January 13th, 2013
2 Chronicles 23 (2 Kings 11:4-21)
“Revolutionary Reforms”
Bible Memory Verse for the Week: He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true”. — Revelation 21:5
Background Information:
- The motif of the threatened child and its marvelous rescue is common in world folklore; in Scripture, it features prominently in the stories of Moses (Ex 2:1-10) and Jesus (Mt 2:13-23). (Steven S. Tuell, Interpretation: 1 & 2 Chr, 193)
- (vss. 3-7) Does Josiah become king by God’s promises or by Jehoiada’s planning?
- (v. 8) Also clearly evident is Jehoiada’s clever stratagem of timing the takeover so that it would coincide with the shift change on the temple mount (compare v. 8 with 2 Kgs 11:7). In asking the shift of priests going off duty to remain and guard the king, Jehoiada was able to double the total number of men available for deployment without arousing Queen Athaliah’s suspicions. (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 2 Chr, 265)
- (v. 9) It was appropriate that the weapons used to restore rule to a descendant of David had belonged to David. (Raymond B. Dillard, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 15, 183)
- (v. 9) Another brilliant move by the priest was his use of weapons and shields that King David had left in the temple treasury (v. 9). Temples in the ancient world were repositories for all manner of dedicated gifts. There is nothing surprising in David’s having dedicated some weapons to the Lord. They could have been captured from the enemy in one of his many campaigns, or they could have been left over after his fighting days were done. The fact that the arms were already in place made it possible for the troops of the new king to assemble themselves on the temple grounds without first having to walk through the streets of Jerusalem heavily armed. In this way secrecy could be maintained. More than that, the symbolism of using David’s weapons to restore a son of David to the throne could not have been lost on the fighting men. Receiving those arms from the Lord’s own priest in the Lord’s own temple signified that the struggle against Athaliah was a holy war. (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 2 Chr, 265-66)
- (v. 11) In the Hebrew Bible, people and things are anointed with oil as a sign of commissioning to special service (for example, Ex 30:26-30; Isa 45:1), or of special honor (for example, Ps 23:5). The title “anointed one,” or “Messiah,” can be used for the high priest (Lv 4:3, 5, 16; 6:22), and rarely, for the community. Preeminently, however, the king is the anointed one, set aside for honor and for service as God’s particular representative (see, for example, Ps 2). (Steven S. Tuell, Interpretation: 1 & 2 Chr, 191)
- (v. 11) Apparently, one condition of this covenant was that Jehoiada was to act as regent for the young king. A written copy of this covenant was probably given later to the king (see 23:11). These arrangements may have provided a background for the subsequent conflict between Jehoiada and Joash (see 24:4-12). (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chr, A Mentor Commentary, 365)
- (vss.12-13) The scene is reminiscent of the noise over Solomon’s coronation that startled the usurper Adonijah and ultimately clashed all hope he held for ascending to David’s throne (cf. 1 Kgs 1:39-41). (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chr, 523)
- (v. 13) There is a particular irony in her cry of “Treason! Treason!” (V. 13), for it condemns not Jehoiada and the King’s guard, but herself. So much are the enemies of truth hardened in their perceptions! (J. G. McConville, The Daily Study Bible Series, 1 & 2 Chr, 206)
- (v. 13) By Athaliah’s own standards there can be no treason, since, for her, power is rightly held by those who can hold it (the morality, incidentally, of the most respectable modern diplomacy). (J. G. McConville, The Daily Study Bible Series, 1 & 2 Chr, 206)
- (v. 13) In support of Joash there came “all the people of the land”–an expression identifying “the body of free men, enjoying civic rights” (de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 70), who are here distinguished from the military officers. They did not form “a party or a social class” though in postexilic times the expression did come to designate “the non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, who hindered the work of restoration” (Frank E. Gæbelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 4, 511)
- (vss. 14-15) Once again the irony is poignant: Jehoiada, who is so concerned to protect the sanctity of the temple from any murder, cannot save his own son from precisely that sacrilege (24:21).
