the pious acts of Jehoash was his zeal in setting about the
repairs of the temple, injured less by the hand of time than by the sacrilegious
spoliations of idolators. It were easy to account for this zeal on other grounds than
those of personal goodness. That temple was very dear to him. How natural to
address himself vigorously to a work so gratifying to Jehoiada, so easily mistaken by
himself for the dictate of pious emotion, and so calculated to gain him favour with
his subjects for a loving attachment to the truth of God. And so, also, it may be with
us, while our religion is in other’s keeping. We may love the temple, have joy in
ordinances, feel a thrill of sacred pleasure under the power of the Word, and for the
largeness of our alms be called “the repairer of the breach, the restorer of the path to
dwell in,” while of any principle of vital godliness we may be as destitute as Jehoash
was. Rooted and grounded in the depths of the carnal heart may be hidden the seeds
of an unsuspected idolatry, which wait bus the scorching sun of temptation to
develop into pernicious fruit, to turn the repairer of the temple into a worshipper of
the grove, and lead a lover of faithful teaching to slay between the temple and the
altar a servant of the living God.
2. But, secondly, we say of a religion that owes its being to any merely mental
deferences, that it will always be feeble and languid, and inefficient in itself, that it

will leave its possessor unprepared for the struggles, and temptations, and rough
discipline of life, a prey to the first evil influence that shall try to make a captive of
him, and to be overcome by the first afflictive trial which shall send him to the
foundation of his trusts. So weak was the hold which the religion of Jehoash had
upon his conscience, that he yielded to the most visible and transparent lure ever
man’s soul was taken withal, namely, the fawning sycophancy of a few unprincipled
courtiers, asking as the boon price of their service, that he should cast off the
worship of his fathers, violate the covenant of his God, and bow the knee only before
the divinities of the grove. “And the king hearkened to them.” Yes, for why should he
not? His religion had all along been the creature of influence, and therefore, must
change as often as the ascendant influence changed. Strength of its own, such
religion has none, either to resist or attack. It is impotent as the autumn leaf, now
lifted up in circling eddies by the blast, now waiting in passive helplessness the first
footstep that shall crush it to the earth. And hence, I say in all this religion obtained
at second hand, this derived Christianity of another mind, there will generally be
found a sickly irresolution Of purpose, a sort of letting out of one’s moral powers to
the highest and most powerful bidder. The man who trusts in it is not his own
master; he is the property of the first strong will that shall think the appendage
worth having. But true religion, that which is rooted in a Divine principle and a
Divine influence, is a hardy thing, a manly thing. It is furnished for the cloudy and
dark day, and expects its coming. Deep in the springs of its unseen life is an element
of strength which gives dignity to the character, composure to the spirit, a
settledness and perseverance to the once-formed resolve which nothing can bend,
nothing can turn aside.
3. But the text suggests a third reason for predicting the inevitable miscarriage of a
religion which is dependant for its life on surrounding influences, namely, that the
very friends that helped to make us as good as we are, may, in the providence of God
be taken away. “Jehoash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all his days
wherein Jehoiada the priest instructed him.” But Jehoiada died; and what did he do
then? Why, evil, and evil only. The morning cloud disperseth not sooner, nor the
early dew when it passeth away, than did that fabric of gossamer and unsubstantial
goodness, which a breath was to destroy even as a breath had made. And it seems to
be in obedience to a law, as if it was a Nemesis of God on the mind that leans on
human trusts, that Jehoash became more impious and profane for having known
something of the semblance of piety before. Just as the emperor Nero, conspicuous
for humanity and virtue while he had the counsels of Seneca to guide him, went
down to the grave a monster with the execration of posterity upon his head. Some
lessons arise from this aspect of our subject brethren, whether as applied to those
who consciously and of purpose have joined themselves to the train of a superior
mind, and, only to please him, kept up a show of goodness, or to those who, having a
loving and leaning confidence in another’s wisdom and piety, have been content to
draw from him all their soul’s life and strength, and, unconsciously to themselves, to
let him be to them instead of God. To the former Jehoash leaves the lesson that it
would have been better for them never to have known good things at all. They are
fretting under a yoke for a season, only to indulge in more unrestrained licence as
soon as it shall be taken off. The instant the weight is lifted off, the bent bow will fly
back with more violent rebound. There may be love for a season, zeal for a season,
concern for holy things for a season, but when Jehoiada is dead, the long pent-up
energies of evil will burst forth, and like the heir long kept out of the expected
inheritance, the heart plunges into the thick of its carnal thoughts, and as if to take

revenge on itself for its forced early goodness, the man endeavours to crowd as much
iniquity as he can into the remainder of his days. But there is a lesson also to those
who do not fret under their mental subjection, who, in heart love their Jehoiada, and
indeed, whose chief danger is that they love him too much, and who, therefore, think
within themselves, “If he should be taken away what good will our lives be to us, or
what power shall keep us faithful unto our pious work?” So may reason the son, who,
breathing from his youth the pure atmosphere of domestic piety, has seen in the life
of his parents all that could ennoble godliness, and all that could make virtue loved.
But I must conclude with a few practical counsels, am helpful to guide us from the
danger of which this history warns us.
(1) And first, I would say, have a care of being deceived as to your spiritual state,
by what may be called the amiabilities of religion. Cradled in the sanctuary,
nursed by a pious aunt, his early years watched over by a faithful servant of God,
it had been a wonder if the early outward life of Jehoash had not been full of
grace and promise.
(2) A second counsel I would offer, is, see to it that there be no holding an
undecided course in your religion. Jehoash does not seem to have actually joined
the princes of Judah. But, “he hearkened to them,” and from that they knew his
mind. “He that wavereth is like a wave of the sea,” saith St. James, “driven of the
wind and tossed”—an unsettled, divided heart, the absence of all serenity and
repose, and an acute sensitiveness to every disturbing influence, a never
continuing in one stay. Lastly, as ye would have a goodness that shall stand with
us in time, and shall abide the ordeal of that fire which is to try every man’s work
of what sort it is, see that ye have an inward experience of the vital realities of
religion—the regenerate will, the renewed mind, the revival of that spiritual
image upon the conscience which, after God, is created in righteousness and true
holiness. You cannot be too severe, too searching in ascertaining your personal
participation in these essentials of the spiritual character. (D. Moore, M. A.)
The fruit of wise guardianship seen in later life
At Frogmore, on the 16th of March 1861, the Duchess of Kent, mother of our beloved
Queen, passed tranquilly into eternity at the ripe age of seventy-five. Her husband, the
Duke of Kent, died six days before his father, George III., leaving the presumptive heir to
England’s crown in charge of the Duchess, his wife. “I do nominate, constitute, and
appoint my beloved wife Victoria, Duchess of Kent,” said the Duke in his will, “to be sole
guardian of our dear child, Princess Alexandra Victoria, to all intents and for all
purposes whatsoever.” During the seventeen years which elapsed between her husband’s
death and the accession of her daughter, the Duchess devoted heart and soul to the
responsible but honourable task committed to her, and she lived to see the blessed
results of her labour of love. It is to the wise, virtuous, and self-sacrificing discharge of
her maternal duties, under the blessing of God, that this country is largely indebted for
possessing a Queen whose life illustrates all that we most love in woman, and whose
reign exemplifies all that we most respect in a Sovereign. (William Francis.)
A lean-to religion
“Many men owe their religion, not to grace, but to the favour of the times; they follow it

