2 Kings chapter 12, still in
the southern kingdom of Judah, concerning the reign of Joash. Now it's spelled differently
in chapter 12, most of the times, except for verse 19. But the
Jehoahash of chapter 12 is the Joash of chapter 11. Just a little
bit of a variation. I'm going to continue to pronounce
it as Joash, just for consistency. In the seventh year of Jehu,
Joash became king, and he reigned 40 years in Jerusalem. His mother's
name was Zibiah of Beersheba. Joash 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. And Joash 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. Now, it was so by the
23rd year of King Joash that the priests had not repaired
the damages of the temple. So King Joash 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. And 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. 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. Hazael, king of Syria, went up
and fought against Gath, and took it. Then Hazael set his
face to go up to Jerusalem. And Joash, 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. 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 Milo, which
goes down to Silah. for Josachar 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. Amen. we're still
continuing in the Southern Kingdom after quite an excursus into
the Northern Kingdom and the reign of Jehu. When Jehu leveled,
or decimated rather, the house of Baal, the scene is shifted
back to the Southern Kingdom, specifically the house of David. And last week in chapter 11,
we saw that the house of David itself was almost extinguished.
but here it lives on, it continues to flourish, and Joash, the son
of Ahaziah, is the king in Judah. I want to look at two things
tonight. The chapter is pretty simple and pretty straightforward.
We'll try to draw out some lessons as we move along. The first place,
the repairs to the temple in verses 1 to 16, and then secondly,
the depletion of the temple. It's quite an ironic chapter.
This man, Joash, spends money, spends time, spends energy, spends
effort to make sure that the temple is repaired, that the
dilapidated structure has been rebuilt and refurbished and restored,
only to then give away the temple treasures to invading Hazael. So it's an unfortunate situation
that faces Joash, here, the king. Well, let's look at the repairs
to the temple in verses 1 to 16. In the first place, verses
1 to 3 are something common that we have seen in our studies in
1 and 2 Kings. Commentators call this a regnal
formula. referring to the royalty or to
the king or to the regency and it's simply the formula that
states the name of the king, his parentage, the time that
he reigned, a brief summary statement concerning the nature of his
reign. And so this is a regnal formula and in many respects
we ought to be very thankful for it. It's routine, it's mundane,
it's ordinary, but after the events of chapter 11, it's very
encouraging because it highlights to us the stability of the Davidic
covenant. Remember in 2 Samuel 7, God promised
David that from his line Messiah would come. And from his line
there would be a succession of kings, up until, of course, Messiah. Well, with the rebellion and
the usurpation of Athaliah in chapter 11, that Davidic dynasty
was threatened. And so this mundane, ordinary
regnal formula in verses 1 to 3 is something of a great boon
to the people of God. to underscore the faithfulness,
the mercy, the kindness of God and the stability of His covenant
with reference to His people. Now, as I said, the formula is
routine and ordinary. We'll just run through it. The
dates of Joash's reign were 835 to 796 BC. Now, the reign of 40 years and
his restoration of or his repair of the temple does suggest a
parallel with Solomon. Solomon also reigned for 40 years,
and of course Solomon was the temple builder. Now there are
certainly some similarities in terms of the two men, but there
is great disparity as well as we move through this particular
chapter. Now note the positive statement concerning his rightness
in the sight of the Lord. Notice, after the statement concerning
his parentage, in verse 2 it says, "...Joash did what was
right in the sight of the Lord all the days in which Jehoiada
the priest instructed him." So he maintained rightness in the
sight of the Lord in contrast with his father Ahaziah and with
his grandfather Jehoram. Remember in 2 Kings 8, very specifically
it indicates that both Jehoram and Ahaziah were wicked. They
did not do what was right in the Lord. They didn't please
God at all. Now, certainly Joash doesn't
end well, and tonight we're going to look at 2 Chronicles 24 because
it fleshes out a bit more about this conspiracy that we find
at the end of the chapter in terms of his execution or assassination. But he doesn't end well, but
he nevertheless started well, and we ought to appreciate that.
