Introduction

King Jehoahaz (also referred to in some sources as “Joahaz”) was the 11th king of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, who reigned, according to most chronologies, in the late 9th century B.C.E. Jehoahaz was the son of King Jehu (who had previously usurped the throne from the earlier Omride Dynasty; cf. 2 Kings 9-10), and he reigned, according to 2 Kings 13:1, for 17 years in Samaria, Israel’s capital city.

Jehoahaz’s name (Yeho’ahaz) is a theophoric name, consisting of the theophoric element yahu (יהו), an abbreviation for Yahweh/Jehovah, the national God of ancient Israel, and the verb ahaz (אחז), which means “to seize” or “to grasp”. Thus, Jehoahaz’s name likely means something along the lines of “Yahweh has grasped”¹, “Yahweh Has Taken Hold”², or “Yahweh his sustainer”³.

Jehoahaz’s reign is textually recorded in the Hebrew Bible, in 2 Kings 13:1-9, along with v. 24-25, and is illuminated by archaeological sources, extrabiblical texts, and general historical context. Jehoahaz is well-known, primarily, for the territorial and political losses and general oppression that occurred during his reign at the hands of King Hazael of Aram-Damascus.

Chronology of Jehoahaz’ Reign

According to the regnal synchronism in 2 Kings 13:1, Jehoahaz became king of Israel in Year 23 of King Jehoash of Judah, in the late 9th century BC. As is the case with nearly all Israelite and Judean kings, the exact regnal dates of Jehoahaz’ reign are not unanimously agreed upon among scholars. The regnal synchronism of 2 Kings 13:10 claims that Jehoahaz’ son, Jehoash of Israel, became king in Year 37 of Jehoash of Judah, which causes some scholars to opt for assigning Jehoahaz only 15 years of reign, while others argue for a co-regency (not attested in the Hebrew Bible or any other text) between Jehoahaz and Jehoash⁴.

Jehoahaz’ son, Jehoash, is additionally mentioned on the Tell al-Rimah Stele as having paid tribute to Assyrian king Adad-Nirari III during one of the latter’s campaigns to the west, meaning that Jehoahaz must have died by the time this campaign was undertaken. However, there is scholarly disagreement on the date of Adad-Nirari III’s campaign to the west where he extracted tribute from Jehoash of Israel⁵.

The following dates, however, have been assigned to the reign of King Jehoahaz in the literature.

-876-860 B.C.E.⁶

-821-805 B.C.E.⁷

-818-802 B.C.E.⁸

-815-802/801 B.C.E.⁹

-814-798 B.C.E.¹⁰

Aramean Oppression

In the second half of the 9th century B.C.E., the Kingdom of Israel faced a major geopolitical crisis. King Jehoram of Israel had collaborated with King Ahaziah of Judah against King Hazael of Aram-Damascus in a campaign at Ramoth-gilead, where he was defeated and wounded (2 Kings 8:25-29; Tel Dan Stele, lines 6-9). After this, Jehu, an official in the Israelite military, launched a coup d’etat, killing both Jehoram and Ahaziah (at least according to 2 Kings 9), and assuming power in Samaria, bringing an end to the decades-long Omride dynasty in Israel.

Having defeated the Israelites at Ramoth-gilead, Hazael proceeded to make further territorial gains (in c. 835 B.C.E., according to most chronologies) against Israel, and Israel suffered major military defeats and territorial losses during the reign of Jehu.

In those days Jehovah started to cut off Israel piece by piece. Hazael kept attacking them throughout the territory of Israel, from the Jordan eastward, all the land of Gilead – of the Gadites, the Reubenites, and the Manassites – from Aroer, which is by the Arnon Valley, to Gilead and Bashan. -2 Kings 10:32-33 (NWT).

Hazael occupied all Israelite territory east of the Jordan, as reported by 2 Kings 10:32-33. Most authors also hold that he occupied sections of the Galilee, the Northern Valleys, and the coastal plains¹¹. In any case, Hazael even reached as far down as Philistine Gath (2 Kings 12:17), and extracted tribute offered by Jehoash of Judah after the former campaigned against Jerusalem (2 Kings 12:18). Israel’s territory was thus limited mostly to the central hill country surrounding Samaria.

