Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Kings 3:1
Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years.
Ch. 2Ki 3:1-20. Jehoram king of Israel and Jehoshaphat king of Judah march against Moab. In the desert they obtain water through Elisha, who also promises them victory (Not in Chronicles)
1. the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat ] How this year may be identified with ‘the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat’, which in 2Ki 1:17 is the date assigned to Jehoram’s accession, is not clear. But see above on that passage.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
In the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat – This date agrees exactly with the statements that Jehoshaphat began to reign in the fourth year of Ahab 1Ki 22:41, and Ahaziah in the 17th year of Jehoshaphat 1Ki 22:51.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
2Ki 3:1-3
Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign.
Evil-the same in principle though not in form
Two subjects are here illustrated–
I. That whilst the forms of evil may change, the principle may continue rampant. His father and mother worshipped Baal, but the very image of the idol that his father had made he put away. But notwithstanding that, he cleaved unto the sins of Jeroboam. Observe:
1. Though the existing generation sins not in the form of the preceding, their sin is not less sin on that account. The forms in which barbarians and our uncivilised ancestors sinned, appear gross and revolting to us; nevertheless, our sins are not the less real and heinous in the sight of God. Our civilisation hides the revolting hideousness, but leaves its spirit perhaps more active than ever.
2. That mere external reformations may leave the spirit of evil as rampant as ever. Jehoram put away the image of Baal, but the spirit of idolatry remained in him in all its wonted force. He cleaved unto the sins of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, which made Israel to sin: he departed not therefrom. This is ever true. You may destroy this form of government or that, monarchical or democratic, and yet leave the spirit in which these forms work, vital and vigorous to manifest itself in other forms. Another subject illustrated here is–
II. That whilst sin may only be in the form of neglect of duty it may in the case of one man entail serious evils on posterity. (Homilist.)
Manipulation of evil
A remarkable character is given of Jehoram. He was not an imitator of the evil of his father as to its precise form, but he had his own method of serving the devil. We should have thought that Ahab and Jezebel had exhausted all the arts of wickedness, but it turns out that Jehoram had found a way of his own of living an evil life. There is room in wickedness for the exercise of genius of a certain limited kind. The limitation is imposed by wickedness itself, for, after all, wickedness is made up of but few elements. Many persons suppose that if they do not sin according to the prevailing fashion they are not sinning at all They imagine that by varying the form of the evil they have mitigated the evil itself. A good deal of virtue is supposed to consist in reprobating certain forms of vice. Jehoram made a kind of trick of wickedness; he knew how to give a twist to old forms, or a turn to old ways, so as to escape part of their vulgarity, and yet to retain all their iniquity. A most alarming thought it is to the really spiritual mind that men may become adepts in wickedness, experts in evil-doing, and may be able so to manage their corrupt designs as to deceive many observers by a mere change of surface or appearance. We do not amend the idolatry by altering the shape of the altar. We do not destroy the mischievous power of unbelief by throwing our scepticism into metaphysical phrases, and making verbal mysteries where we might have spiritual illumination. We are deceived by things simply because we ourselves live a superficial life and read only the history of appearances. What is the cure for all this manipulation of evil, this changing of complexion of form, and this consequent imagining that the age is improving because certain phenomena which used to be so patent are no longer discernible on the face of things? We come back to the sublime doctrine of regeneration, as the answer to the great inquiry, What is the cure for this heart-disease? Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. We may change either the language or the manners of wickedness, or the times and seasons for doing wicked things; we may decorate our wickedness with many beautiful colours but, so long as the heart itself is unchanged, decoration is useless; yea, worse than useless, for it is a vain attempt to make that look true which is false–an endeavour even to deceive Omniscience itself. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER III
The reign and idolatry of Jehoram, king of Israel, 1-3.
Mesha, king of Moab, rebels against Israel, 4, 5.
Jehoram, Jehoshaphat, and the king of Edom join against the
Moabites, and are brought into great distress for want of
water, 6-10.
The three kings go to Elisha to inquire of the Lord; who
promises them water, and a complete victory, 11-19.
Water comes the next morning, and fills the trenches which
these kings had made in the valley, 20.
The Moabites arm against them; and suppose, when they see the
sun shining upon the waters, which look like blood, that the
confederate kings have fallen out, and slain each other; and
that they have nothing to do but take the spool, 21-23.
The Israelites attack and completely rout then, beat down their
cities, and mar their land, 24, 25.
The king of Moab, having made an unsuccessful attack on the
king of Edom, takes his eldest son, and of offers him for a
burnt-offering upon the wall; and there is great indignation
against Israel, 26, 27.
NOTES ON CHAP. III
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat.
Quest. How can this be true, when Ahaziah, Jehorams predecessor, who reigned two years, began his reign in Jehoshaphats seventeenth year, 1Ki 22:51?
Answ. Either Ahaziah reigned the greatest part of two years, to wit, of the seventeenth and eighteenth years of Jehoshaphat, (parts of years being oft called years in the computation of times, both in Scripture and other authors,) and Jehoram began his reign towards the end of his eighteenth year; or Ahaziah reigned part of this two years with his father, and the rest after him.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1, 2. Jehoram the son of Ahab beganto reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year ofJehoshaphat(compare 1Ki22:51). To reconcile the statements in the two passages, we mustsuppose that Ahaziah, having reigned during the seventeenth and thegreater part of the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat, was succeeded byhis brother Joram or Jehoram, in the end of that eighteenth year, orelse that Ahaziah, having reigned two years in conjunction with hisfather, died at the end of that period when Jehoram ascended thethrone. His policy was as hostile as that of his predecessors to thetrue religion; but he made some changes. Whatever was his motive forthis alterationwhether dread of the many alarming judgments thepatronage of idolatry had brought upon his father; or whether it wasmade as a small concession to the feelings of Jehoshaphat, his ally,he abolished idolatry in its gross form and restored the symbolicworship of God, which the kings of Israel, from the time of Jeroboam,had set up as a partition wall between their subjects and those ofJudah.
2Ki 3:4;2Ki 3:5. MESHA,KING OF MOAB,REBELS.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah,…. So that the two years of the reign of his brother Ahaziah were not complete, only part of the seventeenth and part of the eighteenth of Jehoshaphat, since he began to reign in his seventeenth year, at the beginning of that, and died towards the close of the eighteenth, when Jehoram succeeded him, see 1Ki 22:51, and reigned twelve years.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Reign of Joram of Israel. – For the chronological statement in 2Ki 3:1, see at 2Ki 1:17. Joram or Jehoram was not so ungodly as his father Ahab and his Mother Jezebel. He had the statue or pillar of Baal, which his father had erected in Samaria, removed; and it was only to the sin of Jeroboam, i.e., the calf-worship, that he adhered. Joram therefore wished to abolish the worship of Baal and elevate the worship of Jehovah, under the image of the calf (ox), into the region of his kingdom once more. For the singular suffix see Ewald, 317, a. He did not succeed, however, in exterminating the worship of Baal. It not only continued in Samaria, but appears to have been carried on again in the most shameless manner (cf. 2Ki 10:18.); at which we cannot be surprised, since his mother Jezebel, that fanatical worshipper of Baal, was living throughout the whole of his reign (2Ki 9:30).
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Reign of Jehoram. | B. C. 895. |
1 Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years. 2 And he wrought evil in the sight of the LORD; but not like his father, and like his mother: for he put away the image of Baal that his father had made. 3 Nevertheless he cleaved unto the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which made Israel to sin; he departed not therefrom. 4 And Mesha king of Moab was a sheepmaster, and rendered unto the king of Israel a hundred thousand lambs, and a hundred thousand rams, with the wool. 5 But it came to pass, when Ahab was dead, that the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel.
Jehoram, the son of Ahab, and brother of Ahaziah, is here upon the throne of Israel; and, though he was but a bad man, yet two commendable things are here recorded of him:–
I. That he removed his father’s idols. He did evil in many things, but not like his father Ahab or his mother Jezebel, v. 2. Bad he was, but not so bad, so overmuch wicked, as Solomon speaks, Eccl. vii. 17. Perhaps Jehoshaphat, though by his alliance with the house of Ahab he made his own family worse, did something towards making Ahab’s better. Jehoram saw his father and brother cut off for worshipping Baal, and wisely took warning by God’s judgments on them, and put away the image of Baal, resolving to worship the God of Israel only, and consult none but his prophets. So far was well, yet it did not prevent the destruction of Ahab’s family, nay, that destruction came in his days, and fell immediately upon him (ch. ix. 24), though he was one of the best of the family, for then the measure of its iniquity was full. Jehoram’s reformation was next to none; for, 1. He only put away the image of Baal which his father had made, and this probably in compliment to Jehoshaphat, who otherwise would not have come into confederacy with him, any more than with his brother, 1 Kings xxii. 49. But he did not destroy the worship of Baal among the people, for Jehu found it prevalent, ch. x. 19. It was well to reform his family, but it was not enough; he ought to have used his power for the reforming of his kingdom. 2. When he put away the image of Baal, he adhered to the worship of the calves, that politic sin of Jeroboam, v. 3. He departed not therefrom, because that was the state engine by which the division between the two tribes was supported. Those do not truly, nor acceptably, repent or reform, who only part with the sins that they lose by, but continue their affection to the sins that they get by. 3. He only put away the image of Baal, he did not break it in pieces, as he ought to have done. He laid it aside for the present, yet not knowing but he might have occasion for it another time; and Jezebel, for reasons of state, was content to worship her Baal in private.
