2 Kings Chapter 12
The Reign of King Jehoash over Judah
Joash and Jehoash are variant spellings of the same name.
A. Jehoash repairs the temple
1. A summary of the reign of Jehoash
(2 Kings 12:1-3)
“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.”
Jehoash began his reign in the seventh year of Jehu of Israel and ruled forty years in Jerusalem. This was one of the longer reigns in Judah, and it brought a degree of stability and blessing to the nation. His mother, Zibiah of Beersheba, is mentioned, perhaps to highlight her southern origins and the influence she may have contributed early in his life. Jehoash’s character is summarized with rare praise: he did what was right in the sight of the LORD—but only during the lifetime of Jehoiada the priest. Jehoiada had raised him, guided him, protected the throne for him, and instructed him in the ways of the LORD. Under Jehoiada’s leadership Jehoash honored God, promoted the temple, and upheld righteousness.
However, when Jehoiada died, Jehoash’s spiritual stability collapsed. 2 Chronicles 24:15-23 records that Jehoash listened to corrupt officials, reintroduced idolatry, silenced prophecy, and ultimately became responsible for the murder of Jehoiada’s son Zechariah. The good that characterized his early years did not continue in his later reign. This makes Jehoash a tragic figure—guided by others toward righteousness, but lacking the personal conviction to remain faithful without spiritual leadership.
The text also notes that “the high places were not taken away.” These unauthorized worship sites, often used for idolatry or for unauthorized worship of the true God, remained throughout his reign. Jehoash led partial reform, but he did not address the more difficult, deeply rooted practices of the people. They continued sacrificing and burning incense on these high places because such sites had been tolerated for generations and were emotionally appealing to the nation. Poole notes that even great kings struggled to remove them; therefore, it is not surprising that Jehoiada and the young king could not eradicate them.
Notes on Key Phrases
“He reigned forty years in Jerusalem.”
A long reign is often a sign of God’s mercy. Jehoash brought stability and early faithfulness, even if his devotion later faltered.
“Jehoash did what was right… all the days in which Jehoiada… instructed him.”
This implies spiritual dependency rather than spiritual maturity. When Jehoiada died, Jehoash drifted. Patterson and Austel observe that godless counselors led Jehoash into Canaanite practices. Spiritual leadership matters, but no leader can substitute for personal commitment to God.
“The high places were not taken away.”
This reveals Jehoash’s partial obedience. Reforming the temple was easier than confronting entrenched popular traditions. True revival requires hard decisions, not merely surface-level improvements.
2. Jehoash makes a decree regarding the repair of the temple
(2 Kings 12:4-5)
“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.’”
Jehoash, having been raised in the temple, developed a deep appreciation for the house of the LORD. The temple had suffered greatly under Athaliah’s wicked rule. She and her sons vandalized it, looted sacred items, and even dedicated treasures from the temple to Baal (2 Chronicles 24:7). Therefore, Jehoash directed that all incoming temple funds be dedicated to repairing its damage. These funds came from three primary sources.
The first was each man’s “census money,” the annual half-shekel tax required of every Israelite male twenty years old and above (Exodus 30:13-15). The second was “each man’s assessment money,” a property related valuation tax described in Leviticus 27:2. This was money associated with the dedicating of persons or possessions to the LORD. The third source included all voluntary offerings—gifts people freely purposed in their hearts to bring to the house of God. Jehoash ordered that the priests collect these funds from their respective districts and use the income to repair whatever damage was found throughout the temple complex.
Clarke notes that although these revenue streams had always existed, the priests and Levites had historically used them for their own support rather than for temple repair. Joash, working through the priesthood, restructured the financial practices so the funds would accomplish their intended purpose. Jehoash’s early reforms were sincere and beneficial. He understood the temple’s importance because he had literally lived inside it as a child; thus restoring it was a personal and spiritual priority.
Notes on Key Phrases
“All the money of the dedicated gifts.”
This phrase introduces the financial basis for temple restoration. The dedicated funds were meant for God’s house, not for personal use or administrative expansion.
“Each man’s census money… each man’s assessment money.”
These were biblically mandated sources of revenue, now properly redirected toward temple repair.
“Let them repair the damages of the temple.”
Jehoash’s desire for repair came from his upbringing. The temple was not just a national symbol; it was his home. He personally understood the need for its restoration after Athaliah’s desecration.
3. Money is gathered for the rebuilding work
(2 Kings 12:6-13)
“Now 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? Now 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.”
By the twenty-third year of Jehoash’s reign, the temple repairs were still not completed. This delay greatly displeased the king, for he had issued the command long earlier and expected progress. The lengthy delay exposed the inefficiency and negligence of the priests responsible for collecting and distributing the funds. Clarke observes that the text implies the order had been given years earlier and that virtually nothing had been done. The repairs were going far too slowly, and Jehoash—who grew up in the temple and personally knew its damaged condition—finally confronted Jehoiada and the other priests. His question was direct: “Why have you not repaired the damages of the temple?” This king, raised under Jehoiada’s mentorship, had a deep respect for the house of the LORD and would not tolerate continued mismanagement.