Archaeologically, the evidence for the Aramean Oppression is debatable given the current debate over the chronology of the Iron Age in Israel. There is a lack of archaeological consensus on which destruction layers at certain sites are to be attributed to Hazael. However, while archaeologists disagree on whether certain strata can be attributed to Hazael’s campaigns, there seems to be general agreement that the Aramean Oppression left archaeological remains¹².

Three sites in Israel seem to provide archaeological testimony to Hazael’s campaigns; Jezreel, Dan, and Gath,. At Jezreel, eight arrowheads were found at the south site of the site’s enclosure, near the monumental gate; it is most likely that this site was conquered by Hazael¹³. At Dan, the infamous Tel Dan Stele was discovered; a fragmentary Aramaic stele most likely commissioned by King Hazael and placed in the city of Dan. The fact that the Tel Dan stele was erected in Dan – an Israelite city¹⁴ – provides evidence for an Aramean conquest here¹⁵. Gath is mentioned as having been conquered by Hazael in 2 Kings 12:17, and the city shows evidence for a large destruction which is broadly agreed to have been inflicted by Hazael¹⁶.

Aramean Oppression in Jehoahaz’ Reign

It is the historical context of the Aramean Oppression that the history of Jehoahaz’s reign must be contextualized in. The oppression by Hazael – and, after, his death, by his son, Bar-Hadad (also known as Ben-Hadad III) – continued and seems to have intensified during the reign of Jehoahaz.

So Jehovah’s anger grew hot against Israel, and he gave them into the hand of King Hazael of Syria and into the hand of Ben-Hadad the son of Hazael all their days. -2 Kings 13:3 (NWT).

Now King Hazael of Syria oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz. -2 Kings 13:22 (NWT).

Under the Aramean Oppression during Jehoahaz’s reign, Israel suffered. Jehoahaz’ territory was limited to Samaria and the central hill country surrounding it, with the coastal plains, the Galilee, the Northern Valleys, and all territory east of the Jordan River being occupied by Hazael. Jehoahaz evidently engaged in military encounters with Hazael (as would be expected given the latter’s oppression of the former), especially given the reference to Jehoahaz’s “mightiness” in 2 Kings 13:8, a term applied in the Hebrew Bible only to kings who engaged in significant military combat¹⁷.

Aside from the obvious territorial and economic hardships the Kingdom of Israel suffered during Jehoahaz’s reign, it appears that the Israelites additionally suffered major military losses aswell. Aram-Damascus under Hazael was simply far more powerful in nearly every way, and so attempts at resistance by Jehoahaz evidently ended in failure. Since 2 Kings 13:25 speaks of “the cities he had taken in war from Jehoahaz his father” (referring to King Bar-Hadad, Hazael’s son), it seems that the Arameans made even further territorial gains in Jehoahaz’ day aswell.

2 Kings 13:7 reports that, because of Hazael’s campaigns, Jehoahaz’s military was limited to a force of 50 horsemen, 10 chariots, and 10,000 infantrymen. To illustrate, earlier Israelite king Ahab is mentioned as having had “2,000 chariots” on the Kurkh Monolith of Shalmaneser III¹⁸ (though the accuracy of this number is debated among scholars), and lines 6-7 of the Tel Dan Stele speak of King Jehoram wielding “th[ousands of cha-]riots and thousands of horsemen” against King Hazael. While some have viewed the numbers given in 2 Kings 13:7 as literal accurate reporting¹⁹, Shuichi Hasegawa has argued that they – along with the numbers given in the Tel Dan Stele, the Kurkh Monolith, and related texts – are more of an ideological point rather than literally accurate numbers²⁰. In any case though, the text’s point is clear: Jehoahaz’ military suffered majorly at the hands of Hazael.

Who was the “savior”?

2 Kings 13:4-5 reports an interesting narrative.

In time Jehoahaz begged for the favor of Jehovah, and Jehovah listened to him, for he had seen the oppression the king of Syria had inflicted on Israel. So Jehovah provided Israel with a savior to free them from Syria’s grip, and the Israelites were able to dwell in their homes as before. -2 Kings 13:4-5 (NWT).