II. That he did what he could to recover his brother’s losses. As he had something more of the religion of an Israelite than his father, so he had something more of the spirit of a king than his brother. Moab rebelled against Israel, immediately upon the death of Ahab, ch. i. 1. And we do not find that Ahaziah made any attempt to chastise or reduce them, but tamely let go his interest in them, rather than entertain the cares, undergo the fatigues, and run the hazards, of a war with them. His folly and pusillanimity herein, and his indifference to the public good, were the more aggravated because the tribute which the king of Moab paid was a very considerable branch of the revenue of the crown of Israel: 100,000 lambs, and 100,000 wethers, v. 4. The riches of kings then lay more in cattle than coin, and they thought it not below them to know the state of their flocks and herds themselves, because, as Solomon observes, the crown doth not endure to every generation,Pro 27:23; Pro 27:24. Taxes were then paid not so much in money as in the commodities of the country, which was an ease to the subject, whether it was an advantage to the prince or no. The revolt of Moab was a great loss to Israel, yet Ahaziah sat still in sloth and ease. But an upper chamber in his house proved as fatal to him as the high places of the field could have been (ch. i. 2), and the breaking of his lattice let into his throne a man of the more active genius, that would not lose the dominion of Moab without making at least one push for its preservation.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Second Kings – Chapter 3
Jehorem Reigns – Verses 1-8
The opening statement of this chapter, that Jehoram began to reign over Israel in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, does not seem to correspond with 2Ki 1:17. There it is said Jehoram of Israel began to reign in the second year of Jehoram of Judah. From this Bible commentators have concluded that Jehoram of Judah had-a co-regency with his father, Jehoshaphat, which was in its second year when Jehoshaphat was in his eighteenth year. It seems to have been a common practice for kings of both Israel and Judah to begin a coregency with their fathers near the end of the older king’s reign. It must have been a kind of training time.
Jehoram was very much like his father Ahab inasmuch as he continued his evil ways, but unlike him in that he discontinued the outward worship of Baal and removed the Baal image. What he sought was to return Israel to worship of the calves which Jeroboam, who caused the initial apostasy of the northern kingdom from the temple in Jerusalem. Though Jezebel was still alive it appears that she was unable to influence her son to the extent she had Ahab.
The rebellion of Mesha, king of Moab, against the subjection of Israel is introduced again. The land of Moab was a grassland and supported the intensive grazing of sheep. The tribute to Israel had been paid in sheep and wool. His yearly payment consisted of a hundred thousand each of lambs and rams with the wool. But with Ahab dead, and the country defeated in battle by the Syrians, Mesha saw an opportunity to strike for independence. The account studied previously, from Second Chronicles, chapter 20, probably was one event in the rebellion of Moab. But that had been frustrated by the intervention of the Lord on behalf of Judah and Jehoshaphat.
When he became king after the death of his brother, Ahaziah, Jehoram proceeded to muster an army and go to re-subjugate the Moabites. Then an astonishing thing happened with Jehoshaphat and the people of Judah. Jehoram solicited the aid of the king of Judah to go with him against the Moabites. It is not known why Jehoshaphat acquiesced in Jehoram’s desires and reacted in the very same manner he did when he consented to go with Ahab against the Syrians at Ramoth-gilead. Jehoshaphat had been severely rebuked by the prophet for that mis-adventure, and one would have surely expected that he would never again fall into that error (1 Kings chapter 22).
Perhaps Jehoshaphat felt obligated to go to this encounter against the Moabites, who had so recently invaded his land. But then God had given him the mighty victory over the combined forces of Moab, Ammon, and Edom without his having to raise a hand in his own defense. Surely he could not believe God would bless his evil affinity with Jehoram. But he again uttered the old untruth he had given Jehoram’s father at that first time, “I will go with you, I am as you are, my people as your people, and my horses as your horses.” In other words they would present a united effort against Moab. Jehoshaphat even allowed Jehoram to plan the assault route, and he chose to attack through the southern wilderness of Judah, through Edom, to Moab. This meant going around the Dead Sea’s south end to its east side.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
THE REVOLT AND DEFEAT OF MOAB
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.
2Ki. 3:1. Jehoram, the son of AhabSee on chap. 2Ki. 1:17. The more distinctive name of this king, together with a helpful chronological statement, will be found in chap. 2Ki. 8:16. In character and conduct he was only comparatively better than his parents: bad, but not so bad as they.
2Ki. 3:2. He put away the image of BaalThere were images (chap. 2Ki. 10:26) in the house of Baal, which Ahab erected (1Ki. 16:32) in Samaria; but there was one distinctive (probably very vast) statue, called here, and in chap 2Ki. 10:27, the image. Probably those were wooden images; whereas this was a statue in stone or metal.
HOMILETICS OF 2Ki. 3:1-3
PARTIAL REFORMATION
I. That partial reformation is brought about by association with the good (2Ki. 3:1). This verse reminds us of the intimacy existing between Jehoram, the son of the idolatrous Ahab, and the God-fearing Jehoshaphat. It was by the mediation of the latter monarch that the war-like rancour so long cherished between Israel and Judah was subdued, and more friendly intercourse encouraged (1Ki. 22:44). The company of the good, if it does not change the character of the wicked, greatly modifies their conduct. The influence of a holy life makes itself felt in the most abandoned society. Example is more potent than precept. The power of Jesus when on earth consisted more in what He did than in what He saidmore in the significance of His conduct than in the fulness of His argument. Far more of God was revealed in what He was, in what He did, and in what He suffered, than in what He taught. If all the good withdrew from society, one of the most powerful moral restraints would be removed from the wicked, and the world would soon become a very Tophet of unbearable suffering.
II. That partial reformation is seen in the abolition of the grosser forms of sin. He put away the image of Baal that his father had made (2Ki. 3:2). The worship of the Tyrian Baal was encouraged by Ahab and Jezebel to such an extent as at once to degrade and disgust the people. It was a national scandal. Jehoram did his best to wipe out that disgrace, and to dry up that fountain of popular pollution. So far good. It is a gain to the community when vice is prevented from flaunting itself before the public gaze. If it cannot be at once abolished, let it be narrowed to the smallest space and reduced to the minimum of mischief. Partial reformation of abuses is better than leaving things as they are. The vice in our large cities, notwithstanding all attempts to hide and circumscribe it, is something appalling. It is said that there are in London 10,000 prostitutesa procession a mile long, walking double fileall somebodys daughters; and there are 20,000 thieves, making two more miles of that dread procession. What would be the effect on public morality if all these criminals were allowed unchecked and unrestricted scope?
III. That partial reformation does not deliver from sins which have become established by a generation of wicked examples. Nevertheless he cleaved unto the sins of Jeroboam (2Ki. 3:3). How prolifie is the progeny of a single sinhow tenacious the effects of one evil example! It requires more than ordinary courage to break away from sins that are hereditary and that have been fastened on a nation by long usage and enforced by kingly example and authority. No partial and half-hearted efforts will avail. Men do less than they ought, unless they do all that they can. Only by Divine help can a thorough and lasting reformation be effected.
LESSONS:
1. Any efforts after sincere reformation are commendable.
2. Nothing short of a thorough reformation can be acceptable to God.
3. The evil of a bad example may be counteracted by a good one.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
2Ki. 3:2-3. If we do in truth tear down a statue of Baal or two, and adhere nevertheless to the sins of Jeroboam, and to his calf imagesto those ordinances which for political reasons have been introduced and established in the church contrary to the will of the Lordwhat will it help us? He who, for himself, abstains from that which is opposed to Gods word and commandment, but continues to tolerate it in those who are connected with him, or subject to him, shows thereby that he is not in earnest in his own obedience to God, and that his principles are deduced only from external considerations and relations.Lange.