Jehoash then issued corrective orders: the priests were no longer permitted to collect the funds directly. Instead, all money was now to be delivered to the temple repair project itself. The priests agreed to the new arrangement. This admission showed that the old system was failing. Whether through inefficiency, misallocation, or simple neglect, the priests had not delivered results. Jehoash’s reform centralized accountability and established a clearer, more trustworthy process.
Jehoiada then implemented a new method for the collection of temple funds. He placed a chest beside the altar, on the right side as one entered the Temple courts. A hole was bored into the lid so offerings could be deposited securely. This strategic placement ensured visibility, accessibility, and accountability. The priests who guarded the doors collected all money brought into the house of the LORD and placed it in the chest. The system strengthened trust among the people; those who wanted to give could visibly see their contributions going directly into the designated collection box.
Whenever the chest accumulated a large amount of money, the king’s scribe and the high priest jointly came, counted the money, bagged it, and distributed it. This dual oversight—royal and priestly—ensured integrity and prevented corruption. The funds were then handed over to the supervisors of the temple work. These overseers distributed payment to the carpenters, builders, masons, stonecutters, and suppliers of timber and hewn stone. The funds were used exclusively for structural repairs and restoration. The text emphasizes this point by noting what was not purchased: no silver basins, trimmers, bowls, trumpets, or articles of gold or silver were made from this money. Every coin was dedicated to repairs, not adornments.
2 Chronicles 24:14 reveals that later, once repairs were complete, leftover funds were eventually used for sacred vessels. But during the repair phase described here, every shekel was directed toward reconstruction.
Notes on Key Phrases
“By the twenty-third year… the priests had not repaired the damages.”
This highlights administrative breakdown. Renovating ancient structures is difficult, but the problem here was not the challenge of the work—it was the negligence of those assigned to it.
“Do not take more money from your constituency.”
Jehoash recognized the heart of the issue: funds were being collected but not being used for repairs. He removed the priests from financial handling and required transparency.
“Jehoiada the priest took a chest, bored a hole in its lid.”
This collection chest made the giving process clear, visible, and tamper-resistant. Dilday notes that its placement gave the project high visibility and encouraged generosity.
“The king’s scribe and the high priest… counted the money.”
This dual oversight ensured no corruption could occur. It modeled accountability in both civil and religious institutions.
“They paid it out to the carpenters… builders… masons… stonecutters.”
This list illustrates the scale of the work. Skilled laborers were contracted for serious structural reconstruction, indicating heavy damage from Athaliah’s earlier desecration.
“However… no articles of gold or silver were made.”
Every shekel was devoted to rebuilding, not beautifying. Joash prioritized stability, repair, and restoration over ornamentation.
4. The temple is repaired
(2 Kings 12:14-16)
“But they gave that to the workmen, and they repaired the house of the LORD with it. Moreover they did not require an account from the men into whose hand they delivered the money to be paid to workmen, for they dealt faithfully. The money from the trespass offerings and the money from the sin offerings was not brought into the house of the LORD. It belonged to the priests.”
The financial reforms initiated by Jehoash and Jehoiada produced immediate and trustworthy results. Every portion of the collected funds was given directly to the skilled workmen, who used it to make the necessary structural repairs to the house of the LORD. The repeated emphasis that the money “was given to the workmen” underscores the integrity of the new system. Unlike the earlier stage of the project, where funds were mishandled or left idle, the new system eliminated bottlenecks and ensured the money reached those actually doing the repairs. Through this renewed accountability structure, the temple—damaged by years of neglect and vandalism under Athaliah—was finally restored.
Remarkably, the supervisors and workmen were considered so trustworthy that no formal accounting was required of them. The text states that “they dealt faithfully,” meaning their work was characterized by honesty, diligence, and integrity. The trust placed in them was justified by their character and performance. This contrasts sharply with the earlier system in which the priests allowed the project to stagnate. The success of the repairs demonstrates that the problem had never been a lack of funds but a lack of faithful management. With the right men in place, equipped with both skill and integrity, the work progressed swiftly and effectively.
The passage also clarifies that the money from the trespass offerings and sin offerings was not used for the temple repairs. Those funds “belonged to the priests.” This distinction is important because it shows that Jehoash’s reform did not impoverish the priesthood or take from what the Law assigned them. The reparations and structural upgrades to the temple were achieved without diminishing the priests’ rightful income. Their sacrificial dues remained intact. This protected the integrity of the sacrificial system and preserved the Levitical support structure, ensuring that temple restoration did not become a burden on the priestly livelihood. The reform was fair, orderly, and faithful to God’s law.
Notes on Key Phrases
“They repaired the house of the LORD with it.”
This emphasizes effective use of funds. The money went directly to its intended purpose. Under righteous leadership, the temple was finally restored.
“They did not require an account… for they dealt faithfully.”
