Why did the people of Judah choose Jehoahaz as king after Josiah's death in 2 Kings 23:30? Canonical Setting 2 Kings 23:29–30 records Josiah’s death at Megiddo and continues: “From Megiddo his servants carried his body in a chariot, brought him to Jerusalem, and buried him in his own tomb. Then the people of the land took Jehoahaz son of Josiah, anointed him, and made him king in place of his father.” Parallel testimony appears in 2 Chronicles 36:1. Both writers emphasize that “the people of the land” (hāʾam hāʾāreṣ) acted corporately to seat Jehoahaz. Genealogical Context Josiah fathered four sons (1 Chron 3:15): • Johanan (apparently deceased or disqualified), • Jehoiakim/Eliakim (25 yrs in 609 BC), • Zedekiah/Mattaniah, • Shallum/Jehoahaz (23 yrs). Normal primogeniture would point to Jehoiakim. Choosing Jehoahaz was therefore irregular and deliberate. The Role of “the People of the Land” The phrase describes Judean landed nobility and military leaders (cf. 2 Kings 11:14, 18; Jeremiah 26:23). They: 1. Guarded dynastic stability, 2. Possessed the militia needed to crown a king, 3. Represented old–guard nationalism resistant to foreign interference. Their decisive action reflects organized consensus rather than a random popular surge. Primogeniture vs. Popular Choice Jehoiakim’s older age and closer ties to Egypt (see below) worked against him. By crowning Jehoahaz the nobles: • Asserted independence from Pharaoh Necho II, • Rewarded a prince who visibly endorsed Josiah’s anti-idolatry reforms, • Seized a brief window before Egypt could impose its preference. Political Calculus in 609 BC 1. Geostrategic Vacuum—Assyria was collapsing; Babylon had not yet dominated; Egypt marched north to Carchemish (Babylonian Chronicle, BM 21946). 2. Anti-Egyptian Sentiment—Josiah fell while attempting to block Necho (2 Kings 23:29), so public anger at Egypt ran high. 3. Preventive Maneuver—Jehoahaz’s swift enthronement pre-empted direct Egyptian appointment of Jehoiakim. Religious Expectations after Josiah’s Reform Josiah’s sweeping covenant renewal (2 Kings 23:1-25) produced a populace zealous for Torah fidelity. Jehoahaz’s name—“Yahweh has seized”—echoed covenantal hope. Jehoiakim’s earlier reputation for opportunism (Jeremiah 22:13-19) made him suspect. Thus, Jehoahaz symbolized continuity with Josiah’s revival. Prophetic Undertones & Jeremiah’s Witness Jeremiah ministered on the streets of Jerusalem at this moment. His oracle (Jeremiah 22:10-12) reads: “Do not weep for the dead [Josiah], but weep bitterly for him who goes away, for he will never return…He shall die in the place to which they have led him captive.” The prophet corroborates the popular elevation of Jehoahaz but also judges it short-lived, predicting his exile to Egypt—fulfilled within three months (2 Kings 23:31-34). God permitted the popular will yet used Necho’s intervention to discipline Judah (Habakkuk 1:6-11). Egyptian Intervention Herodotus (Hist. 2.159) and Necho’s own stele fragments record aggressive campaigns northward. When Necho returned from Carchemish, he deposed Jehoahaz, levied 100 talents of silver plus one talent of gold (≈3¾ tons total), and installed Jehoiakim as a compliant vassal (2 Kings 23:33-35). The rapid reversal shows that Judah’s nobles underestimated Egypt’s reach. Theological Analysis 1. Sovereignty of Yahweh—Though the people crowned Jehoahaz, the Lord’s purpose (Proverbs 19:21) prevailed through foreign domination foretold by prophets (2 Kings 21:10-15). 2. Covenant Accountability—Judah’s attempt to perpetuate reform by political maneuver failed because genuine repentance had not penetrated the nation’s heart (Jeremiah 3:10). 3. Messianic Line—Despite Jehoahaz’s removal, the Davidic promise marched on through Jehoiakim → Jehoiachin → Zerubbabel, culminating in Christ (Matthew 1:11-12). Archaeological Corroboration • The Lachish Ostraca (ca. 588 BC) illustrate “people of the land” militias still functioning a generation later. • Jar-handle seals inscribed “lmlk” plus the royal name show administrative networks Josiah renovated, which Jehoahaz briefly inherited. • Babylonian Chronicle tablet BM 21946 pinpoints Necho’s 609 BC campaign, agreeing with 2 Kings. Collectively these finds undergird the narrative’s authenticity. Did the Choice Reflect Divine Will? Scripture presents no condemnation for the people’s act of anointing; however, subsequent events reveal that the choice lacked prophetic sanction. The lesson: popular sentiment, even when aligned with outward piety, is not infallible—only God’s revealed word is (Isaiah 40:8). Practical Implications • Leadership selection must prioritize covenant loyalty over political expediency. • National grief can drive hasty decisions; believers should seek God’s guidance rather than reactionary measures (Psalm 46:10). • Fulfillment of prophecy (Jeremiah 22:11-12) confirms the trustworthiness of Scripture and invites confidence in Christ’s resurrection promises (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). Summary Judah chose Jehoahaz because: 1. Nobles acting as “people of the land” asserted autonomy; 2. Jehoahaz embodied Josiah’s reformist legacy; 3. Anti-Egypt sentiment rejected Jehoiakim’s perceived collaboration; 4. Immediate enthronement aimed to stabilize the throne before foreign intervention. Yet God used Egypt to discipline Judah, exposing the limits of human calculation and paving the way for later messianic fulfillment. |
    |