The “Horse Gate” of the palace should be distinguished from the gate of the same name in the city wall (Jer 31:40; Neh 3:28), though both could have been oriented in the same direction. The Horse Gate of the city wall led to the Kidron Valley, “where dead bodies are thrown” (Jer 31:40), and would have made a fitting exit for Athaliah; her mother Jezebel had been trampled by horses.
The absence of the usual summary statements at the end of a reign confirms once again the judgment of the biblical historians that Athaliah was never a rightful ruler in Jerusalem. (Raymond B. Dillard, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 15, 183)
- (v. 17) The execution of “Mattan the priest of Baal” carried out the requirement of God’s Word directed against those who should lead others into false religion (Dt 13:5-10). (Frank E. Gæbelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 4, 512)
- There is a new beginning, grounded in God’s old promise. (Leslie Allen, Mastering the OT, 1, 2 Chr, 326)
The questions to be answered are . . . Why are revolutionary reforms necessary? How do we initiate them? What benefit can we expect?
Answer: Revolutionary reforms are necessary because everything in this world, especially humans, are fallen. Without constant investment we will never become what God designed and created us to become. We initiate reform by submitting our hearts and minds to the Messiah, the Son of David, and when we fight to make Him King and Lord. We can expect transformed, newly created lives that give us RIGHTS as heirs to all that is God’s.
The Word for the Day is . . . reform
PRELIMINARY GROUNDWORK: Why are revolutionary reforms necessary?:
I. Because this is a sinful world and there are sinful people trying to “eat your lunch”. (Mt 24:3-22; 2 Tm 4:17; Jas 4:7;1 Pt 5:8)
[Senior devil Screwtape to junior devil Wormwood:] The real trouble about the set your patient is living in is that it is merely Christian. They all have individual interests, of course, but the bond remains mere Christianity. What we want, if men become Christians at all, is to keep them in the state of mind I call “Christianity And.” You know–Christianity and the Crisis, Christianity and the New psychology, Christianity and the New Order, Christianity and Faith Healing, Christianity and Physical Research, Christianity and Vegetarianism, Christianity and Spelling Reform. If they must be Christians, let them at least be Christians with a difference. Substitute for the faith itself some Fashion with a Christian colouring. Work on their horror of the Same old Thing. (C.S. Lewis; The Screwtape Letters, 115-16)
II. Because we can faithfully make a sweeping application of the second Law of Thermodynamics to many areas of life. i.e.: Without a lot of effort to prevent it everything is going to deteriorate.(Jer 12:1-13; Rom 7:24; 8:18-25; 2 Cor 5:1-4; Rv 21:1)
If you always do what you always did; you’re gonna get what you always got. – Lorraine Barnes
III. Because you can never be what God created and designed you to be without revolutionary reforms. (Entire bk of Prv. See especially 3:11-12; 6:23-24; 12:1; 13:1; 15:5, 10, 31-32; 17:10; 19:25; 25:12; 29:15; 2 Tm 3:16-17; 4:2; Ti 2:11-15)
No amount of plain preaching can reform men unless it brings them to Christ. They know that they are slaves to sin, but they do not know that they should turn from their bad habits, but it will be of no avail unless you convince them that there is power in the gospel to break every fetter from the soul. Paley said of the preaching of his day: “We have preached morality until there is scarcely a moral man left in the kingdom. (B.T. Roberts; Fishers Of Men, 94).
In the providence of God, times of reformation in the church’s life frequently come out of times of disorder and chaos. God often tears down before he builds up, and this may be one of those times. (Erickson; Postmodernizing the Faith, 31)
Some people think that after a national disaster men and women will reform. ‘Surely,’ they say, ‘when people have had to go through a thing like this, they will be pulled up. They will see the folly of the way they have been living and will come to their senses. They will live a new life. There will be a better land, and a better way of living.’
What utter rubbish! Men and women in the grip of sin never reform as the result of punishment and suffering; that is where they show that they are perverted and foolish. No, the power of sin is so great that it dulls people’s memories. Immediately after they have sinned, they are filled with shame and say, ‘I can’t possibly go through this again–that would be inconceivable.’ But by the next morning it does not seem quite so bad; the morning after that, it is still less bad; and in a week’s time there was nothing at all wrong with it!