because it is in fashion, and they can profess it at a cheap rate, because none contradict
it. They do not build upon the rock, but set up a shed leaning to another man’s house,
which costs them nothing.” The idea of a lean-to religion is somewhat rough, hut
eminently suggestive. Weak characters cannot stand alone, like mansions; but must
needs lean on others, like the miserable shops which nestle under certain Continental
cathedrals. Under the eaves of old customs many build their plaster-nests, like swallows.
Such are good, if good at all, because their patrons made virtue the price of their
patronage. They love honesty because it proves to be the best policy, and piety because it
serves as an introduction to trade with saints. Their religion is little more than courtesy
to other men’s opinions, civility to godliness. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
3 The high places, however, were not removed;
the people continued to offer sacrifices and burn
incense there.
BAR ES, "The worship on the “high places” seems to have continued
uninterruptedly to the time of Hezekiah, who abolished it 2Ki_18:4. It was, however,
again established by Manasseh, his son 2Ki_21:3. The priests at this time cannot have
regarded it as idolatrous, or Jehoiada would have put it during his regency.
CLARKE, "The high places were not taken away - Without the total
destruction of these there could be no radical reform. The toleration of any species of
idolatry in the land, whatever else was done in behalf of true religion, left, and in effect
fostered, a seed which springing up, regenerated in time the whole infernal system.
Jehoiada did not use his influence as he might have done; for as he had the king’s heart
and hand with him, he might have done what he pleased.
GILL, "But the high places were not taken away,.... Used before the temple was
built, or set up in Rehoboam's time, 1Ki_14:23 contrary to the law of God, which
required that sacrifices should only be offered in the place the Lord chose to dwell in,
Deu_12:4 the people still sacrificed and burnt incense in the high places; as they had
done in the times of Athaliah, and though the pure worship of God was restored at
Jerusalem; and indeed this they did in all preceding reigns; nor was it in the power of
the best of kings, at least they did not think it safe to attempt to remove them till
Hezekiah's time; so fond were the people of them because of their antiquity and
supposed sanctity, and for the sake of ease.
JAMISO , "But the high places were not taken away — The popular fondness

for the private and disorderly rites performed in the groves and recesses of hills was so
inveterate that even the most powerful monarchs had been unable to accomplish their
suppression; no wonder that in the early reign of a young king, and after the gross
irregularities that had been allowed during the maladministration of Athaliah, the
difficulty of putting an end to the superstitions associated with “the high places” was
greatly increased.
K&D, "2Ki_12:3
(4). But the worship on the high places was not entirely suppressed, notwithstanding
the fact that Jehoiada instructed him (on this standing formula see the Comm. on 1Ki_
15:14).
BE SO , "2 Kings 12:3. But the high places were not taken away — The people
were so much and so strangely addicted to these private altars, (on which they
sacrificed to the true God,) that the preceding kings, though men of riper years and
greater power and courage than Jehoash, and firmly established on their thrones,
were not able to remove them. And, therefore, it is not strange that Jehoiada could
not now take them away, when the king was young, and not well settled in his
kingdom, and when the people were more corrupt and disorderly through
Athaliah’s mal-administration.
ELLICOTT, "(3) But.—Save that; as at 2 Kings 15:4. (For the statement of the
verse, comp. 1 Kings 15:14.)
Sacrificed . . . burnt.—Were wont to sacrifice . . . burn. The worship of the high
places continued even under the régime of Jehoiada.
PETT, "2 Kings 12:3
‘However the high places were not taken away. The people still sacrificed and burnt
incense in the high places.’
However, even in the best days there was still a failing, for no great effort was made
to remove the many high places where the people themselves sacrificed and offered
incense. It was a natural but dangerous procedure for the people who lived at some
distance from the Temple or other official high place, to make use of the ancient
sanctuaries which had been set up from of yore in the hills for the worship of the
ancient gods. They felt that they had a certain sanctity, and using such sanctuaries
gave them an opportunity to personally express their faith. In many cases they were
genuinely seeking to worship YHWH, but using the old sanctuaries was dangerous,
both because they contained symbols of the old gods which could easily then be
incorporated into their worship (the pillars and the Asherah poles/images), and also
because they then absorbed the ideas associated with them, ideas which had already

been the ruin of Israel. It was so easy to think of Baal (meaning ‘lord’) in terms of
YHWH. (See Hosea 2:16).
PULPIT, "But the high places were not taken away. So it had been with the best of
the previous kings of Judah, as Asa (1 Kings 15:14) and Jehoshaphat (1 Kings
22:43); and so it was with the other "good" kings (2 Kings 14:4; 2 Kings 15:4, 2
Kings 15:35) until the reign of Hezekiah, by whom the high places were removed
(see below, 2 Kings 18:4). We must remember that it was Jehovah who was
worshipped in the "high places," not Baal, or Moloch, or Ashtoreth (see the
comment on l Kings 2 Kings 15:14). The people still sacrificed and burnt incense in
the high places. The people, not the king, in the earlier portion of his reign; but in
the later portion, probably the king also (see 2 Chronicles 24:17, 2 Chronicles
24:18).
4 Joash 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.
BAR ES, "It is remarkable that the first movement toward restoring the fabric of the
temple should have come, not from Jehoiada, but from Jehoash (compare 2Ch_24:4).
Jehoiada had, it seems, allowed the mischief done in Athaliah’s time to remain
unrepaired during the whole term of his government.
The money of every one ... - Three kinds of sacred money are here distinguished -
first, the half shekel required in the Law Exo_30:13 to be paid by every one above twenty
years of age when he passed the numbering; secondly, the money to be paid by such as
had devoted themselves, or those belonging to them, by vow to Yahweh, which was a
variable sum dependent on age, sex, and property Lev_27:2-8; and thirdly, the money
offered in the way of free-will offerings.
CLARKE, "All the money of the dedicated things - From all this account we
find that the temple was in a very ruinous state; the walls were falling down, some had
perhaps actually fallen, and there was no person so zealous for the pure worship of God,