2Ki. 3:2. A vacillating spirit. I. Weakens kingly authority. II. Is easily discouraged in a work of religious reform. III. Is hampered by the influence of evil parental example. IV. Never accomplishes anything great
Even into the most wicked families it pleases God to cast His powerful restraints, that all are not equally vicious. It is no news to see lewd men make scruple of some sins. The world were not to live in, if all sins were affected by all. It is no thanks to Ahab and Jezebel that their son is no Baalite. As no good is traduced from parents, so not all evil; there is an Almighty Hand that stops the foul current of nature at His pleasure. No idolater can say that his child shall not be a convert.Bp. Hall.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
III. ELISHA AND KING JEHORAM 3:122
Chapter three opens with the standardized introduction to the reign of Ahabs second son, Jehoram (2Ki. 3:1-3). The rest of the chapter is devoted to a description of a military campaign against Moab in which Jehoram and his Southern counterpart, Jehoshaphat, were the principal participants. Elisha accompanied the allied kings. As important as the political significance of this chapter is, it apparently has been included in Kings because of the role that the prophet of God played in this campaign.
A. INTRODUCTION TO THE REIGN OF JEHORAM 3:13
TRANSLATION
(1) Now Jehoram son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and he reigned twelve years. (2) And he did evil in the sight of the LORD, but not like his father nor like his mother; for he removed the pillar of Baal which his father had made. (3) Nevertheless, he clung to the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat who caused Israel to sin; he did not turn away from it.
COMMENTS
A chronological difficulty arises from the synchronization in 2Ki. 3:1. For an explanation of the problem and a suggested solution, see the special note at the end of the chapter. The other information about Jehorams reign is summarized in the following chart.
Ninth King of Israel
JORAM (JEHORAM) BEN AHAB
852841 B.C.
(Exalted by Yabweb)
2Ki. 1:17; 2Ki. 3:1-27; 2Ki. 6:8 to 2Ki. 7:20; 2Ki. 9:1-26
Synchronism
Joram 1 = Jehoshaphat 18
Contemporary Prophet
Elisha
The wicked are overthrown, and are not; but the house of the righteous shall stand. Pro. 12:7
It is noteworthy that while Jehoram of Israel was considered by the author of Kings to be evil, he was not considered as bad as his father and his mother, Ahab and Jezebel. Jehoram seems to have taken warning from the fates of his father and brother so far as to abolish Baalism as the state religion. He put away the image of Baal which Ahab had erected in the Baal temple in Samaria (2Ki. 3:2). The destruction of this image is recorded in 2Ki. 10:27. Jehorams wickedness lay in the fact that he felt compelled to continue the apostate calf worship introduced by Jeroboam back in 931 B.C. (2Ki. 3:3).
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
III.
THE REIGN OF JEHORAM OF ISRAEL, AND HIS EXPEDITION AGAINST MOAB, IN WHICH JEHOSHAPHAT OF JUDAH TAKES PART.
(1) Began to reign.Literally, reigned.
The eighteenth year.Comp. Note on 2Ki. 1:17; 2Ki. 8:16.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
BEGINNING OF JEHORAM’S REIGN, 2Ki 3:1-3.
The chronology of Jehoram’s reign is exceedingly involved and obscure. Some of the incidents recorded in the following chapters seem clearly out of their chronological order, and the miracles of Elisha, which were mostly wrought during this reign, appear to have been written with reference to their moral suggestions, and their inner relation to one another, rather than with reference to the order in which they actually occurred. Accordingly in our notes on these chapters we have made no attempt to discuss or decide these questions of chronology.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1. Jehoram the son of Ahab And brother of Ahaziah, who died prematurely from a fall from his upper chamber. 2Ki 1:2 ; 2Ki 1:17. With this Jehoram, or Joram, as he is often called, the dynasty of Omri came to an end.
Eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat See note on 2Ki 1:17.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
A. The Reign of Jehoram, King Of Israel, Commences ( 2Ki 3:1-3 ).
The introduction to the reign of Jehoram, king of Israel, follows the usual format, with the exception that he was an improvement religionwise on his father in that he removed the ‘pillar of Baal’ which his father had made. Possibly what had happened to his brother Azariah, and his brother’s encounters with Elijah, had given Jehoram pause for thought, especially as Baal had clearly been unable to prevent his death. But sadly he continued in all the sins of Jeroboam and therefore continued under the disapproval of YHWH.
Analysis.
a
b And he did what was evil in the sight of YHWH, but not like his father, and like his mother, for he put away the pillar of Baal which his father had made (2Ki 3:2 b).
a Nevertheless he clove to the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, with which he made Israel to sin. He did not depart from them (2Ki 3:3).
Note that in ‘a’ we have details of Jehoram’s reign, and in the parallel the policy he followed in that reign. Centrally in ‘b’ we have the verdict on the king.
2Ki 3:1
‘Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years.’
Jehoram of Israel was Ahaziah’s brother, and son to Ahab, and he began to reign ‘in Samaria’ in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat, and in the second year of Jehoram of Judah’s co-regency with his father Jehoshaphat (2Ki 1:17). Compare 2Ki 8:16 where official co-regency is specifically implied. It would be five more years before Jehoshaphat died leaving Jehoram of Judah as sole king (2Ki 8:16). Having two Jehorams reigning at the same time was confusing, and the confusion is added to by both also being called Joram, a diminutive of Jehoram (shortening the divine name Jeho- to Jo-). Jehoram of Israel reigned for twelve years
2Ki 3:2
‘And he did what was evil in the sight of YHWH, but not like his father, and like his mother, for he put away the pillar of Baal which his father had made.’
It would appear that what had happened to his brother had intensely moved him, for he put away the pillar of Baal that his father had made. It would appear that Ahab, egged on by his wife, had added a stele of Baal (somewhat like the Milqart stele, and the ones found at Zenjirli and Hazor) to the altar and Temple of Baal. Jehoram could not in honour destroy the Temple of Baal because it was his mother’s sanctuary where she worshipped her father’s gods, and the pillars of Baal later destroyed by Jehu (2Ki 10:26) were presumably hers. But he could destroy what had belonged to his father. It was at least a step in the right direction.
2Ki 3:3
‘Nevertheless he clove to the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, with which he made Israel to sin. He did not depart from them.’
Indeed had he then gone on to reform the worship at Bethel and Dan he might have been cautiously approved of. But he did not. He allowed that worship, and the ways that resulted from it, to continue without alteration.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1). The Reign of Jehoram king of Israel c. 852-841 BC: War With Moab ( 2Ki 3:1-27 ).
The interlude of Elisha’s succession to Elijah having taken place in preparation for the future, the narrative now returns to the reigns of the kings of Israel. This interlude, deliberately excluded from the continuing narrative of the history of the kings (in that it comes after the record of Ahaziah’s death and before the record of Jehoram’s accession), is clear evidence that the prophetic author was not just giving us a history of the kings, something which as we have already seen has been made abundantly clear. Of equal importance to him were the prophets who affected the lives of the kings, and maintained the faith of the remnant in Israel and Judah, and here Elisha was being seen as ‘crowned’ before any mention of the crowning of Jehoram, throughout whose reign he would operate.
The commencement of the reign of Jehoram having now been described in the usual manner, the incident that follows, resulting from the invasion of Moab in order to counter a rebellion, nearly ended in catastrophe. It would be the first official call on Elisha by the king of Israel, which he made clear that he only heeded because of the presence of the godly Jehoshaphat. The relationship between prophet and king is being laid down immediately. Elisha acted to save the day, but the consequent victory was marred by the action of the king of Moab in sacrificing his son which ‘brought wrath on Israel’.
The passage divides up into four subsections:
A. Introduction To The Reign of Jehoram, King Of Israel (2Ki 3:1-3). B. Mesha of Moab Seeks To Free Moab From Being Tributary To Israel (2Ki 3:4-7). C. The Invasion Plan Goes Wrong And The Invaders Find Themselves In Jeopardy Through Lack Of Water With The Result That Jehoshaphat Desires The Advice Of A Prophet Of YHWH (2Ki 3:8-14). D. YHWH’s Provision For The Alliance Forces And The Subjugation Of Moab Which Has However An Unfortunate Consequence In Mesha’s Child-Sacrifice (2Ki 3:15-27).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
SECTION 7. Elisha Enters Canaan To Take Possession Of It For YHWH And Moab’s Rebellion Against Israel Is Put Down With Tragic Consequences ( 2Ki 2:1 to 2Ki 3:27 ).