And not only can sin paralyze the memory, it can twist facts; it can manipulate them, and prove anything it likes. Sin can manipulate our reason and vitiate all our argumentation. It will inflame our desires; it will paint beautiful pictures; it will put on rose-coloured spectacles. It will also paralyze the will so that when temptation comes again we forget all about what we felt and do the same thing once more.
There is no need to argue about this. If you do not agree with my exposition of the biblical teaching concerning the power and depth of sin, let me ask you this one question: Why do you keep on doing that thing that gets you down, that thing you are ashamed of? Why are you always down? Why are you in this conflict that the apostle Paul speaks of? There is only one answer: the power of sin is greater than your power. Sin is the greatest power in the world, with one exception, and that is the power of God. (D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones; God’s Way, Not Ours: Isaiah 1, 63-64).
How can we initiate reform in our lives?:
A- True Revolutionary reforms can only take place when we see the Davidic King as the True King of our hearts and lives and covenant our loyalty to Him. (2 Chr 23:1-11, 16-19; Prv 3:5-6; Mt 10:37; Lk 14:26)
This was not merely a change in some political administration; Jehoiada had planned nothing less than the reformation of the people of God. (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 2 Chr, 266)
The consequence of this covenant is a thorough reformation of the religious life of Judah. Negatively, the Baal temple (evidently built by Athaliah) is destroyed, Baal’s priest Mattan is executed, and every vestige of the Baal cult is eliminated (23:17). Positively the neglected service of the temple of the Lord is reactivated; priests (to take charge of the sacrifices), Levitical singers and musicians, and gatekeepers are all put in place, in accordance with the commands of David and with the Torah of Moses (23:18-19; compare 2 Kgs 11:18b). Religiously as well as politically, the reign of Joash promises to be a new beginning. (Steven S. Tuell, Interpretation: 1 & 2 Chr, 192)
We won’t change the abuses until we reform the attitude that produces them. (Alan Keyes; Our Character, Our Future, 72)
This was a godly family, united in their ambition to do the Lord’s will. As far as they were concerned, the Lord had made a promise concerning David’s descendants (23:3), and that was the end of the matter. May God give us faithful pastors and teachers like these, whose steps are guided by God’s Word and will alone! (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 2 Chr, 267)
To reform a world, to reform a nation, no wise man will undertake; and all but foolish men know, that the only solid, though a far slower reformation, is what each begins and perfects on himself. — Thomas Carlyle
Today’s idols are more in the self than on the shelf.
Goudzwaard’s three basic Biblical rules:
1. Every person is serving god(s) in his life.
2. Every person is transformed into an image of his god.
3. Mankind creates and forms a structure of society in its own image.
That for which I would give anything and accept nothing in exchange is the most important thing in my life. Whatever that is is my god (cf. Isa. 44:6-20). —J. McMath
Our pleasure and our duty, though opposite before,
Since we have seen His beauty, are joined to part no more
To see the Law by Christ fulfilled, and hear His pardon voice,
Transforms a slave into a child and duty into choice. — John Newton
Now the king was not the protector of the Temple, he was the protected. The Temple was the vital link in the preservation of the Davidic dynasty. Without the house of God, there would be no Davidic dynasty, and hence, there would be no hope of the fulfillment of the promise to David. That reversal was not without its significance to the chronicler’s own day. His day was much like the time of queen Athaliah’s reign. A Davidic king was not on the throne. The hope of the fulfillment of God’s promise to David rested on what was left of the house of David. Little could be done at the moment to restore the kingdom of David because Judah and Israel were no longer sovereign states. They were mere provinces of a massive empire, Persia. All that really remained of God’s promise to David, for the moment, was the remnant of the house of David and the reestablished house of God. It is hard to say whether the Temple was complete in the chronicler’s day or whether much still remained of its rebuilding. It is clear, however, that the focus of the hope of the fulfillment of God’s promise to David was centered on the Temple. As long as the Temple remained, there was hope that Messiah would come to care for it. So, as in the time of Queen Athaliah, the Temple was the protector of the promise to David. (John Sailhamer, Everyman’s Bible Commentary: 1 & 2 Chr, 99-100)
To some degree the Chronicler sees his telling of the story as supplemental to that earlier version. He chooses to emphasize certain aspects of the story passed over in silence by the writer of 2 Kings, particularly when those aspects would have special impact on his original readers, the exiles returned from Babylon.