as to exert himself to shore up the falling temple!
The king himself seems to have been the first who noticed these dilapidations, and
took measures for the necessary repairs. The repairs were made from the following
sources:
1. The things which pious persons had dedicated to the service of God.
2. The free-will offerings of strangers who had visited Jerusalem: the money of every
one that passeth.
3. The half-shekel which the males were obliged to pay from the age of twenty years
(Exo_30:12) for the redemption of their souls, that is their lives, which is here
called the money that every man is set at.
All these sources had ever been in some measure open, but instead of repairing the
dilapidations in the Lord’s house, the priests and Levites had converted the income to
their own use.
GILL, "And Jehoash said to the priests,.... Being minded or having it in his heart,
to repair the temple, as in 2Ch_24:4 not only because it was the sanctuary of the Lord,
though that chiefly, but because it had been a sanctuary to him, where he was hid and
preserved six years:
all the money of the dedicated things that is brought into the house of the
Lord: or rather, "that is to be brought", as De Dieu, and others render it, the particulars
of which follow:
even the money of everyone that passeth the account; or that passeth among
them that are numbered, as in Exo_30:13 that were upwards of twenty years of age, and
bound to pay the half shekel for the ransom of their souls; and it is called the collection
or burden Moses laid on them in the wilderness, 2Ch_24:6.
the money that every man is set at; the price the priest set upon or estimated a man
at, or whomsoever that belonged to him, that he devoted to the Lord, which by the law
he was bound to pay for his redemption, and, till that was done, he and they were not
his, but the Lord's, of which see Lev_27:1 and here the Targum calls it, the money of the
redemption of souls, which is the gift of a man for the redemption of his soul:
and all the money that cometh into any man's heart to bring into the house
of the Lord: vows and freewill offerings made of their own accord.
HE RY 4-5, "We have here an account of the repairing of the temple in the reign of
Joash.
I. It seems, the temple had gone out of repair. Though Solomon built it very strong, of
the best materials and in the best manner, yet in time it went to decay, and there were
breaches found in it (2Ki_12:5), in the roofs, or walls, or floors, the ceiling, or
wainscoting, or windows, or the partitions of the courts. Even temples themselves are
the worse for the wearing; but the heavenly temple will never wax old. Yet it was not only
the teeth of time that made these breaches, the sons of Athaliah had broken up the house
of God (2Ch_24:7), and, out of enmity to the service of the temple, had damaged the

buildings of it, and the priests had not taken care to repair the breaches in time, so that
they went worse and worse. Unworthy were those husbandmen to have this valuable
vineyard let out to them upon such easy terms who could not afford to keep the
winepress in due and tenantable repair, Mat_21:33. Justly did their great Lord sue them
for this permissive waste, and by his judgments recover locum vastatum - for
dilapidations (as the law speaks), when this neglected temple was laid even with the
ground.
II. The king himself was (as it should seem) the first and forwardest man that took
care for the repair of it. We do not find that the priests complained of it or that Jehoiada
himself was active in it, but the king was zealous in the matter, 1. Because he was king,
and God expects and requires from those who have power that they use it for the
maintenance and support of religion, the redress of grievances, and reparation of decays,
for the exciting and engaging of ministers to do their part and people theirs. 2. Because
the temple had been both his nursery and his sanctuary when he was a child, in a
grateful remembrance of which he now appeared zealous for the honour of it. Those who
have experienced the comfort and benefit of religious assemblies will make the reproach
of them their burden (Zep_3:18), the support of them their care, and the prosperity of
them their chief joy.
III. The priests were ordered to collect money for these repairs, and to take care that
the work was done. The king had the affairs of his kingdom to mind, and could not
himself inspect this affair, but he employed the priests to manage it, the fittest persons,
and most likely, one would think, to be hearty in it. 1. He gave them orders for the
levying of the money of the dedicated things. They must not stay till it was paid in, but
they must call for it where they knew it was due, in their respective districts, as
redemption-money (by virtue of the law, Lev_27:2, Lev_27:3), or as a free-will offering,
2Ki_12:4. This they were to gather every man of his acquaintance, and it was supposed
that there was no man but had acquaintance with some or other of the priests. Note, We
should take the opportunity that God gives us of exciting those we have a particular
acquaintance with to that which is good. 2. He gave them orders for laying out the
money they had levied in repairing the breaches of the house, 2Ki_12:5.
JAMISO , "Jehoash said to the priests, etc. — There is here given an account of
the measures which the young king took for repairing the temple by the levying of taxes:
1. “The money of every one that passeth the account,” namely, half a shekel, as “an
offering to the Lord” (Exo_30:13). 2. “The money that every man is set at,” that is, the
redemption price of every one who had devoted himself or any thing belonging to him to
the Lord, and the amount of which was estimated according to certain rules (Lev_27:1-
8). 3. Free will or voluntary offerings made to the sanctuary. The first two were paid
annually (see 2Ch_24:5).
K&D 4-5. Repairing of the temple (cf. 2Ch_24:5-14). - 2Ki_12:4, 2Ki_12:5. That the
temple, which had fallen into ruins, might be restored, Joash ordered the priests to
collect all the money of the consecrated gifts, that was generally brought into the house
of the Lord, and to effect therewith all the repairs that were needed in the temple. The
general expression ‫ים‬ ִ‫שׁ‬ ָ‫ד‬ ֳ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ף‬ ֶ‫ס‬ ֶⅴ, money of the holy gifts, i.e., money derived from holy
gifts, is more specifically defined by ‫וגו‬ ‫ר‬ ֵ‫ּוב‬‫ע‬ ‫ף‬ ֶ‫ס‬ ֶⅴ, according to which it consisted of three
kinds of payments to the temple: viz., (1) ‫ר‬ ֵ‫ּוב‬‫ע‬ ‫ף‬ ֶ‫ס‬ ֶⅴ, i.e., money of persons mustered (or
numbered in the census); ‫ר‬ ֵ‫ּוב‬‫ע‬ is an abbreviated expression for ‫ים‬ ִ‫ד‬ ֻ‫ק‬ ְ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ר‬ ֵ‫ּוב‬‫ע‬ ָ‫,ה‬ “he who

