2 Chronicles Chapter 24

The Rise and Fall of Joash
A. Joash repairs the temple

1. (2 Chronicles 24:1–3) Joash’s forty year reign

“Joash was seven years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Zibiah of Beer-sheba. And Joash did that which was right in the sight of the LORD all the days of Jehoiada the priest. And Jehoiada took for him two wives; and he begat sons and daughters.”

a. He reigned forty years in Jerusalem.
A reign of forty years signals stability and divine favor, especially following the chaos of Athaliah’s usurpation. Joash’s long reign indicates that God restored order to Judah after nearly extinguishing the Davidic line. Though Joash would later fail grievously, his early reign was marked by reform and restoration. The Chronicler presents Joash as a king who benefited greatly from godly counsel, even if he lacked the depth of conviction to sustain righteousness independently.

i. Selman’s observation is fitting. The blessing of wives and children reflects God’s restoration after years of devastation under Athaliah. “Thou shalt arise, and have mercy upon Zion: for the time to favour her, yea, the set time, is come” (Psalm 102:13). God often restores in measure what sin had destroyed.

b. Joash did that which was right in the sight of the LORD all the days of Jehoiada the priest.
This statement is both commendation and warning. Joash’s obedience was real, but dependent. His righteousness was tethered to the presence and influence of Jehoiada. Scripture subtly prepares the reader for decline by emphasizing the conditional nature of Joash’s faithfulness.

i. The implication is clear. When Jehoiada died, Joash lacked the internalized fear of the LORD necessary to continue in obedience. “Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD” (Jeremiah 17:5). Godly mentorship is a blessing, but it must lead to personal conviction, not permanent dependence.

c. And Jehoiada took for him two wives; and he begat sons and daughters.
This action reflects royal custom and concern for dynastic continuity. It also reinforces the theme of restoration. After Athaliah attempted to annihilate David’s line, God ensured its continuation through Joash. The future of Judah once again appeared secure, at least outwardly.

2. (2 Chronicles 24:4–7) The need and the heart to repair the temple

“And it came to pass after this, that Joash was minded to repair the house of the LORD. And he gathered together the priests and the Levites, and said to them, Go out unto the cities of Judah, and gather of all Israel money to repair the house of your God from year to year, and see that ye hasten the matter. Howbeit the Levites hastened it not. And the king called for Jehoiada the chief, and said unto him, Why hast thou not required of the Levites to bring in out of Judah and out of Jerusalem the collection, according to the commandment of Moses the servant of the LORD, and of the congregation of Israel, for the tabernacle of witness? For the sons of Athaliah, that wicked woman, had broken up the house of God; and also all the dedicated things of the house of the LORD did they bestow upon Baalim.”

a. Joash was minded to repair the house of the LORD.
This reveals Joash’s genuine concern for the worship of God. The temple was not merely a building, but the visible center of Judah’s covenant relationship with the LORD. Joash understood that national prosperity without proper worship was hollow. His desire reflects a heart sensitive to spiritual priorities.

i. The condition of the temple served as a spiritual barometer for the nation. Neglect of the temple reflected neglect of God Himself. “The LORD is in his holy temple, the LORD’S throne is in heaven” (Psalm 11:4). To despise God’s dwelling was to despise God’s rule.

b. Go out unto the cities of Judah, and gather of all Israel money to repair the house of your God.
The project required collective responsibility. The royal treasury alone was insufficient, and rightly so. The upkeep of God’s house was a national obligation, not merely a royal one. Joash appealed to the people through the Levites, grounding the request in covenant duty rather than royal decree.

c. Howbeit the Levites hastened it not.
This hesitation reveals spiritual inertia even among those charged with sacred responsibility. The Levites, who should have led zealously, lagged behind the king in commitment. Scripture records this without excuse or justification.

i. Payne’s insight is accurate. Human inertia affects even those in ministry. Routine responsibilities and institutional maintenance can dull urgency for renewal. “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might” (Ecclesiastes 9:10). The Levites failed to act with urgency.