This is one of the Bible’s strongest commendations of administrative integrity. These workmen were so trustworthy that no audits were required. Their faithfulness corrected the earlier failure caused by negligence and mismanagement.
“The money from the trespass offerings… belonged to the priests.”
This shows the reform was not punitive toward the priesthood. The priests retained what the law designated for them. The restoration of the temple was done honorably, without violating God’s prescribed order for priestly provision.
B. The decline of King Jehoash
1. Jehoash pays tribute to Hazael to avoid an attack on Jerusalem
(2 Kings 12:17-18)
“Hazael king of Syria went up and fought against Gath, and took it, then Hazael set his face to go up to Jerusalem. And Jehoash king of Judah took all the sacred things that his fathers, Jehoshaphat and Jehoram and Ahaziah, kings of Judah, had dedicated, and his own sacred things, and all the gold found in the treasuries of the house of the LORD and in the king's house, and sent them to Hazael king of Syria. Then he went away from Jerusalem.”
After years of blessing, stability, and early righteousness under Jehoiada’s influence, the spiritual decline of King Jehoash becomes tragically clear. Hazael, the king of Syria, captured Gath and then prepared to march against Jerusalem. Instead of seeking the LORD as previous godly kings had done, Jehoash responded in fear, weakness, and unbelief. Rather than turning to God for deliverance, he stripped the temple of its sacred treasures—items dedicated by righteous kings such as Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, and Ahaziah—and sent them as tribute to the Syrian invader. Even the gold from the temple treasury and the royal palace was surrendered in this desperate attempt to purchase safety. The man who once restored the temple now plundered it to protect himself.
The deeper spiritual reality is revealed in 2 Chronicles 24:23-24. There we learn that the Syrian army that attacked was comparatively small. It should have been no threat. But the LORD delivered Judah’s large army into their hands because Jehoash had forsaken the God of his fathers. God used Syria as an instrument of judgment, allowing them to destroy Judah’s leaders and wound Jehoash himself. Instead of recognizing God’s chastening and repenting, Jehoash attempted to solve the crisis through human means. His loss of faith in God had begun long before this moment, and now in crisis he lacked the spiritual strength to trust in the LORD.
Notes on Key Phrases
“Hazael… took Gath… set his face to go up to Jerusalem.”
Gath’s fall demonstrated that Hazael was on the offensive. But the greater truth, as 2 Chronicles explains, is that God empowered Syria because Judah had forsaken Him.
“Jehoash… took all the sacred things.”
This act reveals tragic deterioration. The temple he restored in his youth was now plundered by his own hand. Sacred gifts dedicated by former kings and even his own sacred possessions were surrendered.
“He found it hard to trust God in this difficult place because he had stopped trusting God in easier circumstances long before.”
Spiritual collapse does not happen all at once. Jehoash drifted when Jehoiada died. When crisis hit, he had nothing left to stand on.
2. The assassination of Jehoash
(2 Kings 12:19-21)
“Now 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? And his servants arose and formed a conspiracy, and killed Joash in the house of the Millo, which goes down to Silla. For Jozachar the son of Shimeath and Jehozabad the son of Shomer, his servants, struck him. So he died, and they buried him with his fathers in the City of David. Then Amaziah his son reigned in his place.”
The record of Jehoash’s final years is marked not by repentance but by tragedy. The chronicler makes no mention of any return to the LORD. Jehoash never recovered the early devotion he displayed under Jehoiada’s leadership. Having drifted into idolatry, ignored prophetic warnings, and even sanctioned the killing of Jehoiada’s son Zechariah, Jehoash lived out the remainder of his life in spiritual darkness. Clarke’s remark captures the sorrowful truth: “O how few of the few who begin to live to God continue unto the end!”
Jehoash’s decline culminated in his own servants forming a conspiracy against him. The king who once restored the temple and championed righteousness ended his life in shame, assassinated in the house of the Millo. Wiseman notes that this conspiracy was likely fueled by widespread discontent after Jehoash’s humiliating tribute payment to Hazael and Judah’s devastating military defeat. The king had lost the respect of both God and man. His inglorious murder was a tragic end to a reign that began with such promise.
Jehoash was buried in the City of David, but 2 Chronicles adds that he was not buried in the tombs of the kings—a significant sign of dishonor. His son Amaziah succeeded him, inheriting a kingdom spiritually weakened by Jehoash’s later failures.
Notes on Key Phrases
“There is no record of repentance.”
The silence is condemning. Jehoash fell away inwardly long before he fell outwardly.
“His servants… formed a conspiracy, and killed Joash.”
This violent end reveals God’s judgment and the consequences of forsaking the covenant. Knapp notes that disobedience brings its own bitter reward. Jehoash sowed rebellion against God and reaped rebellion from his own servants.
“A reign full of promise… but profligate, cruel, and ruinous in the end.”
Clarke summarizes Jehoash’s life: he began well under godly leadership, but without personal conviction he drifted into failure. His story is one of the clearest warnings in Scripture about the dangers of relying on others’ faith instead of cultivating one’s own.
