I. THE TITLE HE HAD TO THE THRONE. The son of Joash, most likely the eldest. His mother's name was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem. Whether she, like her husband, had declined into idolatry cannot be told.

II. THE REIGN HE ENJOYED ON THE THRONE. Twenty-nine years - eleven years less than his father reigned. Eighteen years older than Joash when he obtained the crown, he was only seven years older when he put it off. Clearly idolatry in those days was not conducive to longevity.

III. THE CHARACTER HE MAINTAINED ON THE THRONE. Mixed.

1. Good. "He did that which was right in the sight of the Lord," as his father did while Jehoiada lived (2 Chronicles 24:2); i.e. he abandoned idolatry and became a worshipper of Jehovah.

2. Not perfect. "Not with a perfect heart," as it should have been (1 Kings 8:61), after the examples of Asa (2 Chronicles 15:17; 1 Kings 15:14) and David (2 Kings 14:3; Psalm 101:2). His return to the worship of Jehovah was probably

(1) dictated by fear, occasioned by the recollection of his father's untimely and violent death; hence

(2) deficient in extent, the high places not being removed (2 Kings 14:4); and

(3) destitute of permanence - in fact, dropped when he felt himself secure upon his throne (ver. 14).

IV. THE ACTS HE PERFORMED FROM THE THRONE. Two.

1. A deed of vengeance. "He slew his servants that had killed the king his father."

(1) Justice demanded this. If his father deserved to die, which seems indisputable, it is not clear that Zabad and Jehozabad had a right to be his executioners.

(2) Filial piety approved this. Under the Law it was the next kinsman's duty to avenge the blood of a slain relative (Deuteronomy 19:12). Amaziah would have proved himself an unnatural son had he spared any longer than he could help the assassins of his father.

(3) Prudence recommended this. Doubtless Amasiah feared that some day the fate of Joash would be his, if these men lived.

2. An exercise of clemency. "He slew not their children."

(1) Considering what the Law of Moses said (Deuteronomy 24:16), this was right;

(2) remembering the universal practice of the Orient, it was merciful;

(3) if they were young children when the wicked deed was done, it was humane as well as right.

LESSONS.

1. The vanity of earthly glory - even kings must die.

2. The imperfection of human goodness - the best of men but men at the best.

3. The impossibility of escaping for ever the due reward of one's evil deeds, except by repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

4. The beauty of clemency in all, but especially in kings. "Earthly power doth then show likest God's when mercy seasons justice" ('Merchant of Venice,' act 4. sc. 1). - W.

It is worthy of note that in the mere outline of a reign extending over twenty years, in very exciting times, space should have been taken to record so minutely the repairing of the temple. No less remarkable is it that the initiative in this great work was due to Joash and not to Jehoiada — the king, not the priest. There was need for some one to lift the standard for Jehovah and His worship. For since the accession of Jehoram, the wicked son of the good Jehoshaphat, there had been a steady decline toward idolatry. Spurred on by his wife, Athaliah, the worthy daughter of the monster Jezebel, Jehoram allowed "high places" to be built to the heathen deities. Dying after less than ten years of rule, of an agonising internal disease, the crown descended to his one surviving son, Ahaziah. After a reign of little more than a year, during which he was wholly under the power of his mother, Ahaziah was slain by Jehu while on a visit to Israel. Athaliah seized the throne and ruled for six years, fostering and encouraging heathenism to the utmost. To make her usurpation more secure, she had, at the beginning of her reign, as she supposed, compassed the death of all aspirants to the crown. But, through the cunning and daring of Jehoiada and his wife, one boy, Joash, a son of Ahaziah, was preserved. When the time was ripe the priest led a revolt against the queen, putting the young Joash, only eight years of age, upon the throne, and causing the death of Athaliah. A great opportunity opened up for the young prince. Jehoiada carefully instructed him during his childhood in the religion of Jehovah, that, when he came to the years of responsible reign, he might zealously foster the old faith. But, unfortunately, Joash was not strong enough for the task. As long as he was under the tuition of Jehoiada he did fairly well, though idolatry was suffered to extend itself; but after the death of the old priest the pressure from heathenism was too great for his weak nature to resist, and Joash followed the path of his immediate predecessors. True, the third verse of our lesson may not indicate anything more than a resemblance to heathen customs, inasmuch as they may have worshipped Jehovah in the "high places"; still, having adopted that mode of heathen worship, it became easier to introduce others, and thus the way was opened for that awful apostasy from God when incense was burned to strange gods "in every single city of Judah." Nevertheless, Joash should have full credit for the one luminous work of his whole reign — the repair of the temple. We shall find his plans of gathering and expending the money worthy of our careful study.