In our view the entry of Elisha into Canaan by parting the Jordan and advancing on Jericho and Bethel (following Elijah’s reverse procedure, and following in Joshua’s footsteps) indicated quite clearly that Elisha was to be seen as representing the true Israel advancing in order to claim Canaan for YHWH. (We can compare later Jesus Christ’s advance out of Egypt for a similar reason in Mat 2:15). This was then followed by an indication of what he had come to do, bring blessing and life to the faithful, and cursing and death on the unbelieving.
Following this we then have an example of rebellion as Moab rebelled against Israel. It was a rebellion in which the forces of YHWH were blessed with the provision of water, while Moab was cursed through the action of its king in sacrificing his own son in order to end the siege.
Section Analysis.
1). The entry of Elisha into Canaan against a rebellious Israel, and his provision of fresh water for the believing, and his cursing of the unbelieving (2Ki 2:1-25).
This can be divided into:
A. The taking up of Elijah and entry into Canaan of Elisha (2Ki 2:1-18). B. The purifying of the waters at Jericho (2Ki 2:19-22). C. The cursing of the mockers at Bethel (2Ki 2:23-25).
2). The entry of Israel Judah and Edom into Moab against a rebellious Moab and the provision of fresh water by YHWH for His people, while the king of Moab had to offer up his own son as a burnt-offering bringing a curse on himself and wrath on Israel (2Ki 3:1-27).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Elisha Miracles (2Ki 2Ki 2:1-25 ; 2Ki 4:1 to 2Ki 6:23 ), His Prophetic Involvement In The Victory Over Moab ( 2Ki 3:1-27 ), And Further Subsequent Events Where YHWH’s Power Through Elisha Is Revealed ( 2Ki 6:24 to 2Ki 8:15 ).
We move away in this section from the annals of the kings of Israel and Judah, to the memoirs of the sons of the prophets, although even then possibly intermingled with further extracts from the official annals (e.g. 2Ki 3:1-27). The events that will follow, in which YHWH’s power through his prophet Elisha is remarkably revealed, were crucial to the maintenance of faith in YHWH at a time of gross apostasy. Just as YHWH through Moses had boosted the faith of Israel at the Exodus with specific miracles, and just as Jesus Himself would evidence His Messiahship by even greater miracles (Mat 11:2-6), followed by miracles which accredited His Apostles (Mar 16:17-18; Act 4:29-30; Act 5:12; Heb 2:3-4) so now in these perilous times for Yahwism (the worship of YHWH, the God of Israel), God encouraged the faithful by miracles, some of which were remarkably similar, although lesser in extent, to those of Jesus. To call them pointless, as some have done, is to ignore the privations and dangers facing the ‘sons of the prophets’ and all true Yahwists, dangers under which the very core of the faithful in Israel were living. Under such circumstances they needed their faith boosting in special ways. It is not without note that similar miracles have been experienced through the ages when Christian men and women have been facing up to particular difficulties and persecutions (as with the Corrie Ten Boom miracle described previously at 1Ki 17:16).
It is also interesting to note that in some ways Elisha’s spate of miracles can be seen as having commenced with his seeing a ‘resurrection’, accompanied by a reception of the Spirit, as Elijah was snatched up into Heaven. It may be seen as a pointer to the future.
Note On The Two Contrasting Scholastic Approaches To These Passages.
Scholars are basically divided into two groups when considering these passages. On the one hand are those who believe that God was ready to perform special miracles in certain circumstances, in this case in view of the parlous situation in which most in Israel had mainly lost their faith, and on the other are those who dogmatically assert that such miracles could not have taken place per se, and that they must therefore be seen as legendary a priori (thus they speak of them as ‘saga’). Clearly the sceptical scholar must then find some way of discrediting, at least partially, the material in question, but when they do, it should only in fairness be recognised on their side, that they often do so on the basis of their dogmatic presuppositions, (which they are, of course, perfectly entitled to in a free world), and not on the basis of the text. Indeed had no miracles been involved it is doubtful whether, on the whole, they would have reached the same literary conclusions as the ones they now argue for (and disagree with each other about, like us all).
For the truth is that there are no grounds in the text for rejecting the miracles. Indeed in view of the soberness with which they are presented we can argue that there are actually grounds for accepting that the miracles did occur in front of eyewitness. The case is thus really settled by these scholars on the basis of external presuppositions and philosophical presumptions, which, of course, we all have (or in some cases even through fear of what their fellow scholars might think).
Unfortunately for these scholars their problem is exacerbated by the quantity and diversity of the miracles, and the differing places where they come in the text. Thus their ‘explanations’ have to become many and varied, one might almost say amusing in their complexity, were it not for the seriousness of the issue involved. For the author was not generous enough to limit his account of miracles to one section alone. Thus they even appear in passages almost certainly taken from the official annals of the kings of Israel and Judah. It must be recognised that many of these scholastic interpretations are based simply on the initial dogmatic position that ‘miracles do not happen’ so that they feel it incumbent on them to find another explanation. The literary arguments are then often manoeuvred in order to ‘prove’ their case. because they are convinced that it must be so. As a result they find what they want to find (a danger with us all). That is not the right way in which to approach literary criticism.
While we ourselves are wary of too glib a claim to ‘miracles’ through the ages, and would agree that large numbers of them have been manufactured for convenience, or accepted on insufficient grounds while having natural explanations, we stand firmly on the fact that at certain stages in history, of which this was one, God has used the miraculous in order to deliver His people. And we therefore in each case seek to consider the evidence. There are no genuine grounds for suggesting that prophetic writers enhanced miracles. Indeed it is noteworthy that outside the Exodus and the Conquest, the time of Elijah and Elisha, and the times of Jesus Christ and His Apostles, such miracles in Scripture were comparatively rare events. It will also be noted that Elisha undoubtedly had a reputation in his own time as a wonderworker (2Ki 5:3; 2Ki 6:12; 2Ki 8:4). We thus accept the genuineness of the miracles of Elijah and Elisha, considering that it is the only explanation that fits the soberness of the accounts with which we are presented, just as we similarly accept the similar miracles of Jesus Christ and His Apostles because of Who He proved Himself to be.
And that is the point. We do not just accept such miracles by an act of optional faith, or because we are ‘credulous’. We accept them as a reality because they were a reality to Jesus Christ, and because we know that we have sufficient evidence from His life and teaching to demonstrate that Jesus Christ was Who He claimed to be, the only and unique Son of God. And we remember that He clearly assumed Elijah’s and Elisha’s miracles to have been authentic (Luk 4:26-27; Luk 9:54-56). Our belief in the miracles of Elijah and Elisha is thus finally founded on our belief in Jesus Christ as the true and eternal Son of God.
(This is not to make any judgments about the genuine Christian beliefs among some who disagree with us. Man has an infinite capacity to split his mind into different boxes).
End of note.
This Elisha material from 2Ki 2:1 to 2Ki 8:15 can be divided into two sections, which are clearly indicated:
1). SECTION 7 (2Ki 2:1 to 2Ki 3:27). After the taking of Elijah into Heaven Elisha enters Canaan as Israel had before him, by parting the Jordan, and then advances on Jericho, where he brings restored water to those who believe, after which he advances on Bethel, where he brings judgment on those who are unbelievers. And this is followed by a summary of the commencement of the reign of Jehoram, and an incident in his life where Elisha prophesies the provision of water for the host of Israel, something which is then followed by the sacrificing, by the rebellious and unbelieving king of Moab, of his son (2Ki 2:1 to 2Ki 3:27). In both these incidents the purpose of his ministry is brought out, that is, to bring blessing to true believers, and judgment on those who have turned from YHWH,
2). SECTION 8 (2Ki 4:1 to 2Ki 8:15). In this section the kings of Israel are deliberately anonymous while the emphasis is on YHWH’s wonderworking power active through Elisha which continues to be effectively revealed (2Ki 4:1 to 2Ki 8:15). The kings simply operate as background material to this display of YHWH’s power. In contrast from 2Ki 8:16 the reign of Jehoram is again specifically taken up, signalling the commencement of a new section with the kings once more prominent.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
2Ki 3:4-5 Comments – The Moabite Stone – The Moabite stone is a black basalt memorial stone discovered by a German missionary, F. A. Klein, in 1868. This monument is believed to have been erected in Dibon, the capital of Moab by Mesha, their king, to commemorate his successful revolt from Israel and his conquest of Israelite territory (851B.C) after he refused to pay tribute money to Israel. The stone is about three feet tall and two feet wide with a semicircular top. During the process of obtaining this stone, it was heated in fire and broken into many pieces by local Arabs with the intent of obtaining a higher purchase price. This stone was later pieced back together and now stands in the Louvre in Paris. [57]
[57] R. F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, R. K. Harrison, and Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), “Moabite Stone”; Avraham Negev, ed., The Archaelogical Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, 3rd ed. (New York: Prentice Hall Press, c1990, 1996), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), “Inscriptions: Hebrew Inscriptions.”