passes over to those who are numbered” (Exo_30:13), as it has been correctly
interpreted by the Chald., Rashi, Abarb., and others; whereas the explanation “money
that passes” (Luther), or current coin, which Thenius still defends, yields not suitable
sense, since it is impossible to see why only current coin should be accepted, and not
silver in bars of vessels, inasmuch as Moses had accepted gold, silver, copper, and other
objects of value in natura, for the building of the tabernacle (Exo_24:2-3; Exo_35:5;
Exo_36:5-6). The brevity of the expression may be explained from the fact, that ‫ר‬ ֵ‫ּוב‬‫ע‬ ‫ף‬ ֶ‫ס‬ ֶⅴ
had become a technical term on the ground of the passage in the law already cited. The
objection raised by Thenius, that the explanation adopted would be without any parallel,
would, if it could be sustained, also apply to his own explanation “current money,” in
which ‫ר‬ ֵ‫ּוב‬‫ע‬ is also taken as an abbreviation of ‫ר‬ ֵ‫ּה‬ ַ‫ל‬ ּ ַ‫ל‬ ‫ר‬ ֵ‫ּב‬‫ע‬ in Gen_23:16. There is still less
ground for the other objection, that if ‫ר‬ ֵ‫ּוב‬‫ע‬ ‫ף‬ ֶ‫ס‬ ֶⅴ denoted one kind of temple-revenue, ‫ּל‬ⅴ or
‫ישׁ‬ ִ‫א‬ would necessarily have been used. (2) ‫ּו‬ⅴ ְ‫ר‬ ֶ‫ישׁ...ע‬ ִ‫,א‬ “every kind of souls' valuation
money;” ‫ישׁ‬ ִ‫א‬ is more precisely defined by ‫ּו‬ⅴ ְ‫ר‬ ֶ‫,ע‬ and the position in which it stands before
‫ף‬ ֶ‫ס‬ ֶⅴ resembles the ‫ּו‬‫ר‬ ְ‫ת‬ ִ in Gen_15:10 -literally, soul money of each one's valuation.
Thenius is wrong in his interpretation, “every kind of money of the souls according to
their valuation,” to which he appends the erroneous remark, that ‫ישׁ‬ ִ‫א‬ is also used in Zec_
10:1 and Joe_2:7 in connection with inanimate objects as equivalent to ‫ּל‬ⅴ. ‫ּו‬ⅴ ְ‫ר‬ ֶ‫ישׁ...ע‬ ִ‫,א‬
every kind of valuation, because both in the redemption of the male first-born (Num_
18:15-16) and also in the case of persons under a vow a payment had to be made
according to the valuation of the priest. (3) “All the money that cometh into any one's
mind to bring into the house of the Lord,” i.e., all the money which was offered as a free-
will offering to the sanctuary. This money the priests were to take to themselves, every
one from his acquaintance, and therewith repair all the dilapidations that were to be
found in the temple. In the Chronicles the different kinds of money to be collected for
this purpose are not specified; but the whole is embraced under the general expression
“the taxes of Moses the servant of God, and of the congregation of Israel, to the tent of
the testimony,” which included not only the contribution of half a shekel for the building
of the temple, which is prescribed in Exo_30:12., but also the other two taxes mentioned
in this account.
(Note: There is no ground either in the words or in the facts for restricting the
perfectly general expression “taxes of Moses and of the congregation of Israel” to the
payment mentioned in Exo_30:12, as Thenius and Bertheau have done, except
perhaps the wish to find a discrepancy between the two accounts, for the purpose of
being able to accuse the chronicler, if not of intentional falsification, as De Wette
does, at any rate of perverting the true state of the case. The assertion of Thenius,
that the yearly payment of half a shekel, which was appointed in the law and
regarded as atonement-money, appears to be directly excluded in our text, is simply
founded upon the interpretation given to ‫ר‬ ֵ‫ּוב‬‫ע‬ ‫ף‬ ֶ‫ס‬ ֶⅴ as current money, which we have
already proved to be false.)
Again, according to 2Ki_12:7 of the Chronicles, Joash gave the following reason for his
command: “For Athaliah, the wicked woman, and her sons have demolished the house of
God, and all the dedicated gifts of the house of Jehovah have they used for the Baals.”
We are not told in what the violent treatment of demolition (‫ץ‬ ַ‫ר‬ ָ ) of the temple by
Athaliah had her sons consisted. The circumstance that considerable repairs even of the
stonework of the temple were required in the time of Joash, about 130 or 140 years after

it was built, is quite conceivable without any intentional demolition. And in no case can
we infer from these words, as Thenius has done, that Athaliah or her sons had erected a
temple of Baal within the limits of the sanctuary. The application of all the dedicatory
offerings of the house of Jehovah to the Baals, involves nothing more than that the gifts
which were absolutely necessary for the preservation of the temple and temple-service
were withdrawn from the sanctuary of Jehovah and applied to the worship of Baal, and
therefore that the decay of the sanctuary would necessarily follow upon the neglect of the
worship.
BE SO , "2 Kings 12:4. And Jehoash said to the priests — The house of God
having been neglected, and suffered to go to decay in the time of Athaliah and her
son, Jehoash, in gratitude to God, who had preserved him there, resolved to have it
repaired; and, in order thereto, commanded what money should be set apart for
that purpose. All the money of the dedicated things — That had been or should
hereafter be brought and dedicated to the service of God and of the temple. As it
appears from 2 Chronicles 24:5, that the priests went through the land to collect
money, it seems the people were required to dedicate something toward these
repairs. The money of every one that passeth the account — The words, the account,
are not in the Hebrew, so that it is likely this clause is to be understood of the
offerings which pious people cast into the boxes prepared to receive them, as they
passed into the temple. The money that every man is set at — amely, the money
that every man, who had vowed his person to God, paid or was to pay for his
redemption, by the estimation made by the priest, according to the law, Leviticus
27:2-3. In the Hebrew it is the money of souls, or persons according to his taxing. As
soon as this money was paid by any one, he was freed from the vow wherewith he
had bound himself: but till it was paid, his life was not his own, but God’s. All the
money that cometh into any man’s heart to bring, &c. — This was the third sort of
money for the reparation of the temple; that which any man would give freely for
that service.
COFFMA , ""In current money" (2 Kings 12:4). "Three kinds of money are
mentioned here: (1) the half-shekel required by the Law (Exodus 30:13); (2) the
money paid by those who had devoted themselves or made vows, a variable sum
depending on age, sex, and property (Leviticus 27:2-8); and (3) the money offered in
the way of free-will offerings."[3]
The narrative in this paragraph indicates that the king ordered the priests to repair
the breaches in the temple, but that for some indefinite time (not indicated in the
text) they did not do so, continuing to use all the money they received for themselves.
With ten of the twelve tribes now under a separate system of government and no
longer giving anything whatever for the support of the temple and its priests and
Levites, coupled with the unfavorable economic conditions, the priests might not
have been receiving enough money to do what the king ordered. There also might
have been some instances of dishonesty in their handling of the money, although the