But also, within verse 2, there's a bit of an ominous note, a bit
of an ominous statement concerning the goodness of his reign. Notice
it says, Joash did what was right in the sight of the Lord all
the days in which Jehoiada, the priest, instructed him. Remember,
Jehoiada was married to Jehoshabah. She was the woman that stole
away or squirreled away Joash, her nephew, so that Athaliah
could not get to him and kill him. So Jehoiada was introduced
in the last chapter, and because of the fact that Joash was merely
seven years old when he took the throne in Judah, certainly
Jehoiada exercised a great deal of influence over him. And so
in verse 2, when it says that Joash did what was right in the
sight of the Lord, all the days in which Jehoiada the priest
instructed him, we might surmise that once Jehoiada the priest
was dead, this man Joash would not continue to do what was right
in the sight of the Lord. In fact, John Gill interprets
it this way. And so long as he observed his,
Jehoiada's, instructions, and as long as that priest lived,
He reigned well, for to that period all his days must be limited. So there is that introductory
statement. He does do what's right in the
sight of the Lord, but it's all the days in which Jehoiada the
priest had instructed him. As soon as Jehoiada is gone,
and as I said in 2 Chronicles 24, we will see a more vivid
display than what we even have here at the end of chapter 12
in 2 Kings, we will see that Jehoiada had exercised an influence,
a restraining influence over this man Joash. And then note
the qualification concerning the high places. Verse 3, but
the high places were not taken away. The people still sacrificed
and burned incense on the high places. This is a pesky statement
that continues to recur throughout the history in Kings. It was
one of those things that was consistent with the men who went
before them. It's reminiscent of Rehoboam,
1 Kings 14. and Jehoshaphat in 1 Kings 22. Now this is contrary to Deuteronomy
12. Deuteronomy 12, God mandated
a centralized sanctuary where all the people of Israel would
go, specifically it comes to be Jerusalem, and they would
go there to worship. And the reason for that, remember
this is a fundamental difference or a disconnect or a discontinuity
with New Covenant worship. Remember the Lord Jesus, in his
discussion with that woman in John chapter 4, that Samaritan
woman. She speaks about where her father's
worshipped and where the Jews worshipped. And Jesus says, the
time is coming and now is, when it won't be there and it won't
be there, but rather the Lord God is spirit and those who worship
must worship in spirit and truth. But in the Old Testament, this
centralized sanctuary was a bit of preventative maintenance.
God didn't want Israel to go hankering after God wherever
they felt so inclined. This central sanctuary provided
a means by which the persons were hedged in, and it provided
parameters to keep them from going a-whoring from God, from
visiting Baal, or from visiting Asherah, from visiting Dagon,
or whatever the specific deity might be that they hankered after. And so the central sanctuary
was absolutely crucial in the religious life of Israel. And
the fact that they continue to go to these high places is contrary
to that stipulation. As I said, this is normal, it's
ordinary, it's somewhat routine or mundane. But in light of specifically
chapter 11, and Athaliah's rage against the kingdom of David,
it is a great blessing to meet this routine and ordinary and
sort of mundane information. We saw her attempt. We saw the
providence of God in preserving the house of David in chapter
11, verses 2 and 3. And then we see here in chapter
12 the continuity of the house of David according to the plan
and the purpose and the promise of God. One commentator says,
the dynasty is once again placed on a regular footing. And Davis
makes this observation. Out of the thick of Athaliah's
regime in chapter 11, with Davidic blood dripping from her hands
and tyranny reigning on her throne, there is nevertheless a seven-year-old
Davidide, that means one from the house of David, who begins
to reign. What seems only statistical. That's how that regnal formula
is read. It's statistical. It's simply
a string of information that's consistent among many kings that
we see. He says, what seems only statistical
is glorious. What appears dull is thrilling. It's as if the writer says the
covenant still works. So don't bypass these sorts of
things without any regard for the particular context that we
find it in. The kingdom of David was hanging
by a threat. It looked close to elimination. It looked close to extermination.