In this report, King Jehoahaz calls for the help of Israel’s national God, Jehovah; Jehovah responds to the former’s request by sending a “savior” in order to “free [Israel] from Syria’s grip”, and, as a result, “the Israelites were able to dwell in their homes as before”.

This text prompts us to the question: who was the “savior”, and what did he/she do? The Hebrew Bible is not clear on this, but multiple scholarly proposals have been made regarding the identity of the “savior”.

-Elisha. The prophet Elisha, who operated in the Northern Kingdom during the reign of Jehoahaz (along with earlier and later kings), has been proposed as the “savior” on the basis of the narrative in 2 Kings 13:14-19, where this prophet prompts King Jehoash to defeat the Arameans and retake the lost Israelite territory. However, as Aelred Cody notes, Elisha appears in this text, not as a military figure, but as a prophet of Jehovah giving an inspired message to Jehoash; thus, he is unlikely to fulfill the role as Israel’s “savior”²¹.

–Jehoahaz, king of Israel. J. Maxwell Miller has proposed that, in fact, Jehoahaz himself was the “savior”. Miller believes that the accounts in 1 Kings 20, 22:1-38 actually refer to events in the time of Jehoahaz’s day, and that the narrative of Elisha’s meetup with Jehoash in 2 Kings 13:14-19 also originally referred to Jehoahaz²².

Miller’s hypothesis has been criticized by Wayne Pitard in the latter’s book, Ancient Damascus. Firstly, Pitard notes that the author of 2 Kings 13:4-5 does not mention Jehoahaz as the “savior”, which seems unlikely if he is understood as the object of the text. Secondly, Pitard points out that 2 Kings 13:3-6 as a narrative should be understood as a “capsulized version of the entire history of the Aramean oppression”, meaning that it can cover the periods of both Jehoahaz and Jehoash (and perhaps Jehu aswell); this point will be discussed in more detail below²³.

In any case, Miller’s hypothesis posits a large amount of redactional activity without strong evidence, and additionally, the geopolitical situation portrayed in 2 Kings 22:1-38 does not fit with the geopolitical situation of Jehoahaz’ reign; Jehoahaz’ s military conditions mentioned before make it unlikely for him to launch an offensive battle against the Arameans, especially in Gilead; in 22:1-38 the king of Israel is portrayed in close alliance and cooperation with the king of Judah, and there is no evidence for close Israelite-Judean relations during the reign of Jehoahaz. The texts fit better with the time of the Omride Dynasty, and this is when they are placed in the biblical composition. Miller’s hypothesis should, thus, be rejected.

–Zakkur, king of Hamath. King Zakkur ruled the Aramean kingdom of Hamath in the early 8th century B.C. An inscription by him known as the Zakkur Stele records a military conflict that this king had with Bir-Hadad, king of Aram-Damascus, and a coalition of other kings, where Zakkur was victorious. Some have proposed him as the “savior”, since the conflict mentioned on the Zakkur Stele could have relieved Aramean pressure on Israel, but this seems very unlikely, since the date of the Aramean Oppression does not line up with the date of the events mentioned on the Zakkur Stele²⁴.

–Jeroboam II, king of Israel. Jeroboam II was Jehoahaz’ grandson, and quite probably the most powerful and prosperous king of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. He has been proposed as the “savior” by some, like James Montgomery²⁵, on the basis of 2 Kings 14:45-47, which states that “[Jehovah] saved [Israel] by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Jehoash”. It is, indeed, tempting to identify Jeroboam II as the “savior”, especially since the aforementioned text claims that Jehovah “saved” Israel by his hand, but it also must be worth noting that Israel had already retaken its lost territory by the time of Jeroboam II’s reign (2 Kings 13:24-25). Jeroboam II’s conquests mentioned in 2 Kings 14:45-47 represent additional territorial expansion in the direction of Aram-Damascus. Thus, Jeroboam II is unlikely to be the “savior”.

