II KINGS 11-12

II Kings 11-12

These chapters comprise a straightforward narrative covering the reign of Joash, king of Judah, also called Jehoash. The story can be broken down into the following episodes:

    A. Joash escapes assassination (11:1-3)

        B. Joash comes into power (11:4-16)

            C. The house of Baal is torn down (11:17-21)

            C'. The house of God is repaired (12:1-16)

        B'. Joash loses power (12:17-18)

A'. Joash is assassinated (12:19-21)

The overwhelming emphasis in these two chapters is seen by the repeated (38x) word “house.” Of these references, 27 refer to the Jewish temple either as “the house of the LORD” or simply “the house.” In addition, the king's house is mentioned nine times, the house of Baal once, and the house of Millo once.

Section A (II Kings 11:1-3)

Following King Ahaziah's death (see the previous chapter), his mother Athaliah siezes power and plans to secure it by killing all of the king's children, her own grandchildren. This behavior is not entirely unexpected since Athaliah was also the daughter of the wicked Queen Jezebel. However, Ahaziah's sister, Jehosheba, manages to rescue her nephew Joash and keeps him hidden from Athaliah.

11:1 If Athaliah had been successful, it would have meant the end of Davidic kings over Judah.

11:3 Her reign took place from 841/842 to 836/835 BC.

Jehosheba was able to conceal him within the temple since we learn from the parallel account in II Chronicles 22:11b that she was the wife of Jehoiada, the high priest who will figure prominently in the next two sections below.

Section B (II Kings 11:4-16)

The high priest Jehoiada organizes a successful coup against the queen, and Joash is proclaimed as King of Judah. This section “contains a stinging rebuke of the priests' negligence and dishonesty.” (Millgrom) And Martin says, “The story does the priests no credit.” But LaSor merely states, “There may be a hint of mishandling of money.”

11:4 The Carites were part of the royal bodyguard (see II Samuel 20:23). Cogan and Tadmor explain that there is great controversy concerning the country of this group's origin.

11:6-8 By timing the coup for the sabbath at the changing of the guard, all three sections of the guard could become available to help out without raising any red flags.

11:10 By using David's weapons, the coup symbolized the return of the rightful Davidic kingship. (Cogan and Tadmor)

11:14 G.H. Jones suggests that “the pillars were survivals of standing stones witnessing the covenant (cf. Jos. 24:26ff), and so symbolized the covenant between God and his people, and especially between him and the Davidic dynasty.” A pillar is also mentioned in relation to the renewal of the covenant under Joshia (II Kings 23:1). I Kings 7:21 names the two pillars Jachin and Boaz, perhaps the first words of inscriptions on these respective pillars.

Cogan and Tadmor: “People of the land” designated “an elite group of citizens,” not the people of Judah as a whole.

Note the irony here since she was the one who had seized the throne illegally.

11:16 The reference to horses here is a conscious reminder to the reader of how her mother Jezabel died. See II Kings 9:33. (House)

11:17 House also points out that the people “have forgotten who they are because they have forgotten who their God is. Covenant renewal restores, then, the proper sense of reality and identity for the people.”

Section C (II Kings 11:17-21)

Jehoiada purges the land of Baal worship, and the people recommit to following God.

11:17 Most commentators point out that the covenant needed to be renewed after it had been temporarily broken during Athialiah's reign. By contrast, scholars such as Martin feel that this verse indicates it was a regular custom whenever a new king was anointed.

11:18 Some scholars, such as Cogan and Tadmor, note that Mattan is a Phoenician name while others point to known cases where it is a Hebrew name.

11:20 House says that “the city was quiet” is similar to the repeated phrase in the book of Judges: “and the land had peace.”

Section C' (II Kings 12:1-16)

Joash institutes measures to ensure that money given to the house of the LORD is devoted to repairing it.

12:1 The 40-year reign encompassed 835-796 BC, although some commentators feel that 40 is just a round number and not the exact time period.

12:2 “All his days” may either refer to Joash's life or that of Jehoiada. The latter is probably to be preferred due to the notice in II Chronicles 24:2. (LaSor)

12:5-6 There is great uncertainty regarding the meaning of the noun variously translated as donors, acquaintances, assessors, money-changers, clients, or benefactors.

12:9-10 This measure was taken in order to prevent any further misappropriation of funds by the priests.

12:15 In marked contrast to the mistrust of the priests, the workmen were trusted implicitly.

Section B' (II Kings 12:17-18)

To prevent the conquest of Jerusalem by the King Hazael of Syria, Joash gives him all the money in the house of the LORD and the royal treasury. This is the very money that Joash had collected for temple repairs.

It is here that the parallel account in II Chronicles 23-24 differs the most. Joash's reign is given a much more negative spin by including additional information such as the king turning to the officials in Judah for advice instead of the priesthood, abandoning Yahweh worship, and killing Jehoiada's son for trying to turn the people back to the true God.

12:17 Archeological findings have confirmed that Gath was destroyed by fire during the ninth century BC. (Ortiz) the city subsequently disappears from biblical and extrabiblical sources at this time (Ehrlich)

Section A' (II Kings 12:19-21)

Joash is assassinated by his own servants, and his son Amaziah takes the throne. The reason for the assassination is explained in the parallel passage in II Chronicles 22 – it was in retribution for Joash's killing of the righteous son of Jehoiada, an incident only recorded in Chronicles.

Conclusion

In my mind, the greatest lesson for us today to be derived from this passage is found in Section C' where the importance of church leaders to be totally trustworthy in every area of their responsibilities is stressed. Although the clergy are still generally admired, their latest Gallup “rating for ethical behavior has fallen to the lowest level in 40 years of surveying.” And the two biggest areas of concern by the public involve either money or sex. We have examples of both types of misbehavior in the OT, as we can see in this II Kings passage as well as with the sons of Eli. And there are continued warnings in the NT against those church leaders whose reputation is not of the highest caliber.