It looked like it was going to be gone. But lo and behold, we
get to chapter 12. There's a throne, or a king rather,
on David's throne. And he again is typical of the
one that will come ultimately from the line of David. Now,
note the repairs to the temple in verses 4 to 16. We see the
king's plan. Now, Matthew, Henry, and John
Gill said he had a special affinity to the temple because that's
where he lived. Remember, that's where he was
squirreled away. He was hidden there at the temple. So, I mean,
I don't know if they meant he had no religious desires whatsoever,
but certainly that was probably a part of it. He had lived there,
he had been reared there, he had been brought up there, and
so certainly it seems fitting for him to want to see that temple
repaired. So note his plan, the collection
of monies in verse 4. It probably refers to census
money according to Exodus 30, money that was given in personal
vow in Leviticus 27, and then voluntary gifts that have at
least a precedent in what Moses does with Israel with reference
to the building of the tabernacle in Exodus 35. So the collection
of money, verse 4, and the specific purpose in verse 5. Let the priests
take it themselves, each from his constituency, and let them
repair the damages of the temple wherever any dilapidation is
found." Now you can turn to 2 Chronicles 24 for just a moment. We'll go
back there later on tonight. as we get toward the end of chapter
12, but just to highlight something of the dilapidation that had
occurred. Now, the temple had been standing
about a hundred plus years, so it would have normal wear and
tear to be sure, but it also had to deal with Athaliah. And
in verse 7 it says, "...the sons of Athaliah, that wicked woman,
had broken into the house of God, and had also presented all
the dedicated things of the house of the Lord to the Baals." So
we cannot believe that she gave the temple any decent treatment. So it's in a state of disrepair,
normal wear and tear, and certainly that inflicted upon it by that
Jezebel-like woman. And so he says, let the priests
take it themselves, each from his constituency, let them repair
the damages of the temple wherever any dilapidation is found. Now,
notice specifically their failure to comply in verse 6. Now, it was so by the 23rd year
of King Joash that the priests had not repaired the damages
of the temple. Now the 23-year reference could
be taken one of two ways. It took him 23 years to initiate
this particular plan to repair the temple, or it was something
that he initiated straight away when he began his reign, and
it took him that long to figure out that the priests weren't
getting it done. Either way, it doesn't look as
if it is a priority to Joash. Now, on the surface, things seem
at least somewhat well in terms of this concern for the temple
with reference to Joash. But as we get to Hazael's incursion
into Israel, we see that he doesn't really have a concern whatsoever
for the temple and its stuff. And as well, the fact that these
priests were not rapid or quick in getting to the repairs would
indicate that it wasn't that great with the priesthood also.
Now, there are certainly some high points with Jehoiada. He
was a godly man, a good man, but certainly it's not the groundswell
of religious revival in 2 Kings 12 that it was at the time of
Solomon when he reigned and when he built the temple. Now, notice
he revises his plan in verses 7 to 8. Essentially, the revision
indicates the priests were using the monies collected for their
own benefit. Notice in verse 7. So King Joash
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. Now, it's not
wrong for the priests to want to eat, but it does seem to be
the case that some of that money was designated specifically for
temple repair, but it was not making its way into temple repair. And so he goes on to say, or
in verse 8 rather, it says, and the priests agreed that they
would neither receive more money from the people, nor repair the
damages of the temple. Now that last clause probably
shouldn't be negative. I doubt the priests were saying,
no, we're not going to repair the damages to the temple. Rather,
they weren't going to be in charge of it. They weren't going to
be the ones that were administrating it like it was before. So they
build up or they enact another sort of way to go about this.
Priestly involvement, but kingly involvement also. Now notice
in verses 9 and 10, they collect money. And the way they do this
is by putting a chest. They bore a hole in its lid,
set it beside the altar on the right side as one comes into
the house of the Lord. And the priest who kept the door
put there all the money. brought into the house of the
Lord. So what was at one time funded
by the royal treasury is now being funded by the people of
Israel. They are coming with their freewill
offerings and their monies to finance the repairs of the temple. Now note verse 10, specifically. It says, 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. You
ever wondered why deacons do this in pairs? Here's your biblical
precedent. Accountability is a good thing,
right? Accountability is a blessed thing,
but it is very intriguing. We've got the king's scribe,
the sort of royal representative, and the high priest to maintain
accountability. Probably the king wants to make
sure there's no funny business on the part of the priest. It
is intriguing that there's a contrast with the supervisors of the workmen
in verse 15. They didn't need to be held accountable
because they functioned faithfully. It's a sad thing when the supervisors
of the tradesmen, not that they shouldn't, but it's a sad thing
when the supervisors of the tradesmen are more faithful men and don't
need the sort of scrutiny that the priesthood in Israel needs
at this particular time. So we've got this accountability
in place. They count out the loot, and
then they disperse that money in order to repair the temple. Verses 11 and 12 indicate that. 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. Again, this is one of those chapters where, you
know, it's not like chapter 10. I wonder if the author sort of
structured it this way so that we could have a bit of a breather
after the legacy of Jehu. I mean, with Jehu, we're riding
furiously, smoking people with our bows and arrow, watching
Jezebel get trampled underfoot by dogs. Chapter 11, we're still
up there in terms of this wicked woman, this usurper to the throne.