text does not say that.
"Every man from his acquaintance" (2 Kings 12:4). It is not clear here just what
this means; but in 2 Chronicles 24:5 we learn that "The collection was to be made
throughout Judah, each of the priests and Levites collecting the temple tax in his
own neighborhood."[4]
"The priests consented that they should take no more money from the people,
neither repair the breaches in the temple" (2 Kings 12:8). This indicates that the
priests consented to take no more money "from the people," that is, the revenue
from certain classes of the three sources of money mentioned above, and that they
were also to be freed of any further obligation to repair the temple. See under 2
Kings 12:16 for the portion of the money that was strictly allotted to the priests.
The net result of this new arrangement was to take the affairs of the temple out of
the hands of the priests and concentrate them in the hands of the king, which, of
course, proved to be an unhappy development.
The fact that the twenty-third year of Joash's reign had been reached with nothing
being done to repair the temple leaves an unfavorable impression regarding the
priesthood of that period. The following paragraph shows that the king himself took
charge of the temple finances. Thus, very early in Israel's history, we have evidence
of the corruption of the Jewish priesthood, a corruption that reached its climax in
the days of Malachi. when God Himself actually cursed that priesthood (Malachi
2:1-2).
ELLICOTT, "(4) The money’ of the dedicated things.—Comp. 1 Kings 15:15.
Is brought—i.e., from time to time. All the silver given for the purposes of the
sanctuary is meant.
Even the money of every one that passeth the account.—Rather, to wit, current
money (Genesis 23:16). The currency at this period consisted of pieces of silver of a
fixed weight. There was no such thing as a Hebrew coinage before the exile. The
reason “current money” was wanted was that it might be paid out immediately to
the workpeople employed in the repairs.
The money that every man is set at.—Literally, each the money of the souls of his
valuation, i.e., every kind of redemption money, such as was paid in the case of the
first-born ( umbers 18:16) and of a vow (Leviticus 27:2, seq.). In the latter case, the
priest fixed the amount to be paid.
And all the money that cometh into any man’s heart to bring—That is, all the free-
will offerings in money. In 2 Chronicles 24:6 the revenues here specified are called
“the tax of Moses . . . for the tabernacle,” implying that Moses had originally
instituted them. The chronicler’s language, indeed, appears to indicate that he

understood the money collected to have been chiefly the tax of half a shekel, which
the law ordered to be paid by every male on occasion of the census (Exodus 30:12-
16), for the good of the sanctuary.
GUZIK, "2. (2 Kings 12:4-5) Jehoash makes a decree regarding the repair of the
temple.
And Jehoash said to the priests, “All the money of the dedicated gifts that are
brought into the house of the LORD each man’s census money, each man’s
assessment money; and all the money that a man purposes in his heart to bring into
the house of the LORD, let the priests take it themselves, each from his
constituency; and let them repair the damages of the temple, wherever any
dilapidation is found.”
a. All the money of the dedicated gifts: There was a regular income coming into the
temple from several different sources. King Jehoash wanted to put that money
towards a particular purpose.
i. This money was received in three ways:
· Each man’s census money: This was the half shekel each Israelite older than
the age of twenty had to pay every year (Exodus 20:13).
· Each man’s assessment money: “That is, literally, ‘each man the money of his
souls of his estimating.’ This was a kind of property tax based on the personal
assessment of each individual (Leviticus 27:2).” (Dilday)
· All the money that a man purposes in his heart to bring into the house of the
LORD: These were freely given offerings over and above the required donations.
ii. “All these sources had ever been in some measure open, but instead of repairing
the dilapidations in the Lord’s house, the priests and the Levites had converted the
income to their own use.” (Clarke) King Joash, working through the priests,
corrected this problem.
b. Let them repair the damages of the temple: It was natural for Joash to have a
high regard for the condition of the temple, because it was his home as a young boy.
i. The temple needed restoration because it was vandalized by Athaliah and her sons
(2 Chronicles 24:7).
PETT, "2 Kings 12:4-5
‘And Jehoash said to the priests, “All the money of the hallowed things which is
brought into the house of YHWH, in current money, the money of the persons for

whom each man is rated, and all the money that it comes into any man’s heart to
bring into the house of YHWH, let the priests take it to them, every man from his
acquaintance, and they shall repair the breaches of the house, wherever any breach
shall be found.” ’
We are not told at what stage in his reign Jehoash took an interest in the repair of
the Temple and decided that it had to be borne by the people rather than by the
royal treasury. The Temple had been allowed to fall to some extent into disrepair by
Jehoram, Ahaziah and Athaliah even though the first two had, as was customary,
laid up treasures in it. They had been more interested in the prosperity and welfare
of the temple of Baal, and had stripped the Temple in order to embellish Baal’s
temple (2 Chronicles 24:7). And it was only too easy for even the most orthodox
priests of YHWH to feel the sanctity of the ancient building and thus be hesitant
about ‘modernising’ it. As 2 Kings 11:6 speaks of the twenty third year of his reign
we probably have to think in terms of half way through his reign when he would
still only be around twenty eight.
So Jehoash decided that something definitely had to be done about the Temple, but
not from the royal treasury. It was the general custom among kings of those days to
maintain the temples of their gods, and the Temple in Jerusalem was to some extent
the king’s chapel (he had his own private way into it), so that this was unusual. We
may well see this as the first sign of his spiritual decline. He thus commanded that
the priests be given the funds pouring into the Temple from the ‘holy offerings’.
These included anything ‘devoted’ to YHWH, moneys collected from the people for
the specific purpose of repairing the Temple (1 Chronicles 24:5-6) through the
possibly previously neglected yearly poll tax (Exodus 30:11-16), the votive offerings
paid according to age and sex (Leviticus 37), and the freewill and thanksgiving
offerings. The aim was for these to be used to finance the repairing of the breaches
in the Temple.
Although the term ‘money’ is used in translations, and has been used here, it should
be recognised that this term is not strictly correct. At this time coins had not been
invented, and payments were made in gold and silver and by barter. Thus ‘current
money’ does not mean ‘current coin’ for there was none. Rather it refers to gifts of
silver, gold, bronze, etc. brought in at the current time.
‘Let the priests take it to them, every man from his acquaintance (or business
assessor).’ The idea here is that the priests had overall responsibility for the moneys,
and were also to use it for repairing the building. It was thus to be passed to priests
by priests. Alternately, and more probably, the word for ‘acquaintance’ (makkaro)
may be translated ‘business assessor’ on the basis of the Akkadian makaru.
Compare how the mkrm are listed at Ugarit along with the priests and other temple
personnel. Their main continuing responsibility in the Temple was probably the
assessing of the value of sacrificial animals and various offerings.
PULPIT, "2 Kings 12:4-16