For example, if we only had 2 Kings, we would not know how great and decisive a role the priests and Levites played in the unfolding of events. We might even think that Jehoiada’s takeover was more in the nature of palace intrigue or a military coup than being the widespread and popular uprising that it was. Naturally then, in his telling of the story, the Chronicler would bring to the forefront the work of the priests and Levites, especially since the priests and Levites of his own day were questioning the value of their ministries. He wanted to inspire them to rededicate themselves to their high callings. (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 2 Chr, 264)
The Zodakite priest Jehoiada resists Athaliah even as he is raising the hidden heir to the throne. He raises support for reform both in the temple and politically, but it is still risky business to restore the throne to someone from the line of David. Extreme measures are taken to protect the young heir, who is the final link to the Messiah that God had promised (23:1-8). (Dr. Tremper Longman, Quicknotes, 1 Chr Thru Job, 90)
The “covenant” to carry out the plot to enthrone Joash (v. 3) is fittingly followed by a “covenant” of renewed commitment to God as their exclusive Lord (v. 16). In a period of religious declension, that commitment had to take the form of religious reform. Negatively those things that were not of God were swept away (v. 17), for God brooks no rivals. After this basic principle is re-established, there remains the positive task of restoring the proper means for the worship of God. The rites of the temple, which rested on the double foundation of Moses as to sacrifice and David as to the worship of son, are given their proper place again. Torah and temple are honored afresh. (Leslie Allen, Mastering the OT, 1, 2 Chr, 326-27)
Just as the promise of God to David (1 Chr 17:14, 23-27) would not falter before her, so also, the Chronicler was reminding his readers, it would not falter before other kingdoms, even in the post-exilic period. The Davidic lamp would not be snuffed out; it still glowed in the hopes of the restoration community. (Raymond B. Dillard, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 15, 184)
B- True Revolutionary reforms can only take place when we are willing to fight to place the Davidic King (even Jesus) as the True King of our hearts and lives with no rivals. (2 Chr 23:1-15, 17-21; Rom 13:12; 2 Cor 10:3-6; Eph 6:10-20; 1 Tm 1:18-20)
The land had been defiled by idolatry, and the throne desecrated by a pretender. All this had been contrary to specific commands and promises of God. The covenant, therefore, had been broken, and it was necessary to reestablish it. That is why we read, “Jehoiada then made a covenant that he and the people and the king would be the LORD’s people” (v. 16). It is a testament to God’s grace that he was willing to have them back! In their zeal for the LORD, the people went en masse to the temple of Baal, destroying it with all its altars and images, and killing the priest who served there. (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 2 Chr, 269)
The Chronicler added a theological justification for the coup that was about to take place (23:3a//2 Kgs 11:4). In the Chronicler’s account, Jehoiada insisted that the dynastic promise to David (see 1 Chr 17:7-14) required that the king’s son shall reign, as the Lord promised concerning the descendants of David (23:3b). The fact that the Chronicler added these words to his record indicates how important this issue was for him. When a Davidide did not sit on the throne of Judah, it was the responsibility of the priest and the nation to rectify the situation. The dynastic promise to David was valid for all times, even during the post-exilic period. (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chr, A Mentor Commentary, 365-66)
Today I might preach: “Let me tell you why you’re not going to be a truthful person. I lie most often to avoid others’ disapproval. If I just try to stop lying, it won’t work because my need for others’ approval overwhelms my good intentions. I allow other people, instead of Jesus, to determine my worth. If you want to stop lying, you have to find what is motivating your sin–like my tendency to look to others for affirmation–and replace it with the security you can find in Jesus.
