II Kings 12:18 · Bible study
2 Kings 12:18 Commentary: Jehoash's Bribe and Spiritual Decline
Hebrew · 8 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Why King Jehoash gave the temple treasures to Hazael of Syria, and what this reveals about spiritual decline.
Research Summary
- Meaning: King Jehoash bribes Hazael of Syria with treasures from the temple and palace to prevent an attack on Jerusalem.
- Key words: Hallowed things (Hebrew idiom for items consecrated to God); dedicated (set apart for sacred use); sent to Hazael (a payment for withdrawal).
- Main debate: Was this necessary political prudence (similar to Asa) or a mark of spiritual failure (the view of Gill and most commentators)?
- Theological theme: The danger of trusting in human resources rather than God, and how a promising spiritual start can unravel when faith is abandoned.
- Best use: A cautionary tale about backsliding; pastoral warning against treating sacred things as bargaining chips.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
So King Joash of Judah took all the sacred objects dedicated by his fathers—Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, and Ahaziah, the kings of Judah—along with his own consecrated items and all the gold found in the treasuries of the house of the LORD and the royal palace, and he sent them to Hazael king of Aram. So Hazael withdrew from Jerusalem.
WEB World English Bible 2000
Jehoash king of Judah took all the holy things that Jehoshaphat and Jehoram and Ahaziah, his fathers, kings of Judah, had dedicated, and his own holy things, and all the gold that was found in the treasures of Yahweh’s house, and of the king’s house, and sent it to Hazael king of Syria; and he went away from Jerusalem.
KJV King James Version 1769
And Jehoash king of Judah took all the hallowed things that Jehoshaphat, and Jehoram, and Ahaziah, his fathers, kings of Judah, had dedicated, and his own hallowed things, and all the gold that was found in the treasures of the house of the Lord, and in the king’s house, and sent it to Hazael king of Syria: and he went away from Jerusalem.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
And Jehoash king of Judah took all the hallowed things that Jehoshaphat and Jehoram and Ahaziah, his fathers, kings of Judah, had dedicated, and his own hallowed things, and all the gold that was found in the treasures of the house of Jehovah, and of the king’s house, and sent it to Hazael king of Syria: and he went away from Jerusalem.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
and Jehoash king of Judah taketh all the sanctified things that Jehoshaphat, and Jehoram, and Ahaziah, his fathers, kings of Judah, had sanctified, and his own sanctified things, and all the gold that is found in the treasures of the house of Jehovah and of the house of the king, and sendeth to Hazael king of Aram, and he goeth up from off Jerusalem.
Darby Darby Bible 1890
And Jehoash king of Judah took all the hallowed things that Jehoshaphat and Jehoram and Ahaziah, his fathers, kings of Judah, had dedicated, and his own hallowed things, and all the gold found in the treasures of the house of Jehovah and in the king's house, and sent it to Hazael king of Syria; and he went away from Jerusalem.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
Wherefore Joas, king of Juda, took all the sanctified things, which Josaphat, and Joram, and Ochozias, his fathers, the kings of Juda, had dedicated to holy uses, and which he himself had offered: and all the silver that could be found in the treasures of the temple of the Lord, and in the king's palace: and sent it to Hazael, king of Syria, and he went off from Jerusalem.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Por lo que tomó Joas rey de Judá todas las ofrendas que había dedicado Josaphat, y Joram y Ochôzías sus padres, reyes de Judá, y las que él había dedicado, y todo el oro que se halló en los tesoros de la casa de Jehová, y en la casa del rey, y enviólo á Hazael rey de Siria: y él se partió de Jerusalem.
Pelo que tomou Joás rei de Judá todas as ofertas que havia dedicado Josafá, e Jorão e Acazias seus pais, reis de Judá, e as que ele havia dedicado, e todo o ouro que se achou nos tesouros da casa do SENHOR, e na casa do rei, e enviou-o a Hazael, rei da Síria; e ele se partiu de Jerusalém.
Joas, roi de Juda, prit toutes les choses consacrées, ce qui avait été consacré par Josaphat, par Joram et par Achazia, ses pères, rois de Juda, ce qu’ il avait consacré lui-même, et tout l’or qui se trouvait dans les trésors de la maison de l’Éternel et de la maison du roi, et il envoya le tout à Hazaël, roi de Syrie, qui ne monta pas contre Jérusalem.
nahm Joas, der König Juda' s, all das Geheiligte, das seine Väter Josaphat, Joram und Ahasja, die Könige Juda' s, geheiligt hatten, und was er geheiligt hatte, dazu alles Gold, das man fand im Schatz in des HERRN Hause und in des Königs Hause, und schickte es Hasael, dem König von Syrien. Da zog er ab von Jerusalem.