2Ki 3:15 But now bring me a minstrel. And it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the LORD came upon him.
2Ki 3:15
2Ki 3:22 And they rose up early in the morning, and the sun shone upon the water, and the Moabites saw the water on the other side as red as blood:
2Ki 3:22
Exo 14:20, “And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these: so that the one came not near the other all the night.”
2Ki 3:27 Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great indignation against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.
2Ki 3:27
Gen 22:2, “And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.”
Jdg 11:39, “And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,”
2Ki 3:27, “Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great indignation against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Reign of Jehoram Over Israel (852-841 B.C.) 2 Kings 2Ki 3:1 to 2Ki 8:15 records the reign of Jehoram over the northern kingdom of Israel. However, much of this material discusses the ministry of the prophet Elisha during his reign as a prophet of God.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Campaign Undertaken
v. 1. Now Jehoram, the son of Ahab, began to reign ever Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, v. 2. And he wrought evil in the sight of the Lord, but not like his father and like his mother, v. 3. Nevertheless he cleaved unto the sins of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, which made Israel to sin; he departed not therefrom v. 4. And Mesha, king of Moab, v. 5. But it came to pass, when Ahab was dead, that the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel, v. 6. And King Jehoram went out of Samaria the same time and numbered all Israel, v. 7. And he went and sent to Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, saying, The king of Moab hath rebelled against me, v. 8. And he, Jehoram, said, Which way shall we go up?
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
2Ki 3:1-27
THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF JEHORAM‘S REIGN OVER ISRAEL; HIS WAR WITH MOAB.
2Ki 3:1
Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat King of Judah. This note of time is not quite in accordance with the chronology of 1 Kings, which gives Jehoshaphat a reign of twenty-five years (1Ki 22:42), Ahab one of twenty-two years (1Ki 16:29), and Ahaziah one of two years (1Ki 22:51), and makes Jehoshaphat’s first year run parallel with Ahab’s fourth (1Ki 22:41), since thus Ahab’s death-year would be Jehoshaphat’s nineteenth, and Jehoram’s accession-year, at the earliest, Jehoshaphat’s twentieth. The difficulty may be removed by assigning to Ahab a reign of twenty instead of twenty-two years. On the mode of reconciling the statement of this place with that of 2Ki 1:17, that Jehoram of Israel began to reign in the second year of Jehoram of Judah, see the comment upon that passage. And reigned twelve years.
2Ki 3:2
And he wrought evil in the sight of the Lordas did every other king of Israel both before him (1Ki 14:16; 1Ki 15:25, 1Ki 15:34; 1Ki 16:13, 1Ki 16:19, 1Ki 16:25, 1Ki 16:30; 1Ki 22:52) and after him (2Ki 8:27; 2Ki 10:31; 2Ki 13:2, 2Ki 13:11; 2Ki 14:24; 2Ki 15:9, 2Ki 15:18, 2Ki 15:24, 2Ki 15:28; 2Ki 17:2)but not like his father, and like his motheri.e. Ahab and Jezebel, the introducers of the Baal-worship into Israelfor he put away the image of Baal that his father had made. It had not been said previously that Ahab had actually set up an image of Baal, but only that he had “built him a house in Samaria, and reared him up an altar,” and that he “served him and worshipped him” (1Ki 16:31, 1Ki 16:32). But an image of the god for whom a “house” was built was so much a matter of course in the idolatrous systems of the East, that it might have seemed superfluous to mention it. The actual existence of the image appears later, when its destruction is recorded (2Ki 10:27). It seems that Jehoram, at the commencement of his reign, took warning by the fates of his father and brother, so far as to abolish the state worship of Baal, which his father had introduced, and to remove the image of Baal from the temple where it had been set up. The image, however, was not destroyedit was only “put away.”
2Ki 3:3
Nevertheless he cleaved unto the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which made Israel to sin; he departed not there from. The maintenance of the calf-worship was, no doubt, viewed as a political necessity. If the two sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel had been shut up, the images broken, and the calf-worship brought to an end, there would, as a matter of course, have been a general flocking of the more religious among the people to the great sanctuary of Jehovah at Jerusalem; and this adoption of Jerusalem as a spiritual center would naturally have led on to its acceptance as the general political center of the whole Israelite people. Israel, as a separate kingdom, a distinct political entity, would have disappeared. Hence every Israelite monarch, even the Jehovistic Jehu, felt himself bound, by the political exigencies of his position, to keep up the calf-worship, and maintain the religious system of Jeroboam the son of Nebat.
2Ki 3:4-27
THE WAR WITH MOAB. The historian goes back to the origin of the war. He had already, in 2Ki 1:1, mentioned the revolt of Moab at the death of Ahab; but he now recalls his readers’ attention to the fact, and to some extent explains it and accounts for it. Moab had been treated oppressivelyhad been forced to pay an extraordinarily heavy tributeand was in a certain sense driven into rebellion (2Ki 1:4, 2Ki 1:5). Jehoram, when he came to the kingdom, determined to make a great effort to put the rebellion down, and to re-establish the authority of Israel over the revolted people His relations with Jehoshaphat of Israel were so close that he had no difficulty in persuading him to join in the war. He was also able to obtain the alliance of the King of Edom. Thus strengthened, he made no doubt of being successful, and confidently invaded the country (2Ki 1:6-9). The course of the war is then related (2Ki 1:10 -27).
2Ki 3:6
And King Jehoram went out of Samaria the same timeliterally, the same dayand numbered all Israel; rather, mustered or reviewed (, LXX.) all Israel. “Numbering” was forbidden (1Sa 24:1), and is not here intended, the verb used being , and not .
2Ki 3:7
And he went and sent to Jehoshaphat the King of Judah, saying. Jehoshaphat had originally allied himself with Ahab, and had cemented the alliance by a marriage between his eldest son, Jehoram, and Athaliah, Ahab’s daughter (2Ki 8:18; 2Ch 18:1). He had joined Ahab in his attack on the Syrians at Ramoth-Gilead (1Ki 22:4-36), and had thereby incurred the rebuke of Jehu the son of Hanani (2Ch 19:2). This, however, had net prevented him from continuing his friendship with the Israelite royal house; he “joined himself with Ahaziah” (2Ch 20:35), Ahab’s successor, and though their combined naval expedition met with disaster (1Ki 22:48), yet he still maintained amicable relations with the Israelite court. Jehoram, therefore, confidently sought his active help when he made up his mind to engage in a war with Moab. The king of Moab hath rebelled against me: wilt thou go with me against Moab to battle! And he said, I will go up: I am as thou art, my people as thy people, and my hones as thy horses. Compare the answer which the same king had made to Ahab, when requested to join him in his attack on the Syrians (1Ki 22:4). The words were probably a common formula expressive of willingness to enter into the closest possible alliance. Jehoshaphat, it appears from 2Ch 20:1-35, had, a little before this, been himself attacked by the united forces of Moab and Ammon, and brought into a peril from which he was only delivered by miracle. It was, therefore, much to his advantage that Moab should be weakened.
2Ki 3:8
And he said, Which way shall we go up? Jehoram asked Jehoshaphat’s advice as to the plan of campaign. There ‘were two ways in which Moab might be approachedthe direct one across the Jordan and then southward through the country east of the Dead Sea to the Amen, which was the boundary between Moab and Israel; and a circuitous one through the desert west of the Red Sea, and across the Arabah south of it, then northwards through Northern Edom, to the brook Zered, or Wady-el-Ahsy, which was the boundary between Moab and Edom. If the former route were pursued, Moab would be entered on the north; if the latter, she would be attacked on the south. Jehoshaphat recommended the circuitous route. And he answered, The way through the wilderness of Edom; probably for two reasons: Edom, though under a native king, was a dependency of Judah (1Ki 22:47), and on passing through the Edomite country, an Edomite contingent might be added to the invading force; Moab, moreover, was mere likely to be surprised by an attack on this quarter, which was unusual, and from which she would not anticipate danger.