–Adad-Nirari III, king of Assyria. Adad-Nirari III ruled the Neo-Assyrian Empire from approx. 810-783 B.C. on most chronologies, and his reign partly overlapped with that of Jehoahaz. He has been proposed as the “savior”²⁶ due to the various campaigns he undertook in the Levant recorded on the Tell al-Rimah Stele, the Saba’a Stele, and the Nimrud Slab. Specifically, one of Adad-Nirari III’s campaigns was directed towards “Mari, king of Damascus”, who is usually identified with Bar-Hadad, and less commonly Hazael. These campaigns weakened the power of Aram-Damascus in the Levant, making room for the end of the Aramean Oppression of Israel.

However, it is worth noting that Adad-Nirari III did not liberate any Israelite cities, nor did he “free Israel from Syria’s grip” (2 Kings 13:5). This is somewhat problematic. Much depends on the meaning of the statement that the Israelites were able to “dwell in their homes as before” (2 Kings 13:5). This phrase can mean a cessation of hostilities (cf. Joshua 22:4), but Todd Bolen considers it more likely that this refers to an actual return from exile given the context of the Israelites’ territorial loss in 2 Kings 10:32-33²⁷. It should be noted, though, that 2 Kings 10:32-33 is textually removed from the narrative in 2 Kings 13.

However, it is worth noting that Adad-Nirari III did not liberate any Israelite cities, nor did he “free Israel from Syria’s grip” (2 Kings 13:5). This is somewhat problematic. Much depends on the meaning of the statement that the Israelites were able to “dwell in their homes as before” (2 Kings 13:5). This phrase can mean a cessation of hostilities (cf. Joshua 22:4), but Todd Bolen considers it more likely that this refers to an actual return from exile given the context of the Israelites’ territorial loss in 2 Kings 10:32-33²⁷. It should be noted, though, that 2 Kings 10:32-33 is textually removed from the narrative in 2 Kings 13.

In any case, though, given the fact that the role of the “savior” seemed to be the total liberation of Israel from Aramean oppression, and the retaking of lost Israelite territory (or, at least, a cessation of hostilities, which did not happen in Jehoahaz’ lifetime), Adad-Nirari III seems to be an unlikely candidate for the role of the “savior”.

-Jehoash, king of Israel. Finally, we get to the most commonly proposed figure to fill the role of the “savior”; Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz. Jehoash is commonly postulated as the “savior” due to the narratives contained in 2 Kings 13:13-25, which report his retaking of Israelite territory lost to the Arameans.

Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz then took back from Ben-hadad the son of Hazael the cities that he had taken in war from Jehoahaz his father. Three times Jehoash struck him down, and he recovered the cities of Israel. -2 Kings 13:25 (NWT).

These events seem to have greatly increased the strength of the Northern Kingdom, and overall, ended the Aramean Oppression.

The principal objection to Jehoash as the “savior” is that Jehoash’s territorial expansion against Aram-Damascus did not occur during Jehoahaz’s life, whereas 2 Kings 13:5 seems to imply that the “savior” operated in Jehoahaz’s lifetime. Aelred Cody attempts to solve this problem by positing a co-regency between Jehoahaz and Jehoash, and placing Jehoash’s territorial expansion during the time of this co-regency²⁸; however, this is problematic, as there is no evidence for a co-regency between Jehoahaz and Jehoash.

It should be noted that 2 Kings 13:5 does not necessitate that the “savior” operated in Jehoahaz’s reign. The views of Wayne Pitard, discussed before, who argues that 2 Kings 13:3-7 forms an overall chronological capsule, should be kept in mind; it may be that the author of Kings is, here, compressing the history of the Aramean Oppression into a few verses. Moreover, Pitard notes that “a successful son could have been viewed as the answer to the prayer of Joahaz [sic]”²⁹.

Given the fact that Jehoash was the one who defeated Aram-Damascus on several occasions, re-took lost Israelite territory, and ended the Aramean Oppression, it seems most probable to me to identify him as the “savior” of 2 Kings 13:4-5.

Shuichi Hasegawa has an interesting view on this issue. He questions the historical significance of 2 Kings 13:4-6, viewing it as a late addition to the text, and also belives it contradicts 2 Kings 13:24-25 (as we saw before, the latter view is unfounded). He suggests that the original author probably did not have a specific figure in mind when referring to the “savior”³⁰.