The repair of the temple. It is rather surprising that the temple had not been
thoroughly repaired by Jehoiada during the long minority of Joash, when he must
practically have had the sole management of affairs. Probably he did repair the
worst of the damage done by Athaliah's orders (2 Chronicles 24:7), which may have
been very considerable, but neglected the restoration of such portions of the edifice
as appeared to him of secondary importance, as the walls of the courts and the
outbuildings. Joash, however, when his minority came to an end, and he succeeded
to the administration of the state, took a different view. To him the completion of
the repairs seemed a pressing business. Probably he thought the honor of God
required the entire obliteration of Athaliah's wicked proceedings, and the renewal
of the temple's old glories. His six years' residence within the temple precincts may
have also inspired him with a love of the building as a building.
2 Kings 12:4
And Jehoash said to the priests. The initiative of Joash is strongly marked, alike in
Kings and Chronicles (2 Chronicles 24:4). The general weakness of his character,
and want of vigor and decision, make it the more surprising that he should in this
particular matter have shown himself capable of taking his own line and adhering
to it (2 Kings 12:7). He has scarcely received from historians the credit that is due to
him for his persistent and successful efforts to accomplish an object which was for
the honor of religion, and which was yet not pressed forward by the priesthood.
Certainly he was no mere puppet of the priestly order. All the money of the
dedicated things that is brought into the house of the Lord; rather, all the money of
the holy gifts that is brought into the house of the Lord; i.e. all that ye receive from
the people in the way of money. This money accrued from three sources, which the
king proceeded to enumerate. First, even the money of every one that passeth the
account; i.e. the census money—the aggregate of the half-shekels received from the
males of above twenty years old, whenever a census was taken (Exodus 30:12-16).
The rendering, "current money," preferred by Thenius, Bahr, and our Revisers, is
shown by Keil to be untenable. Secondly, the money that every man is set at; i.e. the
redemption money, derived in part from the payments made for redeeming the
firstborn ( umbers 18:15, umbers 18:16); in part from the sums which the priests
exacted from such as had vowed themselves (Le 27:2-8), or those belonging to them,
to God.
And [thirdly] all the money that cometh into any man's heart to bring into the house
of the Lord; i.e. all the free-will offerings that should be made in money by any of
the Israelites.
MACLARE 4-15, "METHODICAL LIBERALITY
‘The sons of Athaliah, that wicked woman, had broken up the house of God,’ says
Chronicles. The dilapidation had not been complete, but had been extensive, as may be
gathered from the large expenditure recorded in this passage for repairs, and the
enumeration of the artisans employed. No doubt Joash was guided by Jehoiada in

setting about the restoration, but the fact that he gives the orders, while the high priest is
not mentioned, throws light on the relative position of the two authorities, and on the
king’s office as guardian of the Temple and official ‘head of the church.’ The story comes
in refreshingly and strangely among the bloody pages in which it is embedded, and it
suggests some lessons as to the virtue of plain common sense and business principles
applied to religious affairs. If ‘the outward business of the house of God’ were always
guided with as much practical reasonableness as Joash brought to bear on it, there
would be fewer failures or sarcastic critics.
We note, first, the true source of money for religious purposes. There was a fixed amount
for which ‘each man is rated,’ and that made the minimum, but there was also that
which ‘cometh into any man’s heart to bring,’ and that was infinitely more precious than
the exacted tax. The former was appropriate to the Old Testament, of which the
animating principle was law and the voice: ‘Thou shalt’ or ‘Thou shalt not.’ The latter
alone fits the New Testament, of which the animating principle is love and the voice:
‘Though I have all boldness in Christ to enjoin thee . . . yet for love’s sake I rather
beseech.’ What disasters and what stifling of the spirit of Christian liberality have
marred the Church for many centuries, and in many lands, because the great
anachronism has prevailed of binding its growing limbs in Jewish swaddling bands, and
degrading Christian giving into an assessment! And how shrunken the stream that is
squeezed out by such a process, compared with the abundant gush of the fountain of
love opened in a grateful, trusting heart!
Next, we have the negligent, if not dishonest, officials. We do not know how long Joash
tried the experiment of letting the priests receive the money and superintend the repairs;
but probably the restoration project was begun early in his reign, and if so, he gave the
experiment of trusting all to the officials, a fair, patient trial, till the twenty-third year of
his reign. Years gone and nothing done, or at least nothing completed! We do not need
to accuse them of intentional embezzlement, but certainly they were guilty of carelessly
letting the money slip through their fingers, and a good deal of it stick to their hands. It
is always the temptation of the clergy to think of their own support as a first charge on
the church, nor is it quite unheard of that the ministry should be less enthusiastic in
religious objects than the ‘laity,’ and should work the enthusiasm of the latter for their
own advantage. Human nature is the same in Jerusalem in Joash’s time, and to-day in
Manchester, or New York, or Philadelphia, and all men who live by the gifts of Christian
people have need to watch themselves, lest they, like Ezekiel’s false shepherds, feed
themselves and not the flock, and seek the wool and the fat and not the good of the
sheep.
Next we have the application of businesslike methods to religious work. It was clearly
time to take the whole matter out of the priest’s hands, and Joash is not afraid to assume
a high tone with the culprits, and even with Jehoiada as their official head. He was in
some sense responsible for his subordinates, and probably, though his own hands were
clean, he may have been too lax in looking after the disposal of the funds. Note that while
Joash rebuked the priests, and determined the new arrangements, it was Jehoiada who
carried them out and provided the chest for receiving the contributions. The king wills,
the high priest executes, the rank and file of the priests, however against the grain,
consent. The arrangement for collecting the contributions ‘saved the faces’ of the priests
to some extent, for the gifts were handed to them, and by them put into the chest. But, of
course, that was done at once, in the donor’s presence. If changes involving loss of
position are to work smoothly, it is wise to let the deposed officials down as easily as may
be.

Similar common sense is shown in the second step, the arrangement for ascertaining the
amounts given. The king’s secretary and the high-priest (or a representative) jointly
opened the chest, counted and bagged up the money. They checked each other, and
prevented suspicion on either side. No man who regards his own reputation will consent
to handle public money without some one to stand over him and see what he does with
it. One would be wise always to suspect people who appeal for help ‘for the Lord’s work’
and are too ‘spiritual’ to have such worldly things as committees or auditors of their
books. Accurate accounts are as essential to Christian work as spirituality or enthusiasm.
The next stage was to hand over the money to the ‘contractors,’ as we should call them;
and there similar precautions were taken against possible peculation on the part of the
two officials who had received the money, for it was apparently ‘weighed out into the
hands’ of the overseers, who would thus be able to check what they received by what the
secretary and the high-priest had taken from the chest, and would be responsible for the
expenditure of the amount which the two officials knew that they had received.
But all this system of checks seems to break down at the very point where it should have
worked most searchingly, for ‘they reckoned not with the men, into whose hand they
delivered the money’ to pay the workmen, ‘for they dealt faithfully.’ That last clause
looks like a hit at the priests who had not dealt so, and contrasts the methods of plain
business men of no pretensions, with those of men whose very calling should have
guaranteed their trustworthiness. The contrast has been repeated in times and places
nearer home. But another suggestion may also be made about this singular lapse into
what looks like unwise confidence. These overseers had proved their faithfulness and
earned the right to be trusted entirely, and the way to get the best out of a man, if he has
any reliableness in him, is to trust him utterly, and to show him that you do. ‘It is a
shame to tell Arnold a lie; he always believes us,’ said the Rugby boys about their great
head-master. There is a time for using all precautions, and a time for using none.
Businesslike methods do not consist in spying at the heels of one’s agents, but in picking
the right men, and, having proved them, giving them a free hand. And is not that what
the great Lord and Employer does with His servants, and is it not part of the reason why
Jesus gets more out of us than any one else can do, that He trusts us more?
One more point may be noticed; namely, the order of precedence in which the necessary
works were done. Not a coin went to provide the utensils for sacrifice till the Temple was
completely repaired. After they had ‘set up the house of God in its state,’ as Chronicles
tells us, they took the balance of the funds to the king and Jehoiada, and spent that on
‘vessels for the house.’ A clear insight to discern what most needs to be done, and a firm
resolve to ‘do the duty that lies nearest thee,’ and to let everything else, however
necessary, wait till it is done, is a great part of Christian prudence, and goes far to make
works or lives truly prosperous. ‘First things first’!-it is a maxim that carries us far and
as right as far.
5 Let every priest receive the money from one of
the treasurers, then use it to repair whatever
damage is found in the temple.”