The goal is not reformation, but transformation. (Tim Keller; Leadership:Winter 2002, 36)
The story of Jehoiada’s coup is a thrilling affirmation of God’s faithfulness. The Lord, who had promised to preserve David’s line forever, will not let “the lamp of Israel” go out (see 2 Sm 21:17; 2 Chr 21:7). (Steven S. Tuell, Interpretation: 1 & 2 Chr, 193)
Significantly, before the boy Joash is crowned, the Chronicler already gives him his royal title (23:3), regarding him as the legitimate Davidic king even during Athaliah’s usurpation. The house of David lives on! A baby, the epitome of weakness–is this the king? Yes, the Chronicler would reply, just as assuredly as Matthew in whose Gospel the baby Jesus was represented as the recipient of royal gifts. As in Mt 2:1-18 King Herod is pitted against the true King of the Jews, so here the non-Davidic queen mother and the rescued child are rival figures. (Leslie Allen, Mastering the OT, 1, 2 Chr, 323)
Jehoiada moved swiftly and decisively. First he secured the allegiance of the military by entering into a pact with five key leaders of the palace guard. Their names are supplied in v. 1 as a roll call of honor. These men were to go out on a secret mission and secure the support of the Levites and the heads of families throughout the kingdom of Judah. At an agreed-upon time, all were to present themselves at the temple of the Lord. (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 2 Chr, 262)
When the Chronicler therefore spoke of Jehoiada’s dividing the assembled priests and Levites into thirds (v. 4, 5), he did not intend to be understood as excluding the military men from those divisions. We know from 2 Kgs 11:4-8 that troops from the regular army were included in the makeup of all three groups. Only through combining the two accounts does the full picture emerge. Armed Levite and armed soldier stood side by side to protect the king. (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 2 Chr, 265)
So the problem of spiritual transformation (the normal lack thereof) among those who identify themselves as Christians today is not that it is impossible or that effectual means to it are not available. The problem is that it is not intended. People do not see it and its value and decide to carry through with it. They do not decide to do the things Jesus did and said. (Dallas Willard, Renovation of the Heart, 91)
Though it is probable that military personnel supported the coup, one must not forget the military images often associated with the Levites: they were the guardians of the ark, itself often a military symbol; they were armed gate keepers; they frequently participated in holy war; there is nothing incongruous with the role assigned them in Jehoiada’s coup; Jehoiada in effect has amassed a cultic army ready for holy war (cf. Ex 32:26-29). (Raymond B. Dillard, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 15, 182)
What benefits can we expect from godly revolutionary reforms?:
Typically, the Chronicler employs the expression the people “rejoiced” to signify the fact that the will of God is now being observed (23:31; cf. 1 Chr 29:9; 2 Chr 15:15; 29:36). A second idiom using the word “quiet” is often found in Chronicles to denote divine blessing on those who are obedient to God’s word (cf. 1 Chr 4:40; 22:9; 2 Chr 13:23; 14:4-5). The biblical adages hold true: The violence of the wicked returns to them (Ps 7:15-16; Prv 26:27; Eccl 10:8), and the judgment of the Lord leads to “quietness” in the land (Ps 76:8). (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chr, 525)
The purposes of God for the sons of David would not be thwarted by Athaliah, nor by the Persians in the restoration period, nor by the Romans in the early years of our era. (Raymond B. Dillard, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 15, 184)
1- God promised that when we make revolutionary leadership reforms life is always better as it always is when good is on the throne and evil is subdued. (2 Chr 23:2; Prv 11:10-11; 16:11-15; 20:8, 28; 25:1-5; 28:12, 16; 29:2, 4, 12, 14)
In Jehoiada’s day the throne of David had been empty for years, but in this scene all was set aright. The Chronicler and his readers had seen the throne of David deserted for an even longer period of time. Their hope for blessings could be realized only as the temple and King were in proper order. (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chr, A Mentor Commentary, 367)
It is no wonder that the chapter ends on the notes of joy and peace (v. 21): they are inspired by the recognition of the true king of David’s line. In like spirit the angelic song of peace and joy resounded at the birth of the Davidic Messiah, in fulfillment of God’s ancient Word (Lk 1:69, 70; 2:4-14). (Leslie Allen, Mastering the OT, 1, 2 Chr, 327)
Marx, you’ll recall, called religion “an opiate” for the people. Yet Marx had it exactly backwards, at least as far as his words pertain to Christianity. Opium deadens the senses; Christianity makes them come alive. Our faith can infuse a deadened or crippled marriage with meaning, purpose, and–in what we so graciously receive from God–fulfillment. Christianity doesn’t leave us in an apathetic stupor–it raises us and our relationships from the dead! It pours zest and strength and purpose into an otherwise wasted life. (Gary Thomas, Sacred Marriage, 151)
2- God promised that when we make revolutionary cultural reforms life is always better as we are living as God designed for us to live in harmony with the created universe rather than against it.(2 Chr 23:11, 16; See entire bk of Dt & Prv especially 4:20-23; 8:32-26)
We dare not miss the remark that “they presented him with a copy of the covenant” (v. 11). Judah was not a kingdom like all the other nations of the world, where the king ruled alone and where his word was law. This was the kingdom where God’s Word was paramount. The “copy of the covenant,” therefore, was most likely a copy of Deuteronomy, where God had clearly spelled out what it meant for a people to be chosen as his very own. In that same book, God had instructed his people on what basis any future king of theirs had to rule: “When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests” (Dt 17:18). (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 2 Chr, 268)
My mother would cry about my blindness and the hopelessness of my ever seeing, but I told her I wasn’t sad. I believed God had something for me to do. — Stevie Wonder
“We do not keep ourselves virtuous by our own power,” Pascal wrote, “but by the counterbalance of two opposing vices, just as we stay upright between two contrary winds. Take one of these vices away and we fall into the other.”