And now in chapter 12, we're dealing again with sort of the
mundane and the ordinary. Well, brethren, I would imagine
that if you were one of the original persons involved at this particular
time, you'd be quite happy about the regular and the ordinary
and the mundane. When everything sort of calms
down in the kingdom and we get back to just maintaining, we
get back to that time where we just make the repairs, we fix
the dilapidation. In other words, we can't always
live up here. So much of God's blessings is
when we're down here. the ordinary, the mundane, the
normal, and the routine. It's a very unfortunate thing
that people that profess faith in Christ always want to be up
here. Now, I'm not suggesting it's
wrong if God revives your heart, or you go into your prayer closet
and the Lord meets with you, or you sing that old Negro spiritual,
Heaven Came Down and Glory Filled My Soul. There's nothing wrong
with that. But it seems to me that the people of God are so
often pining after the next best experience, they don't enjoy
God's blessings in the ordinary routine and normal. God calls
us to enjoy His blessings, whether they're up here or whether they're
right here. It's always intrigued me that
Christians that are always chomping at the bit for that next best
greatest experience, I've often wondered if they live their married
lives that way. Do they always have to do the
next best greatest thing? Or can they just sit together
on the couch? Can they play Scrabble? Can they
just do dishes together? Can they enjoy the normal, the
ordinary, and the mundane? Or do they have to go skydiving
over Barcelona and eat fine food once they get on the ground?
You see, Christians are pining after this all the time and not
enjoying what God has given them right down here. The normal,
the ordinary, and the mundane is to be treasured. And I think
that after a reign like Jehu, after a usurper like Adeliah,
and her wickedness, and this close to extermination of the
Davidic kingdom, we see the blessings of rebuilding, or restoring,
or repairing the temple because it had been dilapidated. So this
is a normal, ordinary, sort of routine chapter in scripture,
but it's no less of God. It's not devoid of God, it is
full of God, and we ought to appreciate that reality. So the money is distributed and
the repairs, excuse me, are completed in verses 13 to 16. 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. But
they gave that to the workmen and they repaired the house of
the Lord with it. Now, if you compare the parallel in 2 Chronicles
24, it would seem to be that after they finish Sort of the
exterior repairs, then they did use money for those interior
utensils. So if you're reading 2nd Chronicles
24, and it says that they had those particular things, and
here it says they didn't fund those particular things. The
simple explanation is, is that after they finished the exterior
repairs, then they went ahead and got the utensils for inside.
In other words, they slapped the coat of paint on the outside
before they put dishes on the inside. That's sort of how you
could probably reconcile that. And then, as I said in verse
15, a bit of a contrast with the priestly accountability involved. Matthew Henry draws out some
moralistic application here. That's the way we all ought to
endeavor to be. We ought to work in such a way,
if we're in public office, we're in private enterprise, whatever
our station and our lot in life, we ought to be the sorts of people
that deal faithfully. It ought not to be the case that
persons are averse to doing business with Christians because they
always get burned. doing business with Christians
because they always get shorted, doing business with Christians
because they get railroaded. That is not a good testimony,
it is not a good witness, and it's not faithfulness. We ought
to learn from these men doing the repairs in the temple or
at the temple, in this particular time frame that they dealt faithfully. They worked well with little
to no supervision. They didn't need a microscope
over them. They didn't need to account for every penny because
the men who were watching saw that they had dealt faithfully.