BAR ES, "The collection was not to be made in Jerusalem only, but in all “the cities
of Judah” 2Ch_24:5; the various priests and Levites being collectors in their own
neighborhoods.
Breaches - The word in the original includes every kind and degree of ruin or
dilapidation.
GILL, "Let the priests take it to them, every man of his acquaintance,.... Of
those that were most known by them; for the priests had cities assigned them in several
parts of the land, and they that dwelt with them in them, or in the parts adjacent to
them, were best known by them; and they were sent into all the cities, some to one and
some to another, where they were most acquainted, to collect money, both what was due
by law, and what the people should freely give, see 2Ch_24:5.
and let them repair the breaches of the house, wheresoever any breach shall
be found: that is, of the temple, which, according to the Jewish chronology (i), had
been built but one hundred and fifty five years; and being built very strong, would have
needed no considerable repairs as yet, but that it had been broken up and misused by
Athaliah and her sons, 2Ch_24:7.
BE SO , "2 Kings 12:5. Let the priests take it to them, &c. — Let them go abroad
through all the parts of the land, as they have acquaintance and interest, and gather
up the money, and bring it to Jerusalem. Let them repair, &c., wheresoever any
breach shall be found — Either through decay, or by ill accidents; or by the malice
of Athaliath, or her relations; of which see 2 Chronicles 24:7.
ELLICOTT, "(5) Every man of his acquaintance.—See 2 Chronicles 24:5. From
that passage it is evident that the chronicler understood that the priests were
required to collect such moneys, each in his own city and district, year by year. Our
text, taken alone, would seem to imply that persons going to the Temple to have the
value of vows estimated, or to make free-will offerings, resorted to the priests whom
they knew. (The word rendered “acquaintance” only occurs in this account.)
The breaches of the house.—The dilapidations of the Temple were serious, not
because of its age—it had only stood about 130 years—but owing to the wanton
attacks of Athaliah and her sons (comp. 2 Chronicles 24:7), who had, moreover,
diverted the revenues of the sanctuary to the support of the Baalworship.
PULPIT, "Let the priests take it to them, every man of his acquaintance. The money
was to be gathered of "all Israel," out of all "the cities of Judah" (2 Chronicles

24:5). The priests of each locality were to be the collectors, and would therefore
gather "of their acquaintance." As we cannot suppose that very much would accrue
from either the first or second source, since a census was rarely taken, and personal
vows were not very common, we must regard the command of Joash as, in the main,
the authorization of a general collection throughout the kingdom of voluntary
contributions towards the temple repairs, and so as analogous to the "letters" which
our own sovereigns, or archbishops, issue from time to time for collections in
churches for special objects. And let them repair the breaches of the house,
wheresoever any breach shall be found. The "breaches," or dilapidations, may have
been caused, partly by the neglect of necessary repairs during the reigns of
Jehoram, Ahaziah, and Athaliah; but they were mainly the result of the willful
violence of Athaliah (2 Chronicles 24:7). Apparently, the damage done must have
been very great.
6 But by the twenty-third year of King Joash the
priests still had not repaired the temple.
BAR ES, "No money had for some time been brought in (marginal reference “g”).
Perhaps it was difficult for the priests and Levites to know exactly what proportion of the
money paid to them was fairly applicable to the temple service and to their own support;
and what, consequently, was the balance which they ought to apply to the repairs.
CLARKE, "In the three and twentieth year - In what year Jehoash gave the
orders for these repairs, we cannot tell; but the account here plainly intimates that they
had been long given, and that nothing was done, merely through the inactivity and
negligence of the priests; see 2Ch_24:6.
It seems that the people had brought money in abundance, and the pious Jehoiada
was over the priests, and yet nothing was done! Though Jehoiada was a good man, he
does not appear to have had much of the spirit of an active zeal; and simple piety,
without zeal and activity, is of little use when a reformation in religion and manners is
necessary to be brought about. Philip Melancthon was orthodox, pious, and learned, but
he was a man of comparative inactivity. In many respects Martin Luther was by far his
inferior, but in zeal and activity he was a flaming and consuming fire; and by him, under
God, was the mighty Reformation, from the corruptions of popery, effected. Ten
thousand Jehoiadas and Melancthons might have wished it in vain; Luther worked, and
God worked by him, in him, and for him.

GILL, "But it was so, that in the twenty and third year of King Jehoash, the
priests had not repaired the breaches of the house. Either the people being
backward to pay in the money, or the priests converted it to their own use: or, however,
were negligent of doing the work enjoined them by the king, either in collecting the
money, or in using it as they were directed.
HE RY, "IV. This method did not answer the intention, 2Ki_12:6. Little money was
raised. Either the priests were careless, and did not call on the people to pay in their
dues, or the people had so little confidence in the priests' management that they were
backward to pay money into their hands; if they were distrusted without cause, it was
the people's shame; if with, it was more theirs. But what money was raised was not
applied to the proper use: The breaches of the house were not repaired; the priests
thought it might serve as well as it had done, and therefore put off repairing from time to
time. Church work is usually slow work, but it is a pity that churchmen, of all men,
should be slow at it. Perhaps what little money they raised they thought it necessary to
use for the maintenance of the priests, which must needs fall much short when ten tribes
had wholly revolted and the other two were wretchedly corrupted.
K&D 6-9, "But when the twenty-third year of the reign of Joash arrived, and the
dilapidations had not been repaired, the king laid the matter before the high priest
Jehoiada and the priests, and directed them not to take the money any more from their
acquaintance, but to give it for the dilapidations of the temple; “and the priests
consented to take no money, and not to repair the dilapidations of the house,” i.e., not to
take charge of the repairs. We may see from this consent how the command of the king
is to be understood. Hitherto the priests had collected the money to pay for the repairing
of the temple; but inasmuch as they had not executed the repairs, the king took away
from them both the collection of the money and the obligation to repair the temple. The
reason for the failure of the first measure is not mentioned in our text, and can only be
inferred from the new arrangement made by the king (2Ki_12:9): “Jehoiada took a
chest-of course by the command of the king, as is expressly mentioned in 2Ch_24:8, -
bored a hole in the door (the lid) thereof, and placed it by the side of the altar (of burnt-
offering) on the right by the entrance of every one into the house of Jehovah, that the
priests keeping the threshold might put thither (i.e., into the chest) all the money that
was brought into the house of Jehovah.”
BE SO , "2 Kings 12:6-8. In the three and twentieth year of Jehoash, the priests
had not repaired, &c. — They were both dilatory and careless in collecting the
money, 2 Chronicles 24:5; and did not bring in what they had gathered to begin the
work, whereupon the king revoked his former order, and intrusted other men, as it
here follows, with this work. Thus are things seldom done well that are committed to
the care of many. ow therefore receive no more money, &c. — Jehoash ordered
two things, 1st, That they should gather no more money of the people. 2d, That they
should not have the care of seeing the temple repaired, but pay what had been
collected into other hands. The priests consented — They submitted to the king’s
new orders, and wholly committed the business to those whom he thought fit to
employ. But it does not appear that they restored the money which they had
received for twenty-three years past.