d. And the king called for Jehoiada the chief.
Joash respectfully confronted the issue through proper authority. He did not bypass Jehoiada, but addressed him directly. This demonstrates orderly leadership and accountability. Even righteous causes require structure and oversight to succeed.

e. For the sons of Athaliah, that wicked woman, had broken up the house of God.
This explains the severity of the temple’s condition. The damage was not incidental. It was deliberate desecration. Athaliah’s sons vandalized the temple and redirected its sacred objects to Baal worship. This was calculated spiritual warfare against the LORD.

i. The phrase “that wicked woman” underscores Athaliah’s enduring infamy. Her reign left scars that persisted even after her death. Sin often outlives the sinner in its consequences. “One sinner destroyeth much good” (Ecclesiastes 9:18).

3. (2 Chronicles 24:8–14) The temple is repaired and worship is resumed

“At the king’s commandment they made a chest, and set it without at the gate of the house of the LORD. And they made a proclamation through Judah and Jerusalem, to bring in to the LORD the collection that Moses the servant of God laid upon Israel in the wilderness. And all the princes and all the people rejoiced, and brought in, and cast into the chest, until they had made an end. Now it came to pass, that at what time the chest was brought unto the king’s office by the hand of the Levites, and when they saw that there was much money, the king’s scribe and the high priest’s officer came and emptied the chest, and took it, and carried it to his place again. Thus they did day by day, and gathered money in abundance. And the king and Jehoiada gave it to such as did the work of the service of the house of the LORD, and hired masons and carpenters to repair the house of the LORD, and also such as wrought iron and brass to mend the house of the LORD. So the workmen wrought, and the work was perfected by them, and they set the house of God in his state, and strengthened it. And when they had finished it, they brought the rest of the money before the king and Jehoiada, whereof were made vessels for the house of the LORD, even vessels to minister, and to offer withal, and spoons, and vessels of gold and silver. And they offered burnt offerings in the house of the LORD continually all the days of Jehoiada.”

a. They made a chest, and set it without at the gate of the house of the LORD.
Joash addressed the problem directly by creating a clear, visible, and trustworthy means for giving. The chest placed at the gate of the house of the LORD gave willing hearts an immediate opportunity to act. Even those inclined to generosity often need a practical avenue through which obedience can be expressed. This action reflects wise leadership, not manipulation, but facilitation.

i. Dilday notes that the chest’s placement gave the project prominence and visibility. It reminded the people continually of their responsibility toward the house of God.

ii. According to 2 Kings 12:6–13, earlier failures stemmed partly from poor administration. Joash corrected this by separating the collection, safeguarding it, and ensuring it was used solely for restoration. God honors not only generous giving, but faithful stewardship.

b. To bring in to the LORD the collection that Moses the servant of God laid upon Israel in the wilderness.
The appeal was grounded in Scripture, not novelty. This referred to the offering for the tabernacle recorded in Exodus 35:4–19, where the people gave willingly for God’s dwelling place. Joash anchored reform in God’s revealed will, reminding Judah that supporting God’s house had always been a covenant responsibility.

i. Selman observes that this collection reflected the half shekel tax associated with the tent of meeting and later reaffirmed in Nehemiah 10:32.

ii. God could have supplied the funds miraculously, yet He chose to work through the willing obedience of His people. This method forms God’s people into a generous people, not merely recipients of provision.

iii. This principle is echoed in the New Testament. “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:7).

c. Thus they did day by day, and gathered money in abundance.
Consistent, transparent administration produced sustained generosity. The people responded joyfully because they trusted the process. God values integrity in handling resources dedicated to Him. Faithful oversight encouraged continued participation and resulted in abundance.

d. So the workmen wrought, and the work was perfected by them.
God blessed the work, yet He did not perform it apart from human effort. Skilled laborers were hired and paid directly, minimizing waste and delay. The house of God was restored to its proper condition and strengthened structurally. God’s work flourishes where diligence and accountability are practiced.

i. Wiseman notes that once the people were confident the funds would be used properly, generosity increased. This same model was later repeated under Josiah. “Howbeit there was no reckoning made with them of the money that was delivered into their hand, because they dealt faithfully” (2 Kings 22:7).

e. They brought the rest of the money before the king and Jehoiada.
The generosity exceeded expectations. After repairs were complete, surplus funds were used to fashion vessels for worship, restoring what had been stolen or destroyed during Athaliah’s reign. This abundance testified both to God’s blessing and to faithful stewardship.

i. Trapp notes these items replaced what had been taken by the Arabians and by Athaliah’s sons.

ii. Poole observes that such abundance was unexpected given the long years of apostasy. Yet God stirred hearts beyond what leaders anticipated.