And then notice how this section ends, verse 16. 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
priest. Now this refers to numbers 5,
5 to 10. And essentially what we find
is that in a church building program, don't let the pastor
starve. Now I know that probably sounds
self-serving but we neither have a church building program going
on and thankfully you've never let me starve. But that's precisely
what's in view. The money from the trespass offerings
and the money from the sin offerings was not brought into the house
of the Lord for that particular purpose to repair the temple
of the Lord. it belonged to the priests. They had to buy food,
they had to buy clothes, they had to buy all those necessities
and provide for family. Matthew Henry said, let not the
servants of the temple be starved under color of repairing the
breaches of it. I think that's good horse sense
that we pick up from this particular section. So that is the repairs
to the temple. Let's look at the depletion of
the temple. Just as quick as it came, so
as quick it goes. Verses 17 to 21. Two sections here, the bribery
of Hazael and the death of Joash. Notice this incursion by Hazael. We've already seen him going
into the northern kingdom in chapter 10. Now, this particular
attack is probably not the one of 2 Chronicles chapter 24 verses
23 to 25. It would appear that there were
two incursions by Hazael, and that the 2 Chronicles 24, 23
to 25 was most likely a second one. And here specifically, though,
the king of Syria went up and fought against Gath and took
it. Now remember, Gath was of the
Philistines, and it had been conquered by David. According
to 2 Samuel 8, David had conquered the Philistines, and then 1 Chronicles
18.1 names Gath specifically as a place that David had subdued. So Hazael now, with the Syrian
army, comes and he takes Gath, and he wants to now march upon
Jerusalem. That is precisely what the text
says. Then Hazael set his face to go
up to Jerusalem. And Joash, 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, Hazael, went away from
Jerusalem." So on the one hand, we see this man's legacy. And
on the other hand, we see how little he cared for it. He's
willing to bribe rather than battle Hazael with reference
to the city of Jerusalem. Now this reminds us, or it should
remind us, of Asa in 1 Kings 15, verse 18. He also bribes in an attempt
to stop a foreign invader. The irony of the situation is
that he repairs the temple and then depletes the temple when
Hazael goes to Jerusalem. Again, John Gill says to bribe
him that he might desist from his purpose which showed a meanness
of spirit and was the effect of his idolatry and apostasy,
having forsaken the Lord, and being forsaken by him, in whom
should have been his trust and confidence, and then he need
not have been afraid to meet the king of Syria." In other
words, if he had been a faithful man, Instead of giving away all
these goods, he could have battled Hazael, and with the Lord on
his side, would have been victorious. But he doesn't walk by faith.
He's not a true believer in God. He is not one that is faithful
to the Lord. So insofar as he begins, he's
under the tutelage and supervision and restraining hand of Jehoiada,
he's okay. But as soon as Jehoiada is off
the scene or out of the picture, then Joash is living like the
godless man that he is. And instead of fighting for the
temple, instead of fighting for the holy city, he essentially
gives away all of the treasures of the temple so that he can
bribe Hazael to depart and to be gone. Davis says the writer
is not commending Joash for a smart move, but bemoaning the king's
disappointing recourse. Forking over temple treasures
for political or military security never gets positive remarks in
1st and 2nd Kings, whether under the regimes of Rehoboam, Esau,
Joash, Ahaz, or Hezekiah. All these, I like what he says
here, are but previews of what the Babylonians will do. 2 Kings
24 and 25, what happens when the city is invaded by the Babylonians? They go and they deplete the
temple. They go and they take the treasures
out of the temple. That these kings of Judah are
handing things over is a foretaste or a preview or a foreshadowing
of what's going to come in terms of God's judgment upon the nation
for their sin and rebellion against God Most High. Now let's look
finally at the death of Joash. Verse 19, 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 Milo, which goes down to Silla. For Jazakar, the son
of Shimeath, and Jehazabad, 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." Again, it's the standard formula that
tells us how kings met. their particular end. Now while
the writer of Kings does not develop this, and while he does
not go into detail concerning this particular conspiracy, the
writer of Chronicles does. So you can turn to 2 Chronicles
24. 2 Chronicles 24. specifically verses 15 to 25.
We see the death of Jehoiada in 2415. Jehoiada grew old and
was full of days, and he died. He was 130 years old 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 his house.