Maar Joas, de koning van Juda, nam al de geheiligde dingen, die Josafat, en Joram, en Ahazia, zijn vaderen, de koningen van Juda, geheiligd hadden, en zijn geheiligde dingen, en al het goud, dat gevonden werd in de schatten van het huis des HEEREN, en van het huis des konings, en zond het tot Hazael, den koning van Syrie; toen trok hij op van Jeruzalem.
Allora Joas, re di Giuda, prese tutte le cose sacre che i suoi padri Giosafat, Jehoram e Achazia, re di Giuda, aveano consacrato, quelle che avea consacrate egli stesso, e tutto l’oro che si trovava nei tesori della casa dell’Eterno e della casa del re, e mandò ogni cosa ad Hazael, re di Siria, il quale si ritirò da Gerusalemme.
Przetoż wziął Joaz, król Judzki, wszystkie rzeczy poświęcone, które byli poświęcili Jozafat i Joram, i Ochozyjasz, ojcowie jego, królowie Judzcy, i to, co był sam poświęcił, i wszystko złoto, które się znalazło w skarbach domu Pańskiego, i domu królewskiego, a posłał to do Hazaela, króla Syryjskiego, i odciągnął od Jeruzalemu.
Но Иоас, царь Иудейский, взял все пожертвованное, что пожертвовали храму Иосафат, и Иорам и Охозия, отцы его, цари Иудейские, и что он сам пожертвовал, и все золото, найденное в сокровищницах дома Господня и дома царского, и послал Азаилу, царю Сирийскому; и он отступил от Иерусалима.
猶大 王 約阿施 將 他列祖 猶大 王 約沙法、約蘭、亞哈謝 所 分別為聖 的物 和 自己所分別為聖的物，並 耶和華 殿 與王 宮 府庫 裡 所有的 金子 都送 給亞蘭 王 哈薛；哈薛就不上 耶路撒冷 來了。
Then Jehoash, king of Judah, took all the holy things which Jehoshaphat and Jehoram and Ahaziah his fathers, the kings of Judah, had given to the Lord, together with the things he himself had given, and all the gold in the Temple store and in the king's house, and sent it to Hazael, king of Aram; and he went away from Jerusalem.
Verse in Context
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators agree that this verse marks a moment of profound spiritual compromise. Gill describes Jehoash's action as 'meanness of spirit' and a direct result of his idolatry and apostasy after Jehoiada's death. Matthew Henry notes that Jehoash 'had neither spirit nor strength to make head against' Hazael, so he resorted to bribing him with sacred treasures. Keil and Delitzsch point out, with 2 Chronicles 24:23-24, that this happened after Judah's army was defeated by a small Syrian force, showing God was no longer with the king. Barnes observes that Jehoash followed the example of Asa (1 Kings 15:18), but the context is darker: earlier Jehoash repaired the temple zealously (2 Kings 12:4-15); now he strips it. The consensus is clear: Jehoash's action reveals a king who has abandoned trust in Yahweh and tries to secure peace with money. The gift bought a temporary withdrawal, but as Clarke notes, Hazael returned the next year.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Pragmatic view: Jehoash acted as Asa did in 1 Kings 15:18, using temple wealth to preserve the city. Matthew Henry allows that it may have been permissible under the circumstances.
- Unfaithfulness view: The Chronicler (2 Chronicles 24:23-24) portrays the defeat as divine judgment for idolatry, and Gill calls the bribe 'meanness of spirit'—a direct result of apostasy.
- Declining faith view: Jehoash started well but gradually sank; this action shows he relied on money rather than God. Keil and Delitzsch see it as an act after military defeat, confirming that the Lord had withdrawn from him.
What is clear: Jehoash sent the temple and palace treasures to Hazael, who withdrew from Jerusalem for the time being.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Jehoash's motive | He acted to prevent or end a Syrian siege of Jerusalem. | Was it prudent statecraft (following Asa's earlier example) or a symptom of unfaithfulness? Commentators like Gill see it as 'meanness of spirit' arising from idolatry, while others note that saving the city was a legitimate kingly duty. |
| Legitimacy of using temple treasures | The gold in the temple had been consecrated to God. | Some argue that using it for national defence was permissible (Matthew Henry: 'better part with the gold of the temple than expose the temple itself'). Others see it as a violation of the sacred trust, especially given Jehoash's apostasy. |
| Timing relative to the battle (2 Chronicles 24:23-24) | Both Kings and Chronicles describe the same episode of Syrian conflict. | Keil and Delitzsch harmonize the accounts as: first a military defeat, then the bribe. Others (Thenius, mentioned by Keil) argue they describe two separate wars. The Chronicler does not mention the bribe, leading to differing reconstructions. |
| Comparison with other kings (Asa, Hezekiah) | Stripping temple treasures to pay tribute was a recurring practice in Judah. | Does Jehoash's action stand on the same moral ground as Asa's in 1 Kings 15:18, or is it worse because of his prior turning from God? Barnes suggests Jehoash followed Asa's example; Gill stresses his apostasy made the act more culpable. |
Historical & Cultural Context
Hazael king of Syria had campaigned southward, capturing the Philistine city of Gath, about 25, 30 miles from Jerusalem. The Syrians then 'set his face' (a Hebrew idiom for determination) to march against the capital. Judah faced an immediate threat.