2Ki 3:9
So the King of Israel wentas leader of the expedition, he is placed firstand the King of Judahthe second in importance, therefore placed secondand the King of Edomthe third in importance, therefore placed last. It is to be remarked that, when Edom was last mentioned, she was ruled by a “deputy,” who received his appointment from the King of Judah (1Ki 22:47). Now, apparently, she has her own native “king.” The change is, perhaps, to be connected with the temporary revolt of Edom hinted at in 2Ch 20:22. And they fetched a compass of seven days’ journey. The distance from Jerusalem, where the forces of Israel and Judah probably united, to the southern borders of Moab by way of Hebron, Malatha, and Thamara, which is the best-watered route, and would probably be the route taken, does not much exceed a hundred miles; but its difficulties are great, and it is quite probable that the march of an army along it would not average more than fifteen miles a day. And there was no water for the host. The confederate army had reached the border of Moab, where they had probably expected to find water in the Wady-el-Ahsy, which is reckoned a perennial stream; but it was dry at the time. All the streams of these parts fail occasionally, when there has been no rain for a long time. And for the cattle that followed them; rather, for the beasts that followed them (see the Revised Version). The baggage-animals are intended (see 2Ch 20:17).
2Ki 3:10
And the King of Israel said, Alas! that the Lord hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab! Jehoram first assumes, without warrant, that the expedition is one which Jehovah has sanctioned, and then complains that it is about to fail utterly. As he had made no attempt to learn God’s will on the subject at the mouth of any prophet, he had no ground for surprise or complaint, even had the peril been as great as he supposed. God had not “called the three kings together;” they had come together of their own accord, guided by their own views of earthly policy. Yet God was not about to “deliver them into the hands of Moab,” as in strict justice he might have done. He was about to deliver the three kings from their peril.
2Ki 3:11
But Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the Lord, that we may inquire of the Lord by him? The Israelite monarch despairs at once; the Jewish monarch retains faith and hope. Undoubtedly he ought to have had inquiry made of the Lord before he consented to accompany Jehoram on the expedition. But one neglect of duty does not justify persistence in neglect. This he sees, and therefore suggests that even now, at the eleventh hour, the right course shall be taken. It may not even yet be too late. And one of the King of Israel’s servantsi.e; one of the officers in attendance on himanswered and said, Here is Elisha. Apparently,-Jehoram was not aware of Elisha’s presence with the army. He had to be enlightened by one of his attendants, who happened to be acquainted with the fact. We may suppose that Elisha had joined the army “at the instigation of the Spirit of God” (Keil), God having resolved to rescue the Israelites from their peril by his instrumentality, and at the same time to show forth his glory before the people of Moab. The son of Shaphat, which poured water on the hands of Elijah; i.e. who was accustomed to minister to Elijah’s wants, and to attend upon him.
2Ki 3:12
And Jehoshaphat said, The word of the Lord is with him; that is, “he is a true prophet; he can tell us the will of God.” It is impossible to say how Jehoshaphat had acquired this conviction. Elijah’s selection of Elisha to be his special attendant (1Ki 19:19-21) was no doubt generally known, and may have raised expectations that Elisha would be the next great prophet. Jehoshaphat may have heard of the miracles recorded in 2Ki 2:1-25. At any rate, he appears to have been firmly convinced of Elisha’s prophetic mission, and to have accepted him as the authorized exponent of God’s will at the time. So the King of Israel and Jehoshaphat and the King of Edom went down to him. Prophets were commonly summoned into the king’s presence, or, if they had a message to him, contrived a meeting in some place where they knew he would be. That the kings should seek Elisha out and visit him was a great sign both of the honor in which he was held, and also of the extent to which they were humbled by the danger which threatened them.
2Ki 3:13
And Elisha said unto the King of Israel, What have I to do with thee? get thee to the prophets of thy father, and to the prophets of thy mother. Despite Jehoram’s self-humiliation, Elisha regards it as incumbent on him to rebuke the monarch, who, though he had “put away the image of Baal which his father had made,” still “wrought evil in the sight of the Lord,” and “cleaved to the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat” (2Ki 2:2, 2Ki 2:3). Jehoram must not be allowed to suppose that he has done enough by his half-repentance and partial reformation; he must be rebuked and shamed, that he may, if possible, be led on to a better frame of mind. “What,” says the prophet, “have I to do with thee? What common ground do we occupy? What is there that justifies thee in appealing to me for aid? Get thee to the prophets of thy father”the four hundred whom Ahab gathered together at Samaria, to advise him as to going up against Ramoth-Gilead (1Ki 22:6)”and the prophets of thy mother,” the Baal-prophets, whom Jezebel, who was still alive, and held the position of queen-mother, still maintained (2Ki 10:19)”get thee to them, and consult them. On them thou hast some claim; on me, none.” And the King of Israel said unto him; Nay: for the Lord hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab. A most soft and meek answerone well calculated to “turn away wrath.” “Nay,” says the king; “say not so. Let not that be thy final answer. For it is not I alone who am in danger. We are three kings who have come down to thee to ask thy aid; we are all in equal danger; have respect unto them, if thou wilt not have respect unto me; and show them a way of deliverance.”
2Ki 3:14
And Elisha said, As the Lord of hosts liveth, before whom I stand, surely, were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, I would not look toward thee, nor see thee. Jehoshaphat’s conduct had not been blameless; he had twice incurred the rebuke of a prophet for departures from the line of strict dutyonce for “helping the ungodly” Ahab at Ramoth-Gilead (2Ch 19:2); and a second time for “joining himself with Ahaziah to make ships to go to Ophir”. Even now he was engaged in an expedition which had received no Divine sanction, and was allied with two idolatrous monarchs. But Elisha condones these derelictions of duty in consideration of the king’s honesty of purpose and steady attachment to Jehovah, which is witnessed to by the authors both of Kings (1Ki 22:43; 2Ki 3:11) and Chronicles (2Ch 17:3-6; 2Ch 19:4-11; 2Ch 20:5-21, etc.). He “regards the presence of Jehoshaphat,” and therefore consents to return an answer to the three kings, and announce to them the mode of their deliverance. The adjuration wherewith he opens his speech is one of great solemnity, only used upon very special occasions (see 1Ki 17:1; 2Ki 5:16), and adds great force to his declaration.
2Ki 3:15
But now bring me a minstrel. A player on the harp seems to be intended. Music was cultivated in the schools of the prophets (1Sa 10:5; 1Ch 25:1-3), and was employed to soothe and quiet the soul, to help it to forget things earthly and external, and bring it into that ecstatic condition in which it was most open to the reception of Divine influences. As David’s harping refreshed Saul, and tranquillized his spirit (1Sa 16:23), so the playing of any skilled minstrel had a soothing effect on those possessing the prophetic gift generally, and enabled them to shut out the outer world, and concentrate their whole attention on the inward voice which communicated to them the Divine messages. And it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him. By “the hand of the Lord” is meant the power of the Spirit of God, the Divine effluence, whatever it was, which acquainted the prophets with the Divine will, and enabled them to utter it.
2Ki 3:16
And he said, Thus saith the Lord, Make this valley full of ditches; rather, full of pits (, LXX.). The object was to detain the water which would otherwise have all run off down the torrent-course in a very little time.
2Ki 3:17
For thus saith the Lord, Ye shall not seei.e; perceivewind, neither shall ye see rain. Wind and rain usually go together in the East, especially when there is sudden heavy rain after a time of drought. What Elisha promises is a heavy storm of wind accompanied by violent rain, which, however, will be at such a distance that the Israelites will see nothing of it, but whereof they will experience the effects when the torrent-course that separates them from the Moabite country suddenly becomes a rushing stream as the rain flows off down it. Their “pits,” or trenches, will retain a portion of the water, and furnish them with a sufficient supply for their wants. It was necessary that the storm should be distant, that the Moabites might know nothing of it, and so fall under the delusion (2Ki 3:23), which led to their complete defeat. Yet that valley shall be filled with water. Travelers tell us that, in certain circumstances, it takes but ten minutes or a quarter of an hour for a dry water-course in the East to become a raging torrent quite impassable. That ye may drink, both ye, and your cattlei.e; the animals which you have brought with you for foodand your boasts; i.e. your beasts of burden, or baggage-animals. Animals, except camels, suffer from drought even more than men, and die sooner. The Israelites do not appear to have ever employed camels.
2Ki 3:18
And this is but a light thing in the sight of the Lord. God, the Author of nature, has full control over nature, and it is an easy matter for him to produce at will any natural phenomena. It is otherwise when the stubborn element of the human will is brought into play. Then difficulty may arise. He will deliver the Moabites also into your hand. It would be better to translate, he will also deliver (see the Revised Version).
2Ki 3:19
And ye shall smite every fenced city, and every choice city. The LXX. omit the second clause, perhaps because they could not reproduce in Greek the assonance of the Hebrew, where the words for “fenced” and “choice” ( and ) have nearly the same sound. And shall fell every good tree. It has been said that the Law forbade this, and argued
(1) that Elisha did not here utter a command, but only a prediction (Pool), not bidding the Israelites to cut down the trees, but only telling them they would do so;
(2) that Elisha intentionally excepted the Moabites from the merciful provision of the Law (Deu 20:19, Deu 20:20), having authority to do so, and regarding the Moabites as exceptionally wicked (Keil); and
(3) that the Mosaic Law was not observed under the kings, and that Elisha himself had forgotten the provision about fruit trees (Geddes).