What an excellent way. A good way to end your life,
to have that sort of written in scripture concerning you,
we can say, well done, good and faithful servant, Jehoiada. But
after the death of Jehoiada, specifically in verse 17, we
see the leaders of Judah come and bow down to the king, and
the king listened to them. Now, brethren, I realize Jehoiada
wasn't his father. I realize that Jehoiada wasn't
related to Joash in terms of blood, but there's certainly
a good parallel here. There's certainly a good sort
of, you know, at least image or similarity between the two
in terms of this relationship. And I think there's something
here for us as parents to learn. We ought to exercise restraint
over our children. I think that's, you know, the
first lesson that should pop out. You know, when you go home
tonight, you look at your children and say, there's a new regime
in town, I'm going to be a Jehoiada, I'm going to be a faithful man,
I'm going to be a faithful woman, I'm going to exercise restraint
upon you. But your exercising of restraint
and your parental influence cannot change their hearts. They must
be born again. They must be converted. And so
for all of us as parents, or as grandparents, or as would-be
parents, or as friends, or brothers, or sisters, or whatever we might
find our station in life to be, any exercise of influence that
we have over someone else, let us always realize that it is
external. And it is important. I would
never suggest parents be hyper-Calvinist, believe that only God can save
your kids, so therefore don't exercise any restraint or any
influence. No, that's not righteous. That's godless, and you need
to not do that. You need to exercise that restraint
and influence, but you cannot bank on your excellent parenting
skills to ensure your child's salvation. You cannot treat it
formulaically. I remember years ago there was
a particular sort of training program. I don't know what else
to call it. It was a program designed to
sort of assist parents in bringing up their children for Jesus.
And it really was almost formulaic. And it was almost, you know,
put this in here and do this that way and, you know, pull
this lever and out pop your Christian kids. You just can't approach
parenting that way. You just can't expect some formulaic
way. Jehoiada gets this glowing report. Jehoiada exercised influence
over Joash, but as soon as Jehoiada is dead, Joash is turning to
idols. So brethren, exercise restraint,
prove to be a godly example, influence your children for good
and for positive things, but pray to God Almighty for their
salvation. Evangelize them, preach the gospel
to them, have a family altar where you open the scriptures
and declare to them the saving gospel of Jesus Christ our Lord,
His life, His death, His resurrection. Point them to Calvary. Point
them to that one alone in whom there is salvation. Teach them
the necessity of attending the house of God, not simply out
of rite or not simply out of ritual, but because there is
the preaching of the gospel. Evidence that sort of commitment
in your own life and bring your children in tow to the public
means of grace and put them under the preaching of the gospel.
This is what our kids desperately need. the influence, the restraint,
all of that parental sort of authority exercise for good in
their lives, but prayerfully and with a gospel orientation
pointing them to the Savior for sinners. So the death of Jehoiada
then results in Joash's running amok. So verse 17, the king listens
to them. Verse 18, we see the idolatry
of Joash. Therefore they left the house
of the Lord God, of their fathers, and served wooden images and
idols. And wrath came upon Judah and
Jerusalem because of their trespass." You see that same theme over
and over again. How does God view idolatry? Well, you know, that's great.
You just pick that and hopefully it leads to some satisfaction
for you. No, God hates idolatry. That is the perennial violation
of the people of God, or the professing people of God, and
He visits it with judgment. We have covered this over and
over again in our studies in Kings. We're going to eventually
hear it in 1 John 5.21. My little children, keep yourselves
from idols. This is a reality, whether you're
in the 21st century or whether you were in the 9th century BC.
We need to guard our hearts. And then verse 19, note this
yet. Isn't this vintage Yahweh, as
Davis might say, yet he sent prophets to them to bring them
back to the Lord, and they testified against them, but they would
not listen. You see, you've met those people
that say, oh, the God of the Bible, or the Old Testament,
it's wrath and fury and hellfire and damnation. There's patience
and long-suffering. This yet underscores that. Yet
He sent prophets to them to bring them back to the Lord, and they
testified against them. In other words, they did what
they were supposed to do, but they, Joash and his cronies,
would not listen. Now notice the murder of Zechariah,
the son of Jehoiada, in verses 20 to 22. This is the Zechariah
referred to by our Lord Jesus in Matthew 23. Remember the blood
of Abel to Zechariah. What Jesus is saying there is
a virtual A to Z. Not because it works that way
in English, but because the first book of the Hebrew Old Testament
is Genesis, and the last book of the Hebrew Old Testament is
2 Chronicles. And so you have Abel to Zechariah. And so Christ says that the blood
guiltiness of all those is going to be heaped upon that first
century Israel. But here is that murder of Zechariah. Verse 20, the Spirit of God came
upon Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, the priest, who stood above the
people and said to them, Thus says God, Why do you transgress
the commandments of the Lord, so that you cannot prosper? Because
you have forsaken the Lord, he also has forsaken you. So they
conspired against him, and at the command of the king, Isn't
that a sad statement? The command of the king? Mob
violence is sanctioned by the king? Stone this prophet, this
true prophet of God? Let us get rid of him? Joash
may have started off well, but he certainly doesn't end well. He ends as a common thug. So
they conspired against him, and at the command of the king they
stoned him with stones in the court of the house of the Lord.