ELLICOTT, "(6) In the three and twentieth year.—Jenoash may have ordered the
restoration in his twentieth year, when he came of age. It is noticeable that he and
not Jehoiada takes the initiative in the matter. The chronicler states that the king
had ordered the priests and the Levites “to hasten the matter,” but that “the Levites
hastened it not.”
GUZIK, "3. (2 Kings 12:6-13) Money is gathered for the rebuilding work.
ow it was so, by the twenty-third year of King Jehoash, that the priests had not
repaired the damages of the temple. So King Jehoash called Jehoiada the priest and
the other priests, and said to them, “Why have you not repaired the damages of the
temple? ow therefore, do not take more money from your constituency, but deliver
it for repairing the damages of the temple.” And the priests agreed that they would
neither receive more money from the people, nor repair the damages of the temple.
Then Jehoiada the priest took a chest, bored a hole in its lid, and set it beside the
altar, on the right side as one comes into the house of the LORD and the priests who
kept the door put there all the money brought into the house of the LORD. So it
was, whenever they saw that there was much money in the chest, that the king’s
scribe and the high priest came up and put it in bags, and counted the money that
was found in the house of the LORD. Then they gave the money, which had been
apportioned, into the hands of those who did the work, who had the oversight of the
house of the LORD and they paid it out to the carpenters and builders who worked
on the house of the LORD, and to masons and stonecutters, and for buying timber
and hewn stone, to repair the damage of the house of the LORD, and for all that was
paid out to repair the temple. However there were not made for the house of the
LORD basins of silver, trimmers, sprinkling-bowls, trumpets, any articles of gold or
articles of silver, from the money brought into the house of the LORD.
a. By the twenty-third year of King Jehoash, that the priests had not repaired the
damages of the temple: Building projects take a long time, and renovating an old
building is almost always more difficult and expensive than building a new one.
evertheless, it appears that King Jehoash had to wait a very long time until the
damages of the temple were repaired. The work was going far too slow.
i. “In what year Jehoash gave the orders for these repairs, we cannot tell; but the
account here plainly intimates that they had been long given, and that nothing was
done, merely through the inactivity and negligence of the priests.” (Clarke)
b. The priest took a chest, bored a hole in its lid, and set it beside the altar: Under
the direction of King Jehoash, the priests gave the people the opportunity to give.
Even willing givers should be given an opportunity.
i. “Then he placed a collection chest in a strategic location on the right side of the
altar, giving the repair project a high priority and a corresponding high visibility.”

(Dilday)
c. ow therefore, do not take more money from your constituency, but deliver it for
repairing the damages of the temple: King Joash got to the heart of the problem -
the building project was plagued by poor administration and financial
mismanagement. Through Jehoiada the priest, he implemented a system where the
money would be set aside, saved, and then wisely spent for the repair and
refurbishing of the temple.
i. “When the people were assured that the money would really be used for the
purpose for which it was given, they responded generously and so similar
arrangements were continued by Josiah (2 Kings 22:3-7).” (Wiseman)
ii. “So successful had been the king’s program and so well did all concerned carry
out their duties that there was even money left over for the provision of sacred
vessels for the sanctuary service (2 Chronicles 24:14).” (Patterson and Austel)
PETT, "2 Kings 12:6
‘But it was so, that in the three and twentieth year of king Jehoash the priests had
not repaired the breaches of the house.’
But in the twenty third year of his reign it came to Jehoash’s attention that the
Temple was still not being properly maintained, and that there were still ‘breaches
in the house’. The failure may have been because of their reverence for the building
as it was (they may have considered that they had done what repairs were strictly
necessary and that to do more would desecrate the Temple), or it may have been
because they considered their ritual duties more important than repairing even an
old and revered building, or it may have been simply due to negligence or ignorance,
or even to embezzlement. Whichever way it was they were called to account.
PULPIT, "But it was so, that in the three and twentieth year of King Jehoash the
priests had not repaired the breaches of the house. o charge is made against the
priests of malversation or embezzlement. They had simply been negligent. Probably
very little money had come in; and they had not been very active in their endeavors
to obtain larger contributions. It must be remembered that what went to the fabric
fund would, for the most part, be a deduction from the ordinary revenue of the
temple, which was not, perhaps, much in excess of the ordinary demands upon it.
We can, therefore, quite understand that the king's policy would not be popular
with the priests (see 2 Chronicles 24:5). Still, it is to be observed that they are not
said to have executed no repairs, but only not to have "made haste" and completed
their task by the time that the king looked for its completion.

7 Therefore 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.”
GILL, "Then King Jehoash called for Jehoiada the priest, and the other
priests,.... The common priests, Jehoiada being high priest:
and said unto them, why repair ye not the breaches of the house? in which
they appeared to him very dilatory; the reason might be, the people were not forward to
pay in their money, and they might not choose to begin the repairs until they had got it
all in, or at least what was sufficient to carry them through them:
now therefore receive no more money of your acquaintance; suspecting that
what they had received they kept for their own use:
but deliver it for the breaches of the house; into other hands for that use, and so
dismissed them at once from collecting the money, and being concerned in the repairs of
the temple.
HE RY, "V. Another method was therefore taken. The king had his heart much set
upon having the breaches of the house repaired, 2Ki_12:7. His apostasy, at last, gives us
cause to question whether he had as good an affection for the service of the temple as he
had for the structure. Many have been zealous for building and beautifying churches,
and for other forms of godliness, who yet have been strangers to the power of it.
However, we commend his zeal, and blame him not for reproving even his tutor
Jehoiada himself when he saw him remiss; and so convincing was his reproof that the
priests owned themselves unworthy to be any longer employed, and consented to the
taking of some other measures, and the giving up of the money they had received into
other hands, 2Ki_12:8. It was honestly done, when they found they had not spirit to do it
themselves, not to hinder other people from doing it. Another course was taken,
JAMISO 7-10, "Why repair ye not the breaches of the house? — This mode
of collection not proving so productive as was expected (the dilatoriness of the priests
was the chief cause of the failure), a new arrangement was proposed. A chest was placed
by the high priest at the entrance into the temple, into which the money given by the
people for the repairs of the temple was to be put by the Levites who kept the door. The
object of this chest was to make a separation between the money to be raised for the

2 kings 12 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to 2 kings 12 commentary

Similar to 2 kings 12 commentary (19)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (16)

2 kings 12 commentary