4. (2 Chronicles 24:15–16) The death of Jehoiada

“But Jehoiada waxed old, and was full of days when he died; an hundred and thirty years old was he when he died. And they buried him in the city of David among the kings, because he had done good in Israel, both toward God, and toward his house.”

a. He was an hundred and thirty years old when he died.
Jehoiada’s extraordinary lifespan reflected divine favor and mercy. God prolonged his life for the sake of Judah and Joash. While Jehoiada lived, the king walked rightly. God delayed judgment by preserving the influence of this godly priest as long as possible.

b. They buried him in the city of David among the kings.
This burial was exceptional. Jehoiada was not a king by office, yet he was honored as one because of his faithfulness. His influence surpassed that of many kings. The Chronicler defines his legacy clearly, he did good in Israel, toward God, and toward His house. This is the highest commendation.

i. Spurgeon’s observation is apt. One faithful man can restrain evil, guide a nation, and preserve righteousness. Jehoiada’s life demonstrates the power of godly leadership exercised with humility, courage, and obedience.

B. The apostasy of Joash

1. (2 Chronicles 24:17–19) Joash is influenced to do evil

“Now after the death of Jehoiada came the princes of Judah, and made obeisance to the king. Then the king hearkened unto them. And they left the house of the LORD God of their fathers, and served groves and idols: and wrath came upon Judah and Jerusalem for this their trespass. Yet he sent prophets to them, to bring them again unto the LORD; and they testified against them: but they would not give ear.”

a. The princes of Judah came and made obeisance to the king. And the king hearkened unto them.
With Jehoiada removed by death, Joash was exposed. The leaders of Judah approached him with flattery rather than truth. Their obeisance was not respect for righteous authority, but manipulation of a weak ruler who craved affirmation. Joash, who once listened to godly counsel, now preferred pleasing words over faithful correction. His character had never been fully anchored in personal fear of the LORD.

i. Trapp’s description captures the scene vividly. These leaders flattered Joash into believing he had been restrained and diminished under Jehoiada’s guidance. They reframed godly accountability as oppression, a tactic still common wherever truth restrains power.

ii. Spurgeon rightly contrasts Jehoiada’s faithful, honest counsel with the obsequious posture of these men. True spiritual leadership does not bow in flattery. It speaks truth even when unwelcome. Joash preferred the posture of submission over the pain of correction.

iii. Poole correctly notes the strategic aim of these leaders. By restoring high place worship under the guise of convenience, they created space for idolatry without scrutiny. What began as alleged flexibility quickly devolved into apostasy.

iv. Spurgeon’s warning cuts to the heart of Joash’s failure. Joash had given his heart to Jehoiada, not to the LORD. His obedience was relational, not covenantal. “My son, give me thine heart” (Proverbs 23:26). When godliness depends on another person’s presence, it is already fragile.

b. And they left the house of the LORD God of their fathers.
Apostasy always begins with abandonment of worship. Before idols were embraced, the house of the LORD was forsaken. This departure reveals how shallow their earlier devotion had been. Attendance at the house of God had restrained evil. Once abandoned, idolatry flourished unchecked.

i. Trapp’s comment is blunt but accurate. Forsaking worship does not produce liberty, but decay. Covenant faithfulness is sustained by consistent reverence for God’s appointed means.

c. And wrath came upon Judah and Jerusalem for this their trespass.
God’s response was judicial, not impulsive. The nation violated covenant obligations, and covenant consequences followed. Blessing was withdrawn because loyalty was withdrawn.

d. Yet he sent prophets to them, to bring them again unto the LORD.
God’s mercy is evident even in judgment. Before executing final discipline, He sent prophets to warn, correct, and call for repentance. Judgment was avoidable. Restoration was offered.

e. But they would not give ear.
This refusal marks the deepening of guilt. Idolatry born of weakness became rebellion hardened by resistance to God’s Word. To reject prophetic warning is to reject God Himself.