Thus Joash the king did not remember the kindness which Jehoiada his
father had done to him, but killed his son. And as he died, he said,
The Lord look on it and repay." Now that is specifically what
happens. Notice the specific judgment of God in verses 23
to 25. So it happened in the spring of the year that the army
of Syria came up against him, and they came to Judah and Jerusalem,
and destroyed all the leaders of the people from among the
people, and sent all their spoil to the king of Damascus. For
the army of the Syrians came with a small company of men,
but the Lord delivered a very great army into their hand."
You see, it's not your military might, it's not the amount of
weapons that you have, it's whether or not Yahweh backs you. And
Joash forfeit this by his own wickedness and idolatry. So the
Syrians came with a small army, but Yahweh delivered a very great
army into their hand, because they had forsaken the Lord God
of their fathers. So they executed judgment against
Joash. And when they had withdrawn from
him, for they left him severely wounded, his own servants conspired
against him because of the blood of the sons of Jehoiada the priest,
and killed him on his bed. So he died, and they buried him
in the city of David, but they did not bury him in the tombs
of the kings." Now, this isn't the same sort of coup that we
see in 11.1, where Adaliah is trying to exterminate the house
of David. That's not their interest. That's
not their desire. They are not looking to usurp
the throne at this particular instance because we see that
Amaziah his son took the throne. He succeeded him in a natural
sort of succession. They were executing vengeance
upon this wretched man because of his treatment of the sons
of Jehoiada. He did not remember the kindness
of Jehoiada. He turned away from the God of
Jehoiada. He turned to the idols, the Asherah,
the images. He bowed to them. He apostatized
from God and therefore the Lord brought judgment to bear upon
him. One commentator, Hubbard, says,
once a promising God-fearing young ruler, Joash dies a disappointment. By bribing Hazael with temple
treasures, he tarnished his one great achievement, the temple
restoration. I mean, it's really pathetic,
actually. You hear about these guys, I remember President Obama
on his way out, or former President Obama on his way out, talking
about his legacies. He's always talking about their
legacies. Political leaders want a legacy. Well, his legacy lasted,
what, from verse 16 to verse 17? I don't know how much time
was involved there, but it's certainly short-lived with reference
to Joash. House says, Joash becomes proud
and disloyal even to the extent that he kills his mentor's son
for preaching his mentor's message. He kills his mentor's son for
preaching his mentor's message. You see, the restraint of Jehoiada
was unable to exercise saving influence upon the heart of Joash. If anything, we learn the necessity
of personal faith in the Savior at every step of the way. Well,
the successor, of course, is Amaziah, which again demonstrates
that this execution or assassination was not driven by use or patient. but was rather an act of vengeance. In conclusion, I mentioned the
mundane. I want to quote Davis here. I'm
kind of leaning on him for a couple of points of application. Once
again, his commentary here is excellent. But the blessing of
the mundane, that sort of regnal formula in verses 1 to 3, the
ordinary, the statistical, he reigned this amount of time,
he did this, he did that. Davis says saints must grasp
all this lest they become ingrates. In other words, grasp the fact
that God is in the ordinary. Grasp the fact that God is in
plunging toilets. Grasp the fact... I mentioned
that preaching on a call to the ministry a couple of weeks ago.
You know, guys that want to preach, they want to go behind the pulpit,
they want to address the people of God. That's a noble thing
and a blessed thing. But there are typically going
to be guys that plunge toilets when nobody's around, or cut
grass when nobody's around, clean up vomit when nobody's around.