The temple treasury at this time held gifts from several of Jehoash's predecessors. Jehoshaphat was a godly king; Jehoram and Ahaziah were idolaters, yet they too had dedicated offerings to the Lord. Jehoash had added his own consecrated items. Just a few years prior, he had led a successful campaign to repair the temple (2 Kings 12:4-16). But after Jehoiada the priest died, Jehoash turned to idolatry and even executed Zechariah, the priest's son, for preaching against him (2 Chronicles 24:17-22).
The Syrian invasion was understood by the Chronicler as God's judgment for this apostasy. When Jehoash's army was routed by a small Syrian force, his response was not to repent but to empty the temple and palace treasuries as a bribe. This pattern, kings buying off invaders with temple gold, appears multiple times in the history of Judah (1 Kings 15:18; 2 Kings 16:8; 2 Kings 18:15-16). In each case, the king chose political expediency over trust in God. Here, the irony is sharp: the man who once repaired the house of the Lord now plunders it to preserve his own throne.
Hazael accepted the payment and withdrew, for the moment. But the relief was temporary. Clarke and others note that Hazael returned the following year, and with no treasures left to buy peace, Jehoash lost a battle, was murdered by his servants, and died in disgrace.
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants for this verse. English translations differ in phrasing, 'hallowed things' (KJV, ASV, Darby), 'holy things' (WEB), 'sanctified things' (YLT, Douay), and 'sacred objects' (BSB), but all convey the same concept: items consecrated to the Lord. The core narrative is stable across manuscripts.
Reception History
This verse has been read across church history primarily as a cautionary tale about spiritual decline. Reformation-era commentators such as Matthew Henry and John Gill highlighted Jehoash's failure as a warning against trusting worldly resources over God. In Puritan preaching, the text illustrated the danger of sacrificing holy things for carnal security. Modern commentators continue to see it as a vivid example of how a promising reign can unravel when faith is abandoned. The verse is less frequently cited in art or liturgy but remains a sobering pastoral case study on backsliding and misplaced trust.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The Squandered Inheritance. Jehoash took 'all the hallowed things that Jehoshaphat, and Jehoram, and Ahaziah…had dedicated.' These were gifts to God from previous generations, some from faithful kings, some from idolaters. Jehoash treated them as a negotiable asset. When we abandon the spiritual legacy passed to us, we risk spending it on short-term security.
- The Sacred Misused. The temple treasures were meant for worship and the work of God. Jehoash turned them into a bribe. This reveals a heart that no longer values what is holy. Matthew Henry writes that Joash had 'neither spirit nor strength to make head against' Hazael, spiritual strength had already leaked away.
- The Price of Compromise. The bribe worked temporarily, but the next year Hazael returned. Jehoash ended up murdered in his bed. Trusting in money, alliances, or political deals rather than in God may produce short-term peace, but it leaves the soul defenseless in the long run.
Five-point outline
- From Reformer to Despoiler. Jehoash began well, repairing the temple under Jehoiada. Now he strips it. A descending arc that began with idolatry.
- The Company We Keep. Jehoash trusted in Hazael, an enemy, rather than in the Lord. He followed the political example of Asa (1 Kings 15:18), but without Asa's underlying faithfulness.
- Treasures Meant for God. The gold in the temple was consecrated. Removing it for a bribe was a desecration. Gill calls it 'meanness of spirit' and an effect of apostasy.
- A Temporary Peace. Hazael withdrew, but only for a season. The threat remained, and eventually it returned with force.
- The End of a Disobedient King. Jehoash was assassinated by his own servants. The man who emptied the temple treasures for safety died without any safety at all.
Illustration hooks
- A builder uses bricks donated for a church pavilion to repair his own driveway after a storm damages his home. The pavilion never gets built, and the church loses trust in him.
- A business owner empties the employee emergency fund to pay off a threatening competitor, promising to replenish it later. The competitor takes the money but demands more next year.
- A student uses scholarship funds designated for tuition to bribe a school official who has threatened to expel him over a violation. The bribe works temporarily, but the pattern of desperation continues.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Was Jehoash wrong to try to save Jerusalem from attack? Isn't protecting the city a king's duty?