2. (2 Chronicles 24:20–22) Zechariah’s message to Joash and his death

“And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken you. And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the LORD. Thus Joash the king remembered not the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but slew his son. And when he died, he said, The LORD look upon it, and require it.”

a. The Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people.
Zechariah spoke not by personal courage alone, but by divine empowerment. The Spirit of God clothed him for prophetic proclamation. His position “above the people” likely indicates priestly authority and public visibility. This was an official, unmistakable word from God delivered in the most sacred setting.

i. Selman rightly highlights the significance of this language. The Spirit clothing a servant underscores that the message originates from God, not human opinion.

ii. Meyer’s illustration is instructive. The Spirit fills those who yield fully to Him. Zechariah surrendered himself to God’s purpose regardless of cost.

b. Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper?
Zechariah confronted them with covenant reality. Prosperity and obedience are linked, not mechanically, but relationally. Judah’s decline was not accidental. It was the direct consequence of forsaking the LORD.

c. Because ye have forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken you.
This is the theological center of the Chronicler’s message. God’s withdrawal was judicial, not arbitrary. This principle was especially relevant to the post exile audience of Chronicles. Covenant faithfulness determines covenant blessing.

d. And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king.
The rejection of God’s Word escalated into violence. Joash, once crowned by Jehoiada’s hand, now ordered the murder of Jehoiada’s son. The crime was committed in the court of the house of the LORD, compounding its severity. Sacred space was desecrated by bloodshed.

i. Clarke’s outrage is justified. Joash’s act represents moral collapse at its worst. Gratitude was replaced by treachery, reverence by cruelty.

e. Thus Joash the king remembered not the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him.
This verse is devastating. Joash’s entire reign existed because of Jehoiada’s faithfulness. Forgetting kindness is a mark of deep spiritual decay. “Whoso rewardeth evil for good, evil shall not depart from his house” (Proverbs 17:13).

f. And when he died, he said, The LORD look upon it, and require it.
Zechariah’s final words were not revenge, but appeal to divine justice. He entrusted judgment to God alone. Scripture presents this as righteous appeal, not bitterness.

i. Selman rightly clarifies that Zechariah sought justice, not personal vengeance.

ii. Clarke correctly traces the fulfillment of this prayer. Divine retribution followed swiftly through Syrian invasion and Joash’s assassination.

iii. The ironies are profound and tragic. Joash obeyed wicked counselors but silenced God’s prophet. He repaid salvation with murder. Zechariah died where Joash had been crowned king. God’s justice was precise, measured, and unavoidable.

3. (2 Chronicles 24:23–24) God brings judgment on Judah and Joash through the Syrians

“And it came to pass at the end of the year, that the host of Syria came up against him: and they came to Judah and Jerusalem, and destroyed all the princes of the people from among the people, and sent all the spoil of them unto the king of Damascus. For the army of the Syrians came with a small company of men, and the LORD delivered a very great host into their hand, because they had forsaken the LORD God of their fathers. So they executed judgment against Joash.”

a. The host of Syria came up…and destroyed all the princes of the people.
The timing and target of this judgment are deliberate. God struck Judah through the very leaders who had corrupted Joash. These were the same princes who bowed before the king, flattered him, and led him into idolatry. Divine judgment removed the ungodly counselors who had shaped Judah’s apostasy and stripped them of their wealth and influence. Leadership bears responsibility, and when leadership corrupts, it is often leadership that is judged first.

b. They sent all the spoil of them unto the king of Damascus.
Judah’s wealth was transferred to a pagan king. This reversal mirrors earlier covenant warnings. “The LORD shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies” (Deuteronomy 28:25). What had been entrusted to Judah under covenant blessing was forfeited under covenant violation.

