Halfway Holy: The Curious Case of King Joash

In reading 2 Kings 12 and 13 alongside 2 Chronicles 24, I found myself focused on a repeated phrase: Joash "did what was right in the eyes of the Lord." At first glance, that sounds like a success. But then the text adds a qualifier: "all his days in which Jehoiada the priest instructed him" (2 Kings 12:2). And in both accounts, it's clear that Joash didn't go all the way. The high places were still used for worship. After Jehoiada's death, Joash abandoned earlier reforms. Eventually, he even ordered the killing of Jehoiada's son.

That contrast is hard to miss. There's a sense that Joash started strong but lost momentum. The longer his story unfolds, the more complicated his legacy becomes. What began as a story of repair and restoration ends with betrayal and decline.

Is Partial Good... Good Enough?

What does it mean to "do what is right" but only partially? Is that enough? And who decides?

There seems to be a distinction here between external actions and internal conviction. During Jehoiada's life, Joash did the things that were expected of a good king. He oversaw temple repairs. He followed guidance. He appeared faithful to the system in place. But after Jehoiada was gone, that structure collapsed. The temple repairs stopped. Warnings were ignored. Violence returned.

It makes me wonder how much of Joash's behavior was tied to his own beliefs versus the influence around him. Was he ever committed to the reforms? Or did he just perform them out of habit or expectation? And if that's the case, can we still call those early years "doing right"?

High Places and Low Follow-Through

The idea that someone can do the right things for the wrong—or at least unstable—reasons seems relevant well beyond Joash. It's not hard to think of modern figures who thrive under mentorship but struggle when left to lead on their own. Or systems that work well only when a specific person is keeping them together.

And then there's the matter of the high places. They keep showing up in these stories. Even the kings who are praised often leave them intact. Maybe it's not just about Joash. Maybe there's something about these half-measures that reflects a larger tension—between what people know they should do and what they're actually willing to change.

Mostly Faithful or Mostly Failed?

The text doesn’t explain Joash’s motivations in depth. But it does present a pattern: early compliance, later collapse. That pattern feels familiar. It raises questions about integrity, influence, and whether consistency matters more than a strong start. Joash’s reign might be remembered as mostly faithful—or mostly failed. The texts seem to suggest both.