I. THE PLANS OF COLLECTION.

1. The first one, undoubtedly the king's, shows him in a favourable light. He assumes no priestly prerogative or authority. He simply enjoins the priests to do their legitimate work — "go out into the cities of Judah and gather of all Israel money to repair the house of the Lord." The parallel account in 2 Kings 12:4, gives the details of the plan. Three methods of collecting the money are there described. First, "The money of every one that passeth the account." Bahr considers these words an incorrect translation of the original, preferring "money which passes over" — that is, current money. It he is right, then no separate method is indicated. But the weight of authority is in favour of the old translation, and, following this, the half-shekel which was paid for every one that was numbered, from twenty years old and upward (Exodus 30:13, seq.), seems to be meant. Second, "The money that every man is set at" — that is, the amount prescribed by the priests for those who made a "singular vow" according to the law in Leviticus 27:1-8. The third was the free-will offering, and probably more dependence was placed on this than upon either or both of the other methods. Taken all in all, this plan was compulsive and judicious, and deserved to succeed. But it failed, and why? There appears to have been a combination of reasons. The words, "Howbeit the Levites hastened it not," furnish a hint that the appointed collectors, on whom the success of the plan largely depended, did not enter heartily into its prosecution. They were expected not only to take what the people brought in voluntarily, but actively to solicit "every man of his acquaintance" (parallel account in 2 Kings 12:5). Whether they did not relish moving, at the orders of the king, or were too lazy to "go out into the cities of Judah," we can only conjecture. We only know they did not hasten. No doubt, too, there was much inertia on the part of the people themselves. The general indifference to the old system of worship and the inevitable corruption which followed dabbling with heathen practices both contributed to a lethargy which could only be broken up by some extra-ordinary method. But the great reason lies deeper, much deeper. Soften the account as we will, there was wide-spread dissatisfaction with the course pursued by the priests. Whether they had good grounds for suspicion or not, the people believed the collectors had misappropriated the funds. And it is hard to clear them of this charge. Doubtless some money came in from loyal souls who longed to see God's temple shining with the olden glory. Indeed, we know that some did, because when the king called on the priests for a report he ordered them to "take no more money." Some, then, had been gathered. But what became of it? The priests never made any return thereof. True, it condones the fault somewhat to plead that the regular sacerdotal revenue had largely fallen off during the prevalence of idolatry, and that the priests found themselves hard pushed for funds for their subsistence and the temple-worship, and thus were forced to use what came into their hands for immediate needs. But to divert money given for a specific purpose to other channels, however proper, is practical embezzlement. And it is easy to see how this course would breed dissatisfaction and revolt among the people. Their joyful acceptance of the second plan, and the hearty liberality exhibited, show conclusively that we have not argued unjustly. And the taking of the whole matter out of the hands of the priests by the king confirms our position. It would appear that Joash gave ample time for the successful working of this first plan. Not until the twenty-third year of his reign did he call the priests to account. This does not mean, of course, that the collectors had been at work twenty three years, for we are not told in what year they received their commission. It certainly could not have been in the first years of Joash's reign, because he began to rule at the age of eight.

2. But having abandoned the first plan, the king quickly unfolded his second one. This was as simple u it was effective. A box or chest, securely locked, with a hole cut in the lid to admit pieces of money, was first prepared. It was placed at the entrance-gate to the priest's court on the right. Royal proclamation was then made of the new plan throughout the land, and the people exhorted to bring in their contributions in accordance with the law found in Exodus 30:12-16, and see their money deposited in the chest. The part of the priests was the mere perfunctory duty of receiving the money and putting it into the receptacle in the presence of the donors. And now money fairly flowed in. Nor was it given grudgingly. "All the princes and all the people rejoiced." When the chest was full the priest sent his scribe and the king his secretary, and the two emptied it, weighed the money, bound it up in bags (2 Kings 5:23), and carried it back to its place. The process was repeated until an abundance was gathered for the purpose. The plan was a great success. And why? Doubtless the novelty of the plan accounts partly for it. The curiosity to look upon the first money-chest of this description would bring in many contributions that otherwise would not have been given. But, chiefly, every person saw his gift deposited in the receptacle which was inaccessible to any but the regularly appointed officers, and thus he could be reasonably sure that his money would be laid out for the purpose he intended. Herein lies the chief cause of the plan's success — every piece of money was strictly accounted for, and there was no possible chance for a misuse of the funds.

II. THE EXPENDITURE WAS AS NOTEWORTHY AS THE GATHERING. The same clear-headed, far-seeing intelligence was behind it. Putting the two accounts together, it is plain that overseers were appointed who had general charge of the repairs. The words, "such as did the work of the service of the house of the Lord," in the twelfth verse, indicate that the overseers were Levites. They had authority to employ artisans of different kinds — masons and carpenters and workers in brass and iron — and also to purchase the needed materials. Into their hands went the immense sums which had been collected, and to them the workmen looked for their wages. And what seems strange — almost incomprehensible — in view of the careful scrutiny exercised over the collections, their overseers were not required to give account of their stewardship (2 Kings 12:15). That they were honest and "dealt faithfully" is apparent from the fact that, after finishing their task and paying all the bills, they brought back a remainder to the king and Jehoiada. With this unexpended balance they were enabled to furnish the temple anew with the vessels necessary for the ritual service (1 Kings 7:49, 50). The old ones had been devoted to Baalim (ver. 7). An apparent discrepancy exists at this point between our account and that in 2 Kings 12:13, where the writer declares that vessels were not made of the "money that was brought into the house of the Lord." Rawlinson seems to explain the matter satisfactorily by showing that "all that the writer of Kings desires to impress on his readers is, that the repairs were not delayed by any deductions from the money that flowed in through the chest on account of vessels or ornaments of the house. What became of the surplus in the chest after the last repairs were completed he does not care to tell us. But it is exactly this, the application of which is mentioned by the writer of Chronicles." We may venture to add our opinion that the writer of Kings, in enumerating the special points of the overseers' responsibility, mentions, casually, that they were not responsible for the furnishing of the temple with the appropriate vessels. Their special business was to look after the repairs. So, after many years of dilapidation, the people saw their glorious sanctuary shine in all its former glory. The smoke of sacrifice again rose heavenward, calling the backsliding children of Israel to the faith of their fathers.

III. PRACTICAL WORDS.

1. One of the great problems which ever confront the Church is the financial one. Doors open on every hand, and consecrated workers wait to go through them, but the treasuries are empty. Settle this matter of finance, and the spiritual interests will progress correspondingly.

2. The contribution box is not a "Vandal in the house of God." It is the legitimate successor of Jehoiada's chest, and its regular use should be considered a part of worship.

3. The people who give the money have a right to know where it goes. And if it be diverted from its proper use, those who administer should not complain if there follow a falling off in contributions. Men will have honest dealing in Church finances.

(H. H. French.)