Ultimately, even if it is a late addition, 2 Kings 13:4-6 is still a historical text with historical claims, and so should not be ignored fully. If, however, Hasegawa’s proposal regarding the intentions of the author of Kings is correct, then perhaps the “savior” may be understood as – rather than an individual – a personification for different individuals who contributed to freeing Israel from the Aramean Oppression, and this could perhaps include both Jehoash and Jeroboam II.

Religious Policy

Jehoahaz was, of course, a Yahwist (that is, a worshipper of the God Jehovah); this is evidenced by his prayer to Jehovah in 2 Kings 13:4, aswell as the name he gave to his son, Jehoash, which literally means “Yahweh has given”³¹. Jehoahaz also never worshipped Baal; not only does the Hebrew Bible not indicate this, but it would be very unlikely, given his father’s purge of the worship of Baal in Samaria (2 Kings 10:18-27).

Like all the kings of the Northern Kingdom, Jehoahaz is judged negatively by the author of Kings. 2 Kings 13:2 states that Jehoahaz “continued to do what was bad in Jehovah’s eyes” and that he “persisted in the sin that Jeroboam the son of Nebat caused Israel to commit”. This negative condemnation comes from the fact that Jehoahaz sponsored the religious sanctuaries at the sites of Dan and Bethel – where golden calves were placed – that earlier Israelite king Jeroboam I had established (1 Kings 12:25), and that Jehoahaz’s father, Jehu, had continued to sponsor (2 Kings 10:29). It should be noted, though, that Jehoahaz cannot be held responsible for the sanctuary at Dan, given the fact that Dan was not under Israelite control during his reign (as discussed before).

Interestingly, 2 Kings 13:6 also indicates that an Asherah pole stood in Samaria during Jehoahaz’s reign. Given the fact that Asherah (whether it be referring too the goddess herself or the religious instrument) is referred to in the northern Israelite inscriptions of Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, which date to not long after Jehoahaz’s reign, this report seems plausible³².

Conclusion

Jehoahaz’s reign in Israel was, overall, a period of great distress. Israel continued to suffer major territorial, political, and military losses at the hands of Aram-Damascus. Israel’s territory was limited to the central hill country surrounding Samaria, and its military was reduced to a small force.

However, Jehoahaz persisted. And, this king’s reign – and perhaps his prayer to Jehovah – would pave the way for Israel’s territorial revival under Jehoahaz’s son, Jehoash.

References

¹ ISBE, “Entry for Jehoahaz”.

² IOTS-1, p. 1265.

³ EBD, “Entry for Jehoahaz”.

⁴ See the chronologies given below.

⁵ Cody 1970; Shea 1978; see also Grayson 1991, p. 209-211.

⁶ IOTS-1, Ibid.

⁷ Hayes and Hooker 2007, p. 39.

⁸ Laato 1986, p. 220.

⁹ ABD, vol. 3, p. 659; Albright 1945, p. 21.

¹⁰ Thiele 1983, p. 105.

¹¹ Kleiman 2016; Bolen 2002, p. 56-57; Finkelstein 2013, p. 125.

¹² For a “Modified Conventional Chronology” (MCC) viewpoint, see Bolen 2013; for a “Low Chronology” viewpoint, see Kleiman 2016; Finkelstein 2013, p. 125; Hasegawa 2012, p. 91-104.

¹³ Na’aman 1997, p. 126.

¹⁴ Contra Arie 2008. See Bolen 2013, p. 114-121.

¹⁵ Biran and Naveh 1993, 1995.

¹⁶ Maeir 2004; Finkelstein 2013, p. 122; Kleiman 2016, p. 63-64.

¹⁷ Hasegawa 2012, p. 122.

¹⁸ For a transliteration and translation of the Kurkh Monolith, see http://oracc.org/riao/Q004607/.

¹⁹ Bolen 2013, p. 27-28; Montgomery 1951, p. 434, who states the figure is “of interest”.

²⁰ Hasegawa 2010; 2012, p. 111-113.