They don't necessarily have to have the high place, they will
always do those little things, because he who is faithful in
little is faithful in much. Dare I say it, God is glorified
when we plunge a toilet to keep the house of God functioning
accordingly. If the toilets ain't flushin',
brethren, that's gonna cause some distress. And we may look
at that as a small and minuscule thing, but, praise God, our toilets
and our plumbing work properly. So Davis says, Saints must grasp
all this lest they become ingrates. Surely we recognize that many
of God's gifts come wrapped in plain brown paper packages. and yet they are gifts for all
that. Mundane mercies are mercies nonetheless,
and prosaic provisions are still provisions. If the Lord has granted
us a civil order where we can lead a quiet and peaceable life,
godly and respectful in every way, 1 Timothy 2.2, that is no
less a boon for all its apparent ordinariness. Actually, there
are no petty providences. I think he's right. If we don't
appreciate this, we will become ingrates. We only acknowledge
God's blessings when it's a new car. We don't acknowledge God's
blessings when we get a nice cup of coffee in the morning.
Brethren, God is the God, not only of the big, but of the small. Where have we seen this lesson
over and over again, but in 2 Kings. 2 Kings 4 specifically, 2 Kings
5, the ministry of Elisha the prophet. God deals with nobodies. God deals with no-names, God
deals with apparent losers in human history, and He blesses
them, and He grants them many good things in a very sort of
ordinary way. Secondly, we ought to appreciate
something that comes from the parallel in 2 Chronicles 24,
a New Testament principle as well. is the blessing of giving
to God's cause. What does Paul say? God loves
what? Somebody who, you know, ekes it out, you know, he relentlessly
or unhappily pulls his wallet out and, you know, he can't quite
get his fingers to maneuver to get it into the... No, God loves
a cheerful giver, brethren. He doesn't love, you know, stingy,
you know, ingrate people that don't cough up. You heard the
preacher, he said, you know, the good news, we got good news
and bad news about the money we need for the building program.
The good news is we have all the money that we need. The bad
news is it's in your wallets. The principle in 2 Chronicles
24, notice in verse 10. Then all the leaders and all
the people rejoiced, brought their contributions and put them
into the chest until all had given. Is that what we rejoice
in, is beautifying the house of God? Do we rejoice on that,
you know, one day a year? One day that we call everybody
to show up and, you know, pick up a mop, a broom, a bucket,
a pan, whatever, and clean something? Is it tedious? Is it a nightmare? Is it, I just can't be bothered
for that, wow, three and a half hours out of my life. These brethren
rejoice, the people rejoice at the reality that they got to
give to see the temple repaired. You know, there's a blessing
that's involved in giving to God's work. Matthew Henry says,
those who have experienced the comfort and benefit of religious
assemblies will make the reproach of them their burden, the support
of them their care, and the prosperity of them their chief joy. I like
that. Very good. And then finally,
since we've already covered Jehoiada and his exercise of influence
and restraint over Joash, we ought to appreciate, before we
leave, the blessing of David's greater son. Davis again says,
the failure of Joash should only lift our eyes to the descendant
of David who does not disappoint. There is a built-in defect in
all merely human leadership. and recognizing this will save
you from much anger and gnashing of teeth in the church. But the
failure and folly of men should only make us crave and enjoy
the fullness and faithfulness of Jesus all the more." So when
we see Joash start well and end poorly, we ought to remember
that he is but one in a line of successors that will ultimately
take us to one who not only starts well, but he does everything
well. The one who's altogether lovely,
the one who is chief among 10,000. Well, let us close in a word
of prayer. Our Father, we thank you for your word. We thank you
for the history of the kings of Israel. We thank you ultimately
for that 2 Samuel 7 promise and the preservation of the Davidic
dynasty and its fulfillment in our Lord Jesus. We thank you
for his eternal kingdom. We thank you for his reign, his
rule at your right hand even now. We look forward to His return
in glory to judge the living and the dead. And may it be the
case, Most High God, that we would all be clothed in His righteousness
and we stand before You on that day, not with our sins, not with
our good works, but clothed in the righteousness of Christ and
Him alone. We ask that You would go with
us now, watch over us, help us to be faithful in our lives,
and we pray through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