What did Pascal mean by this? A man or woman who works very hard may simply be avoiding the sin of laziness by being filled with selfish ambition or greed. Remove his or her hunger for more money, and this person will immediately become as lazy as any of us.
Others might be very disciplined around food. They would be the last persons on earth you would label as gluttons. Yet they are disciplined around food because they want to have a physique that will draw attention to themselves, not because they don’t want food to have a hold on their hearts and steal their affection for God. They may be free from gluttony only because they are slaves to vanity.
Do you see how we play vice against vice–using vanity to destroy gluttony, for instance–and are upheld by the struggle of two sins? This is a much different holiness than the ancients’ view of a transforming passion that gives birth to virtue. On and on we could go, showing how 90 percent of our virtue is a sham, a vice wearing a coat and tie. That’s why Jesus constantly pointed us to the heart, the one battlefield that really matters. The state of our heart is the true state of our virtue. (Gary L. Thomas, Seeking the Face of God, 68-69)
3- God promised that when we make revolutionary worship reforms we put ourselves in a position to receive the blessings of God as His heirs rather than the curses of God. (2 Chr 23:17-20; See entire bk of Lv )
Athaliah had not destroyed the temple of the true God. She had just built a temple of Baal alongside it. We see this same principle in operation in much of what passes for spirituality in America today. Religion is seen to be this vast tent under which there should be many displays, enough to suit anyone’s taste. Jehoiada had no such tolerance. There was no middle ground. Baal worship was destructive to the exclusive relationship that the Lord wanted to enjoy with his people. Similarly we are not to be fooled whenever a tolerance of evil masquerades as a broad minded and compassionate love. God’s people can have no fellowship with what is false and with that which, if clung to, will destroy spiritual life. (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 2 Chr, 270)
The readers of Chronicles could expect the blessing of God only as they avoided involvement with the wicked and turned to the ways of renewed loyalty to God. The priests were to lead the way and all the people were to serve the Davidic king faithfully. If they did, the land of Judah would experience quiet once again. (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chr, A Mentor Commentary, 369)
Christians confess that they would desire an encounter with God. But the church’s avoidance of this kind of transformation, underscored by its avoidance of daring encounters with God, suggests that we choose to live something other than what we confess. We say we offer God our whole lives, but our practice (the evidence of worship that matters most) shows that we don’t really want God to do what we ask–to take us, mold us, fill us, use us. (Mark Labberton, The Dangerous Act of Worship, 64-65)
The first covenant rids the land of Athaliah, the illegitimate usurper of the Davidic throne, and reinstates Davidic kingship in Judah. The second covenant renews Yahweh’s relationship with Judah as God’s people and reorganizes temple worship according to the law of Moses. The destruction of the Baal temple in Jerusalem and the purification of temple worship mirrors similar reforms taking place in the northern kingdom at the same time under the leadership of Jehu (cf. 2 Kgs 9). For the Chronicler, the restoration of proper temple worship is no less important than the reestablishment of Davidic kingship in Judah. (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chr, 524)
I love Wilburt Rees’ comment: “I’d like to buy $3 worth of God, please. Please, not enough to explode my soul or disturb my sleep, but just enough to equal a cup of warm milk or a snooze in the sunshine…I want ecstasy, not transformation, I want the warmth of the womb, not a new birth.” (Dr. Chris Thurman, The Lies We Believe, 69)
Spiritual Challenge: Wake up to the reality that there is a war going on for your loyalty and devotion. Jesus died that you might make Him King of your life. Satan deceptively and cunningly wants to keep you dead so he will remain king of your life. Don’t be so short-sighted as to be ignorant of these conflicting realities.