But a careful examination of the passage in Deuteronomy will show
(1) that there is no general prohibition of the cutting down of fruit trees, but only a prohibition of their being cut down for siege works;
(2) that the prohibition rests on prudential, not on moral, grounds, and is thus practically limited to eases where the conquest of the country attacked, and its occupation by the conquerors, are looked forward to. The words are, “When thou shalt besiege a city . thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them.” The destruction of the fruit trees in an enemy’s country was a common feature of the wars of the period, and was largely practiced, both By the Assyrians and the Egyptians. And stop all wells of water. The stoppage of springs and wells was another common practice in ancient times, often employed against enemies and aliens. The Philistines stopped the Hebrew wells in the days of Isaac (Gen 26:18). Hezekiah stopped the springs of water outside Jerusalem, when he expected to be besieged By the Assyrians (2Ch 32:3, 2Ch 32:4). The Scythians, when Darius invaded their country, stopped all their own wells as they retired before him (Herod; 4.120). Arsaces III. partly stopped, and partly poi-ached, the Persian wells in his war with Antiochus the Great (Polyb; 10.28. 5). The practice was regarded as quite legitimate. And mar every good piece of land with stones; literally, grieve every good piece of land. To clear the stones off a piece of ground was the first step towards preparing it for cultivation in the stony regions on either side of the Jordan. The clearance was generally effected by collecting the stones into heaps. When it was wished to “mar the land,” the stones were there to be spread over it afresh.
2Ki 3:20
And it came to pass in the morning, when the meat offering was offeredi.e. about sunrise, which was the time of the morning sacrificethat, behold, there came water by the way of Edom. The Wady-el-Ahsy drains a portion of Southern Moab, and also a considerable tract of Northern Edom. The nocturnal storm had burst, not in the Moabite country, where it would have attracted the attention of the Moabites, but in some comparatively distant part of the Idumaean territory, so that the Moabites were not aware of it. Josephus says that the storm burst at a distance of three days’ journey from the Israelite camp (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 9.3. 2); but this can only be his conjecture. And the country was filled, with water. By “the country” (ha-arets) must be meant here the bed or channel of the water-course. This was suddenly filled with a rushing stream, which, however, rapidly ran off, leaving the water-course dry, excepting where the pits had been made by the Israelites. But this supply was ample for the army.
2Ki 3:21
And when all the Moabites heard that the kings were come up to fight against them. The Hebrew has no pluperfect tense; but the verbs have here a pluperfect force. Translate, When all the Moabites had heard that the kings were come up to fight against them, they had gathered all that were able, etc. The muster of the troops had long preceded the storm. They gathered all that were able to put on amour; literally, there had been gathered together all that girded themselves with girdles; i.e. all the male population of full age. And upwardi.e; and all above the age when the girdle was first assumedand stood in the border; took up a position near the extreme border of their territory, on the northern bank of the Wady-el-Ahsy.
2Ki 3:22
And they rose up early in the morning, and the sun shone upon the water, and the Moabites saw the water on the other side as red as blood. The red hue of the water is ascribed by Ewald to “the red tinge of the soil” in the part of Edom where the rain had fallen; by Keil, to “the reddish earth of the freshly dug trenches,” or pits; but the only cause of the redness mentioned either in Kings or in Josephus is the ruddy hue of the sunrise. A ruddy sunrise is common in the East, more especially in stormy weather (see Mat 16:3); and the red light, falling upon the water in the pits, and reflected thence to the opposite side of the wady, would quite sufficiently account for the mistake of the Moabites, without supposing that the water was actually stained and discolored. The Moabites concluded that the red-looking liquid was blood, from knowing that the wady was dry the day before, and from not suspecting that there had been any change in the night, as the storm which had caused the change was at such a distance.
2Ki 3:23
And they said, This is blood. Even Ewald recognizes here “a historical background for the narrative.” The idea of such a mistake could scarcely have occurred to a romancer. The kings are surely slain, and they have smitten one another. There were rivalries and jealousies subsisting between Judah, Israel, and Edom, which made it quite possible that at any time open quarrel might break out among them. Edom especially was, it is probable, a reluctant member of the confederacy, forced to take her part in it by her suzerain, Jehoshaphat. The Moabites, moreover, had recently had personal experience how easily the swords of confederates might be turned against each other, since their last expedition against Judah (2Ch 20:1-25) had completely failed through such a sudden disagreement and contention. Now therefore, Moab, to the spoil. If their supposition were correct, and the kings had come to blows, and the hosts destroyed each ether, Moab would have nothing to do but to fly upon the spoil, to strip the slain, and plunder the camp of the confederates. A disorderly rush took place for this purpose (see Josephus, ‘Ant. Jud.,’ 9.3. 2).
2Ki 3:24
And when they came to the camp of Israel, the Israelites rose up. The first rush of the main body would be upon the camp, where they would expect to find the richest spoil. It was near at hand; and the occupants kept themselves concealed in it, expecting the disorderly attack which actually took place. They then “rose up,” and fell upon the crowd of assailants, who were off their guard, and expecting nothing less. A confused rout followed. And smote the Moabites, so that they fled before them. Josephus says, “Some of the Moabites were cut to pieces; the others fled, and dispersed themselves over their country.” But they went forward, smiting the Moabites even in their country. There are two readings here, and . The former is to be preferred, and is to be pointed (for , as in 1Ki 12:12). This gives the meaning of the text. The marginal translation follows the Keri , which is (as Keil says) “a bad emendation.”
2Ki 3:25
And they beat down the citiesi.e. destroyed themleveled them with the groundand on every good piece of land cast every man his stone (see 2Ki 3:19 and the comment ad loc.), and filled it [with stones]. And they stopped all the wells of water, and felled all the good treesi.e. the fruit trees, (Josephus)only in Kir-haraseth left they the stones thereof; literally, until in Kir-harasethi.e; in Kir-haraseth onlyleft he the stones thereof. He (i.e. the commander, or the army) went on destroying and leveling the cities, until he came to Kir-haraseth, which proved too strong for him. There he was obliged to leave the stones untouched. Kir-haraseth, which is not mentioned among the early Moabite towns, nor even upon the Moabite Stone, and which is therefore thought to have been a newly constructed fortress (Ewald), was, in the later times, one of the most important of the strongholds of Moab (see Isa 15:1; Isa 16:7, Isa 16:11; Jer 48:36). It was sometimes called Kir-Moab, “the fortress of Moab.” At what time it got the name of Kerak is uncertain; but we find it spoken of as Kerak-Moab by Ptolemy, and by Stephen of Byzantium. It was a place of much importance in the time of the Crusades. The situation is one of great strength. The fortress is built upon the top of a steep hill, surrounded on all sides by a deep arid narrow valley, which again is completely enclosed by mountains, rising higher than the fort itself. It is undoubtedly one of the strongest positions within the territory anciently possessed by the Moabites. Howbeit the slingers went about it, and smote it. Ewald thinks that by “slingers“ are meant, not mere ordinary slingers, but persons who worked more elaborate engines, as catapults and the like. He is undoubtedly correct in saying that “all sorts of elaborate modes of attacking fortifications were very early known in Asia;” but it is very questionable whether the Hebrew word used () can mean anything but “slingers” in the usual sense. The LXX. translate by . The situation is one which would allow of “slingers,” in the ordinary sense, sending their missiles into the place, and grievously harassing it.
2Ki 3:26
And when the King of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for himi.e. that he could not hope to maintain the defense much longer, but would be forced to surrender the fortresshe took with him seven hundred men that drew swords, to break through even unto the King of Edom. Perhaps he regarded the King of Edom as the weakest of the three confederates, and the least likely to offer effectual resistance; perhaps he viewed him as a traitor, since Edom had been his ally a little earlier (2Ch 20:10, 2Ch 20:22), and wished to wreak his vengeance on him. But they could not. The attempt failed; Edom was too strong, and he was forced to throw himself once more into the beleaguered town.
