If Jehoash “did what was right” (2 Kings 12:2), why did he later resort to bribing Hazael with sacred treasures rather than relying on divine intervention?

Historical and Cultural Context

Jehoash (also called Joash) reigned as king of Judah during a turbulent period marked by conflicts with surrounding nations and internal religious reform. He came to the throne as a child under the guidance of the priest Jehoiada, who rejected the idolatrous practices of Athaliah (2 Kings 11). According to the Berean Standard Bible, “Joash did what was right in the eyes of the LORD all the days in which Jehoiada the priest instructed him” (2 Kings 12:2). This commendation must be understood within its immediate context. While under Jehoiada’s influence, Jehoash upheld the worship of the LORD and undertook important temple repairs (2 Kings 12:4–16; 2 Chronicles 24:4–14).

Early Obedience Under Jehoiada’s Guidance

Scripture highlights that Jehoash’s loyalty to God was closely tied to Jehoiada’s counsel. Second Chronicles 24:2 reiterates, “And Joash did what was right in the eyes of the LORD all the days of Jehoiada the priest.” During this phase:

• Temple restoration proceeded earnestly.

• The king displayed faith in the LORD’s covenant.

Outside historical records and archaeological insights help confirm the cultural weight of such temple reforms—large-scale renovations and the collection of temple funds reflect the administrative care documented in biblical texts. Discoveries of near-contemporary temple paraphernalia and scripts in Judahite contexts have suggested an environment in which religious activity and offerings were robust, aligning with the consistent biblical record.

Shift After Jehoiada’s Death

Once Jehoiada died (2 Chronicles 24:15), Jehoash’s resolve to follow divine guidance waned. The Chronicler notes how certain officials influenced him to abandon parts of his earlier devotion. This period shows a departure from the reliance on God that had characterized Jehoash’s years under Jehoiada’s mentorship.

This broader scriptural pattern—an initial faithfulness followed by decline—is a repeated lesson throughout the books of Kings and Chronicles. The text of 2 Chronicles 24:17–18 underscores how leaders and people “abandoned the house of the LORD.” Such departures often led to self-reliance or the adoption of questionable alliances.

The Bribery of Hazael

Second Kings 12:17–18 documents how Hazael, the king of Aram (Syria), threatened Jerusalem. In response, Jehoash took “all the sacred objects that his fathers—Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, and Ahaziah, the kings of Judah—had dedicated, and his own sacred objects, and all the gold found in the treasuries of the house of the LORD and of the royal palace. And he sent these to Hazael king of Aram, who then withdrew from Jerusalem.”

This action raises the question: If he “did what was right” in God’s eyes, why resort to paying off a foreign aggressor with what had been consecrated to the LORD? Several intersecting factors help explain why Jehoash acted in this manner:

1. Erosion of Faithful Counsel: With Jehoiada gone, Jehoash lacked stern, godly advice that once bolstered his devotion.

2. Fear Over Faith: Instead of seeking divine intervention (as earlier kings sometimes did, e.g., 2 Kings 19:15–19; 2 Chronicles 20:5–12), Jehoash succumbed to political intimidation.

3. Immediate Expediency: Bribing Hazael may have seemed a swift remedy to avoid warfare, but it demonstrated little trust in God’s protective power.

Comparison with Other Kings

In the broader narrative of Israel and Judah, several kings experienced moments of faithfulness, followed by lapses. For example, Asa of Judah was commended for reforms but later relied on a treaty with Ben-hadad of Aram instead of seeking God’s help (2 Chronicles 16:7–9). These parallels showcase a scriptural theme: human leaders, though commended at times, can falter if they do not consistently depend on the LORD.

Consequences and Divine Response

The text implies there were serious repercussions for Jehoash’s faithlessness. Second Chronicles 24:23–25 details subsequent judgments, including losses to the Arameans and personal suffering. This teaches that even a king who initiates righteous reforms can face consequences for later departures from God’s covenantal ways.

Consistency with Biblical Patterns

This episode does not contradict but rather underscores the biblical portrayal of complex leadership. Doing “what is right in the eyes of the LORD” can refer to a span of life during which one lives obediently, yet does not guarantee perpetual faithfulness without continued dependence on the LORD. Furthermore, the Bible candidly records moral failings of its notable leaders to reveal God’s mercy, holiness, and commitment to covenant fidelity, rather than glorifying human achievements.

Lessons for Readers

1. Ongoing Reliance on God: Even those who begin well must remain vigilant to sustain a God-honoring life.

2. Value of Godly Mentors: Jehoash flourished under Jehoiada’s guidance, emphasizing how wise, spiritual influence fosters faithfulness.

3. Dangers of Fear-Driven Decisions: Attempting a purely human solution to a divine crisis can lead away from God’s power and promises.

Conclusion

Jehoash, who was initially commended for upright actions, later chose to bribe Hazael rather than wholeheartedly seeking help from God. The biblical account shows that his deviation occurred after losing the priestly guidance he had depended on. This story aligns with the broader scriptural narrative that leaders and communities stay strong when they consistently honor and trust the LORD’s covenant. Jehoash’s example stands as both a testimony of partial faithfulness and a cautionary record of how neglecting one’s relationship with God can swiftly lead to compromise and loss.