Worship point: With these things in mind . . . do I really need to coach you as to how to worship? Duh!
For the faithful, this must have been like receiving someone back from the dead. Most of them no doubt had believed that the royal line of David had been utterly wiped out. Surprised by joy, they must have watched in wonder as they saw Jehoiada bring out the little prince, place the crown on his head, and anoint him with the holy anointing oil. Certainly after six long years of suffering under the rule of a usurper, it was more than ritual that led Jehoiada to cry out, “Here is your king, O Israel!” and for the people to respond, “Long live the king!” In a similar way, but with far greater joy, we receive our King back from the dead on Easter Sunday. Our pastor says, “He is risen!” and we respond, “He is risen indeed!” God’s power is such that right there where death seems to reign supreme, it is swallowed up in Christ’s victorious and everlasting life. (Paul O. Wendland, The People’s Bible, 2 Chr, 268)
So Joash embodies two of the principles of covenant history: he is Davidic, and he is unlikely!
The Chronicler may or may not have foreseen how this double pattern might reach its climax. But I think that had he been able to visit the “little town of Bethlehem,” David’s birthplace, on that night centuries later when David’s descendants were gathered there for an historic census, and to understand how “the hopes and fears of all the years” were focused on a baby lying in a manger there, he would have been awed, but not surprised. Nor would he have been surprised, had he looked even further into the future, to find the same principles well known to the people of the new covenant–to hear them also cry “Hosanna to the Son of David,” and to see how among them also God chooses “what is weak in the world to shame the strong” (Mt 21:9; 1 Cor 1:27). (Michael Wilcock, The Message of Chr, 212)
Quotes to Note:
The Chronicler stressed the broad national support for Joash. This event modeled the unity of purpose the Chronicler encouraged among his readers. Finally, by pointing to the covenant made between Judah and Joash, the Chronicler made it clear that Judah’s monarchs were not to rule without restraint. Their right to rule had to be balanced with the rights of the nation. (Richard L. Pratt, 1 & 2 Chr, A Mentor Commentary, 365)
In once sense, the report of Athaliah’s usurpation of the Judean throne may be described as a tale of two women. Indeed, Allen has observed that the narrative “presents contrasted cameos of self-seeking exploitation and unselfish heroism.” One woman, Athaliah, seeks to destroy the family of David and rules the land for six years. The other, Jehosheba, works courageously and covertly to preserve the family of David during those same six years (22:11). Jehosheba is the daughter of Jehoram and probably the stepsister of Ahaziah. She is also the wife of the priest Jehoiada, who plays a prominent role in the rest of the narrative. This insertion by the Chronicler explains how the child comes to have asylum in the temple for six years. Thus, Joash becomes another in a series of vulnerable infants through whom God achieves his covenant purposes (cf. Ex 2:1-10; 1 Sm 1:24-28). (Andrew E. Hill, The NIV Application Commentary: 1 & 2 Chr, 522)
The other interest worked into the narrative is the pervasive stress on “all the people” (v. 6). The Chronicler takes the references in 2 Kgs 11:13-14 as his cue to project them into the whole story. The unity of king and people under God, so gloriously set forth as an ideal at David’s coronation (1 Chr 11-12) finds a fitting echo throughout this chapter and especially in verses 3 and 16. Just as David depended on the help of his supporters who pledged themselves to him and to God, so the boy king is backed by a loyal populace. (Leslie Allen, Mastering the OT, 1, 2 Chr, 326)
Christ:
Everything in Revolutionary Reforms
Leave a Reply