What does Jehoahaz's selection as king reveal about the people's priorities in 2 Kings 23:30? Who Were “the People of the Land”? In the monarchic books the term usually designates the influential lay nobility, landowners, and militia captains who served as a counterweight to court officials (cf. 2 Kings 11:14, 12:12). Archaeological strata at Jerusalem’s City of David reveal large domestic structures with seal impressions reading “lškyn ’bd hmlk – belonging to Shekaniah, servant of the king,” matching this class. Thus, policy was being set not by prophets or priests but by a civic elite driven by immediate socio-political interests. Departure from Primogeniture 1 Chronicles 3:15 lists Josiah’s sons: Johanan, Jehoiakim (Eliakim), Zedekiah, and Shallum (Jehoahaz). Jehoiakim was older, yet the leaders bypassed him. By ignoring the conventional eldest-son rule, they revealed that expedience overrode tradition. Their choice hints at a populist impulse: Jehoahaz had the stronger anti-Egypt reputation (2 Chronicles 36:1) and likely championed his father’s national independence program. Lack of Consultation with the Prophetic Word Deuteronomy 17:15 commanded, “You are to appoint over you the king the LORD your God chooses.” No record exists of consulting Jeremiah, Zephaniah, or Huldah. Jeremiah in fact prophesied judgment on Jehoahaz: “He will never return but will die in the place to which they have led him captive” (Jeremiah 22:11-12). Choosing without divine counsel manifests a priority of self-determination rather than covenant obedience. Nationalism over Covenant Faithfulness Josiah’s reforms (2 Kings 22–23) had centered on Torah restoration. Yet three months after his death the nation enthroned a man Scripture immediately brands: “He did evil in the sight of the LORD” (23:32). The speed with which reform momentum collapsed indicates that the populace valued external security and political continuity more than internal heart-level repentance (cf. Hosea 6:4). Pragmatism and Short-Term Memory Behavioral research highlights “recency bias”: recent events (Josiah’s death by Egypt) dominate decision-making. The leaders reacted viscerally, elevating the son who seemed least pliable to Egyptian suzerainty. Ironically, Pharaoh Necho deposed him within ninety days and installed Jehoiakim, imposing a massive tribute (2 Kings 23:33-35). Their pragmatic gamble backfired, demonstrating Proverbs 14:12: “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.” Divine Sovereignty Working through Human Choice While the leaders acted from human motives, God’s earlier word to Josiah stood: “I will gather you to your fathers, and your eyes will not see all the disaster I am bringing” (22:20). Jehoahaz’s brief reign became the hinge that moved Judah under foreign yoke, fulfilling covenant curses (Deuteronomy 28:36). The episode illustrates that God permits ill-advised popular choices to advance His redemptive timeline. Archaeological and Extra-Biblical Corroboration • The Babylonian Chronicle (BM 21946) for 609 BC records Necho’s western campaign and Judah’s subservience, matching the biblical sequence. • Scarabs and scarabs seals bearing Necho II’s prenomen “Wahem-ib-Re” have been unearthed in the Judaean Shephelah, confirming Egypt’s reach. • Lachish Letter VI (c. 588 BC) laments weakened military outposts—downstream consequences of decisions begun in 609 BC. These artifacts verify the historical matrix in which Jehoahaz briefly ruled. Christological and Redemptive Perspective The people wanted an immediate political savior; yet like later crowds who sought a militant Messiah (John 6:15), they misread their deepest need. Jehoahaz failed; Christ alone, the true Son of David, embodies righteous kingship and everlasting deliverance (Luke 1:32-33). Their misplaced priority foreshadows humanity’s perennial tendency to seek temporal solutions apart from God’s ultimate plan in the risen Christ. Contemporary Application Believers today must weigh leaders—and every major choice—by Scripture rather than cultural momentum, charisma, or nationalism. Consulting the whole counsel of God, seeking prayerful discernment, and valuing covenant fidelity over pragmatism guard the church from repeating Judah’s error. Conclusion Jehoahaz’s selection exposes a nation whose foremost priorities were political autonomy and rapid stabilization, not enduring obedience to Yahweh. Their decision disregarded divine guidance, subverted established order, and precipitated further judgment. The narrative warns every generation: choose by God’s standards, or the very freedom pursued will slip away. |
    |