²¹ Cody 1970, p. 336-337.

²² Miller 1968.

²³ Pitard 1987, p. 123-124.

²⁴ ABD, vol. 3, p. 659.

²⁵ Montgomery 1951, p. 433-434.

²⁶ Eg. Bolen 2002, p. 62-68.

²⁷ Bolen 2013, p. 27.

²⁸ Cody 1970, Ibid.

²⁹ Pitard 1987, p. 123.

³⁰ Hasegawa 2012, p. 121-122.

³¹ NBD, p. 597.

³² Na’aman 2011.

Bibliography

ABD = Anchor Bible Dictionary.

EBD = Easton, Matthew. Easton’s Bible Dictionary. N.p., CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2017.

IBSE = The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. United States, Delmarva Publications, Inc..

IOTS-1 = Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1.

NBD: New Bible Dictionary. Douglas, J.D., ed. 1982 (second edition). Tyndale House Publishers, Wheaton, IL, USA

Albright, William Foxwell. “The chronology of the divided monarchy of Israel.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 100.1 (1945): 16-22.

Arie, Eran. “Reconsidering the Iron Age II strata at Tel Dan: Archaeological and historical implications.” Tel Aviv 35.1 (2008): 6-64.

Biran, Avraham, and Joseph Naveh. “An aramaic stele fragment from Tel Dan.” Israel Exploration Journal (1993): 81-98.

Biran, Avraham, and Joseph Naveh. “The Tel Dan inscription: a new fragment.” Israel Exploration Journal (1995): 1-18.

Bolen, Todd. The Reign of Jeroboam II: A Historical and Archaeological Interpretation. Diss. Master’s Seminary, 2002.

Bolen, Todd. The Aramean Oppression of Israel in the Reign of Jehu. Diss. Dallas Theological Seminary, 2013.

Cody, Aelred. “A New Inscription from Tell āl-Rimaḥ and King Jehoash of Israel.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly (1970): 325-340.

Finkelstein, Israel. The Forgotten Kingdom: The Archaeology and History of Northern Israel. Society of Biblical Literature, 2013.

Grayson, Albert Kirk. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC. United Kingdom, University of Toronto Press, 1991.

Hasegawa, Shuichi. “The Numbers of the Israelite Army in the Time of Joahaz Is II Reg 13, 7 Derived from an Archival Source?.” Orient 45 (2010): 35-39.

Hasegawa, Shuichi. Aram and Israel during the Jehuite dynasty. Vol. 434. Walter de Gruyter, 2012.

Hayes, John H., and Hooker, Paul K.. A New Chronology for the Kings of Israel and Judah and Its Implications for Biblical History and Literature. United States, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2007.

Kleiman, Assaf. “The Damascene subjugation of the southern Levant as a gradual process (ca. 842–800 bce).” In Search of Aram and Israel: Politics, Culture and Identity 20 (2016): 57-76.

Laato, Antti. “New Viewpoints on the Chronology of the Kings of Judah and Israel.” (1986): 210-221.

Maeir, Aren M. “The Historical Background and Dating of Amos VI 2: An Archaeological Perspective from Tell eṣ-Ṣâfī/Gath.” Vetus Testamentum (2004): 319-334.

Miller, J. Maxwell. “The Rest of the Acts of Jehoahaz.(I Kings 20 22 1-38).” (1968): 337-342.

Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings. International Critical Commentary. Edited by S. R. Driver, A. Plummer, and C. A. Briggs. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1951.

Na’aman, Nadav. “Historical and literary notes on the excavation of Tel Jezreel.” Tel Aviv 24.1 (1997): 122-128.

Naʾaman, Nadav. “The inscriptions of Kuntillet ʻAjrud through the lens of historical research.” Ugarit-Forschungen 43 (2011): 299-324.

Pitard, Wayne Thomas. Ancient Damascus: A Historical Study of the Syrian City-state from Earliest Times Until Its Fall to the Assyrians in 732 B.C.E. United States, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1987.

Shea, William H. “Adad-nirari III and Jehoash of Israel.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 30.2 (1978): 101-113.

Thiele, Edwin Richard. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. United States, Academic Books, 1983.