- Why would God allow the temple treasures to be used this way? Did He not care about the gold that was dedicated to Him?
- This story feels discouraging. Is there any hope for a king who starts well but fails later? How do we avoid a similar decline?
Leading a Discussion
This passage shows a king who once honoured God with temple repairs now stripping the same temple to buy off an enemy. It raises hard questions about how quickly faith can erode and what we reach for when we no longer reach for God.
Discussion questions
- Observation: What exactly does King Jehoash take, and who originally gave those items? (List the names and their relevance.)
- Interpretation: Why do you think Jehoash chose to send the temple treasures to Hazael rather than pray for deliverance? What does this reveal about his spiritual state?
- Comparison: How does this action compare with Jehoash’s earlier work of repairing the temple (2 Kings 12:4-15)? What changed?
- Cross-reference: Read 2 Chronicles 24:17-22. What events led up to this crisis? How does that background shape your understanding of Jehoash’s decision?
- Application: When have you been tempted to sacrifice something sacred (time, integrity, a relationship) to gain temporary security or relief?
- Theological reflection: The Chronicler says Judah’s army was defeated because they had forsaken the Lord (2 Chronicles 24:24). What does this teach about the connection between spiritual faithfulness and daily life?
- Closing: Hazael withdrew, but the peace was short-lived. How does this challenge the idea that money or negotiation can solve deeper spiritual problems?
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| I Kings 14:26 | and he took away the treasures of Yahweh’s house and the treasures of the king’s house. He even took away all of it, including all the gold shields which Solomon had made. |
| I Kings 15:18 | Then Asa took all the silver and the gold that was left in the treasures of Yahweh’s house, and the treasures of the king’s house, and delivered it into the hand of his servants. Then King Asa sent them to Ben Hadad, the son of Tabrimmon, the son of Hezion, king of Syria, who lived at Damascus, saying, |
| II Kings 12:4 | Jehoash said to the priests, “All the money of the holy things that is brought into Yahweh’s house, in current money, the money of the people for whom each man is evaluated, and all the money that it comes into any man’s heart to bring into Yahweh’s house, |
| II Kings 16:8 | Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in Yahweh’s house, and in the treasures of the king’s house, and sent it for a present to the king of Assyria. |
| II Kings 18:15 | Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in Yahweh’s house and in the treasures of the king’s house. |
| II Kings 18:16 | At that time, Hezekiah cut off the gold from the doors of Yahweh’s temple, and from the pillars which Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and gave it to the king of Assyria. |
| II Chronicles 16:2 | Then Asa brought out silver and gold out of the treasures of Yahweh’s house and of the king’s house, and sent to Ben Hadad king of Syria, who lived at Damascus, saying, |
Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
8 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke observes that Jehoash bought peace with sacred treasures only to gain a short, costly truce. When Hazael returned the next year with no more treasures left, Jehoash had to fight, lost the battle, and saw Judah ruined before he was assassinated by his own servants.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes suggests that Hazael's march against Jerusalem was likely a sudden decision, prompted by news of a revolution in Judah while the Syrians were already at Gath. He also notes that even the Baal-worshipping kings Jehoram and Ahaziah had shown some respect for the temple by making costly offerings to it.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentator clarifies that when the text says Hazael went away from Jerusalem, it likely refers to the Syrian army he sent, not his personal presence. In Chronicles, the bribe is not mentioned, and the Syrians simply departed for an unspecified reason.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva annotators highlight that Jehoash stripped both the temple and his own palace of their dedicated treasures to bribe Hazael away from Jerusalem. This action shows he relied on earthly wealth rather than trusting God for deliverance from the Syrian threat.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill sees Jehoash's decision to raid the temple treasures and bribe Hazael as a sign of cowardice and spiritual failure. Rather than trusting in the Lord, his idolatry and apostasy had left him without confidence, forcing him to rely on gold instead of God.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil-Delitzsch argues that the two biblical accounts of Hazael's attack on Jerusalem describe the same war, not separate events. Joash bought off the Syrian army with temple and palace treasures after a devastating defeat, and the Chronicler's details fill out the shorter Kings narrative without contradiction.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange contends that Jehoash did what was right only as long as Jehoiada instructed him, not for his entire life. He reads the Hebrew phrase as meaning "all his days that Jehoiada instructed him," which explains why the king later fell into sin and disaster after his mentor died.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry sees Joash's apostasy as the root of his weakness: once he turned idolater and persecutor, God's protection left him. With no spirit or strength to fight, he had no choice but to strip the temple and royal treasury to buy off Hazael, a humiliating end for a king who began well.