2 Kings 12:2 - Homiletics

Weakness in a monarch almost as bad as wickedness.

The most prominent trait in the character of Joash was his lack of independence and moral weakness. He had no strength of will, no stamina; in the expressive, if inelegant, language of our times, "no backbone." He must always lean upon some one. Let us look at Joash—

I. IN HIS YOUTH . At this time he was so fortunate as to have a natural prop and support in Jehoiada, his uncle by marriage, and his guardian during the years of his minority. Jehoiada's was a strong character, and the life of Joash, while Jehoiada guided his steps, if not marked by any strikingly great actions, was correct, exemplary, worthy of praise. There was piety and right feeling in the pains, which he took to promote the restoration of the temple, and prudence in the measures whereby he succeeded in effecting his purpose. The measures may have been—probably were—suggested by Jehoiada; but the king deserves some credit for adopting them.

οὗτος μενμανάριστος, ὂς αὐτὸς πάντα νοεῖται

φρασσόμενος τά ἔπειτα καὶ ἐς τέλος ἐστὶν ἀμείνω

ἐσθλὸς δ̓ αὖ κᾴκεινος, ὂς εὖ εἰπόντι πίθηται

As the writer of Kings says, "Joash did that which was right in the sight of the Lord all his days wherein Jehoiada the priest instructed him " ( 2 Kings 12:2 ). But Jehoiada could not live forever. He reached a very advanced age; but at last he "waxed old and died" ( 2 Chronicles 24:15 ), and Joash was left to manage as he might without him. Let us look at him now—

II. IN HIS MIDDLE AGE , AFTER THE DEATH OF JEHOIADA . Apparently his weakness is known, and it is at once assumed that he must put himself under directors. The "princes of Judah" go to him, pay him court, flatter him probably, at any rate offer him unusual honors. And at once he succumbs, and places himself under their influence. We cannot suppose him not to have been aware of what he was doing. He must have known the leanings of the "princes," and have understood that, in adopting them as his advisers, he was giving up all the traditions of his earlier life, and taking a new departure. Such lightness would not have been surprising in a mere youth; but Joash was now at least thirty years of age, probably more, and might have been expected to have formed and settled his principles and his character. Still, experience shows that even thirty years of a pious life, if it has been passed "under tutors and governors," does not fix a man's future in the same line—nay, often leads him to an almost irrepressible desire for revolt, and for departing widely from his antecedents. The desire is a temptation of the devil, and, if yielded to, has devilish results; but it is very often yielded to. Nero's outbreak after he had got rid of Seneca is the most palpable historical example; but the experience of most persons must have shown them scores of instances of men, trained and brought up in good courses till middle life, and then suddenly set free to take their own line, who have plunged into dissipation, impiety, and wickedness of all kinds. The case of Joash is extraordinary, not in its general features, but in the lengths to which he went. Under the influence of the "princes," he allowed the Baal-worship to be reintroduced, and gave it free tolerance.

When prophets remonstrated, and Zechariah denounced God's vengeance on those who had forsaken him ( 2 Chronicles 24:19 , 2 Chronicles 24:20 ), then Joash, unaccustomed to opposition, was so exasperated that he went the length of murder—murder of a high priest within the precincts of the temple, by the cruet death of stoning, and murder of one for whom he ought to have had a special kindness, in remembrance of the vast benefits which he had received from his father ( 2 Chronicles 29:22 ). It is quite possible—nay, probable—that Joash (like Henry II . in the case of Becket) did not deliberately determine on the murder—that hasty words, uttered in extreme exasperation, were seized upon (Stanley) by his too-officious servants, and carried out in act before he could retract them. But this only emphasizes his weakness. A well-intentioned prince, yielding to evil influences, sanctions the most atrocious crime that the temple ever witnessed ( Matthew 23:35 ) and through Ms wellness involves the nation in guilt greater than any that had been incurred by the doings of the most wicked of preceding monarchs.