c. The army of the Syrians came with a small company of men; but the LORD delivered a very great host into their hand.
This is the clearest indicator that the defeat was theological, not military. Numbers were irrelevant. God Himself tilted the balance. When the LORD withdraws protection, numerical superiority becomes meaningless.

i. God had promised the opposite blessing under obedience. “And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight” (Leviticus 26:8). Under disobedience, the curse was reversed. “And ye shall flee when none pursueth you” (Leviticus 26:17). Judah now experienced covenant discipline exactly as Moses had warned.

d. Because they had forsaken the LORD God of their fathers.
The Chronicler removes all ambiguity. This defeat was not due to strategy, morale, or alliances. It was because Judah forsook the LORD. Apostasy always has consequences, and they are often swift and humiliating.

e. So they executed judgment against Joash.
The Syrians were instruments, not ultimate causes. God was the Judge. Joash’s downfall was already sealed when he rejected God’s Word and murdered God’s prophet. The battlefield simply manifested the verdict already rendered.

4. (2 Chronicles 24:25–27) A wounded Joash is assassinated by his servants

“And when they were departed from him, (for they left him in great diseases,) his own servants conspired against him for the blood of the sons of Jehoiada the priest, and slew him on his bed, and he died. And they buried him in the city of David, but they buried him not in the sepulchres of the kings. And these are they that conspired against him; Zabad the son of Shimeath an Ammonitess, and Jehozabad the son of Shimrith a Moabitess. Now concerning his sons, and the greatness of the burdens laid upon him, and the repairing of the house of God, behold, they are written in the story of the book of the kings. And Amaziah his son reigned in his stead.”

a. They left him in great diseases.
Joash survived the Syrian assault but was left grievously wounded. His physical condition mirrored his spiritual state, weakened, compromised, and exposed. God spared his life briefly, not for repentance that never came, but to complete judgment.

b. His own servants conspired against him.
The collapse of loyalty within Joash’s own household shows how thoroughly God’s favor had departed. Protection vanished, trust evaporated, and the king who once stood under covenant blessing now lay vulnerable in his bed.

i. For the blood of the sons of Jehoiada the priest.
The stated motive for the assassination was moral outrage. Joash had murdered Zechariah, the son of the very man who saved his life and secured his throne. This crime haunted his reign and stirred resentment even among his servants.

ii. Wiseman notes that political disaffection likely compounded this motive. The humiliating defeat by Syria would have undermined confidence in Joash’s leadership. Apostasy weakens both spiritual authority and political legitimacy.

iii. Knapp’s assessment is sober and accurate. Joash began with promise but ended in disgrace. The seeds of compromise eventually produced bitter fruit.

iv. Clarke rightly observes the precision of divine justice. Joash’s reign ended as it deserved, stripped of honor, marked by violence, and devoid of repentance.

c. They slew him on his bed.
This was not the death of a warrior or a repentant king. It was an inglorious end, quiet, humiliating, and irreversible. Joash died not defending truth, but having betrayed it.

d. They buried him in the city of David, but not in the sepulchres of the kings.
This detail is decisive. Joash was buried among David’s city, but excluded from the royal tombs. The Chronicler consistently uses burial location as theological commentary. Jehoiada, a priest, was buried among kings. Joash, a king, was denied that honor.

i. Selman correctly notes the significance. Honor in death reflects judgment in life.

e. Zabad the son of Shimeath an Ammonitess, and Jehozabad the son of Shimrith a Moabitess.
The Chronicler names the assassins and highlights their foreign maternal lineage. This detail may underscore the irony. Joash, who abandoned covenant loyalty, was struck down by men with roots outside the covenant nation.

f. There is no record of repentance.
Joash’s story ends without restoration. His early zeal in repairing the temple never matured into personal holiness. He reformed structures but not his heart.

i. Spurgeon’s warning is piercing. External zeal without inward renewal is insufficient. One may repair temples while remaining spiritually ruined.

ii. True piety requires principle, not proximity. Joash relied on Jehoiada’s faith, not his own relationship with God.

iii. Morgan’s conclusion is decisive. A weak man, lacking inner conviction, is easily swayed. When godly influence is removed, collapse is inevitable.