2Ki 3:27
Then he took his eldest son, that should have reigned in his steadthe throne of Moab being hereditary, and primogeniture the established law (cf. Moabite Stone, lines 2 and 3, “My father reigned over Moab thirty years, and I reigned after my father”)and offered him for a burnt offering. Human sacrifice was widely practiced by the idolatrous nations who bordered on Palestine, and by none more than by the Moabites. A former King of Moab, when in a sore strait, had asked, “Shah I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” (Mic 6:7); and there is reason to believe that a chief element in the worship of Chemosh was the sacrifice of young children by their unnatural parents. The practice rested on the idea that God was best pleased when men offered to him what was dearest and most precious to them; but it was in glaring contradiction to the character of God as revealed by his prophets, and it did violence to the best and holiest instincts of human nature. The Law condemned it in the strongest terms as a profanation of the Divine Name (Le 2Ki 18:21; 2Ki 20:1-5), and neither Jeroboam nor Ahab ventured to introduce it when they established their idolatrous systems. The King of Mesh, undoubtedly, offered the sacrifice to his god Chemosh (see Moabite Stone, lines 3, 4, 8, 12, etc.), hoping to propitiate him, and by his aid to escape from the peril in which he found himself placed. HIS motive for offering the sacrifice upon the wall is not so clear. It was evidently done to attract the notice of the besiegers, but with what further object is uncertain. Ewald thinks the king’s intention was to” confound the enemy by the spectacle of the frightful deed to which they had forced him,” and thus to “effect a change in their purposes”; but perhaps it is as likely that he hoped to work upon their fears, and induce them to retire under the notion that, if they did not, Chemosh would do them some terrible injury. And there was great indignation against Israel: and they departed. It seems necessary to connect these clauses, and to regard them as assigning cause and effect. The deed done aroused an indignation against Israel, which led to the siege being raised. But an indignation on whose part? Keil thinks, on God’s. But could God be angry with Israel for an act of the King of Moab, which they had no ground for anticipating, and which they could not possibly have pro-vented? especially when the Israelites had done nothing to cause the act, except by carrying out God’s own command to them through his prophet, to “smite every fenced city and every choice city” (2Ki 3:19). The indignation, therefore, must have been human. But who felt it? Probably the Moabites. The terrible act of their king, to which they considered that Israel had driven him, stirred up such a feeling of fury among the residue of the Moabite nation, that the confederates quailed before it, and came to the conclusion that they had best give up the siege and retire. They therefore departed from himi.e. the King of Meshand returned to their own land; severally to Edom, Judea, and Samaria.
HOMILETICS
2Ki 3:1-3
Half-repentances not accepted by God.
Jehoram was better than his father and his mother, very considerably better than his brother (l Kings 22:52, 53). He “put away the image of Baal that his father had made,” lowered the Baal-worship from the position of the state religion to that of (at the most) a tolerated cult, and professed himself a worshipper of Jehovah. But his heart was not whole with God. He “cleaved unto the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat; and departed not therefrom.” At Dan and Bethel the golden calves still received the homage of both king and people; priests, not of the blood of Aaron, offered the sacrifices of unrighteousness before the insensible images; and ritual practices were maintained which had no Divine sanction. Jehoram’s reformation stopped half-way. He repented of what Ahab and Jezebel and Ahaziah had done, but not of what Jeroboam had done. His was a half-hearted repentance.
I. HALF–HEARTEDNESS IS FROM FIRST TO LAST CONDEMNED BY SCRIPTURE. “How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him” (1Ki 18:21); “Oh that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always!” (Deu 5:29); “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life” (Deu 30:19); “No man can serve two masters ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Mat 6:24); “Whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all” (Jas 2:10); “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would that thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth” (Rev 3:15,Rev 3:16). God’s true servants are those whose heart is whole with him (Psa 78:37), who are “faithful in all his house” (Num 12:7), who “fear him, and walk in all his ways, and love him, and serve him with all their heart and all their soul’ (Deu 10:12).
II. HALF–HEARTEDNESS CONTAINS WITHIN ITSELF THE GERMS OF WEAKNESS AND OF FAILURE. “A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways” (Jas 1:8). Changefulness, vacillation, infirmity of purpose, inconsistency, half-repentances, half-resolves, are sure to result in failure and inability to effect anything. No policy is successful unless it is thorough. No character is calculated to impress others, or carry through any important work, or leave its mark on the world, but one that is firm, strong, sincere, consistent, thorough-going. Haft-measures are of little service. Half-resolves are almost worse than absence of all resolve. Half-repentances stand in the way of real change of heart and amendment of life. Haft-hearted rulers are apt to “ordain something good here and there, or abolish something bad, while they perceive still more which their duty would require them to remove, but they cannot bring themselves to do it, from motives of policy which are not pure, or pleasing to God” (Lange). Such halt-heartedness, while it angers God, is not even expedient, with reject to men, in the long run.
2Ki 3:4, 2Ki 3:5
Rebellion not to be entered upon with a light heart.
We are not sufficiently acquainted with the position of Moab under Israel, or with the extent of the Moabite resources, or with the grounds of just complaint which they may have had, to determine whether this particular rebellion was justifiable or no. But we can clearly see from the narrative that rebellion is a very grave matter, one to be very carefully considered, and only to be adventured upon under a combination of circumstances that very rarely occurs.
I. THERE MUST BE GREAT AND SERIOUS GRIEVANCES. Whether the tribute exacted by Israel from Moab was excessive and unduly burdensome, or even absolutely intolerable, depends on the actual wealth of the country in flocks and herds, which is a point whereon we have no sufficient information. But it is clear that a tribute may be excessive; nay, may be so oppressive as to justify revolt. There is a point beyond which a country’s resources cannot be strained, and no subject people is bound to wait until the last straw has broken its back. Systematic insult and injury, determined misgovernment without prospect of alleviation, severe oppression, absolutely exhaustive taxation, are grievances against which a subject people may fairly rebel, and appeal to the arbitrament of arms. But the weight of the grievances endured is not the only factor in the equation.
II. THERE MUST ALSO BE A REASONABLE PROSPECT OF SUCCESS. Probably ten rebellions have been crushed for one that has succeeded. It is difficult to calculate chances beforehand; and hope is apt to “tell a flattering tale.” To have a good cause is certainly not enough, fortune being too often on the side, not of justice and right, but of “big battalions.” No cause could be much better than that of the gladiators who revolted under Spartacus; but Rome crushed them, and quenched the flames of their rebellion in blood, within the specs of two years from the time of its breaking out. The war of the Fronds was equally justifiable from a moral point of view; but it was hopeless from the first, and ought never to have been adventured on. On the other hand, the rebellion of the Jews against Antiochus Epiphanes, and that of the Swiss against Gessler, which might well have seemed hopeless to those who initiated them, succeeded. The issue in every case is in the hand of God, with whom, as Judas Maccabaeus said, “it is all one to deliver with a great multitude or a small company; for the victory of battle standeth not in the multitude of an host, but strength cometh from heaven” (1 Macc. 3:18, 19). Still, in every case, probabilities ought to be seriously weighed, consequences thoughtfully considered. In nine cases out of ten, it is better to “bear the ills we have than fly to others that we know not of.” War is such a terrible evil, the source of such incalculable mischief and wretchedness, that almost everything should be borne before the appeal is made to it.
III. THERE SHOULD BE A REASONABLE CONVICTION THAT THE ADVANTAGES OF SUCCESS WILL OUTWEIGH THE EVILS OF THE STRUGGLE NECESSARY FOR ACHIEVING IT. An oppressed nationality will, perhaps, always expect this to be the case, and will turn a deaf ear to those who urge the prudential consideration. But it may be worth attending to nevertheless. It will be too late, if the discovery be made after the struggle is over, that “le jeu ne valait pus la chandelle.” A nation may, after long years of bitter conflict, shake off a foreign yoke, but may emerge from the strife so weakened, so exhausted, so impoverished, that its new life is not worth living. The evils of the struggle are certain; the benefits of independence are problematical. Subject nationalities should consider well, before they break into revolt, not only the chances of success, but the probable balance of loss and gain supposing that ultimately success is achieved.
2Ki 3:6-12
Faith and unfaith tested by danger and difficulty.
Jehoshaphat and Jehoram are associates, allies, brothers-in-arms. They are united in one cause, have one object, one aim. And they fall into one and the same danger and difficulty. A failure of water at the spot where they had fully expected to find it brings them and their armies into peril of almost instant destruction. But how differently are they affected under the same circumstances! Jehoram at once despairs, sees no way out of the difficulty, has no plan, no counsel, to suggest. Far from flying to God for succor, he only thinks of him to reproach him. Jehovah, he says, has called three kings together, only to deliver them into the hand of Moab. The reproach is as unfounded as it is useless. Jehovah had not called the three kings together. He had not been consulted on the subject of the expedition, and he had not spoken. The three kings had come together of their own free will, and of their own mere motion. And Jehovah was not about to deliver them into the hand of Moab, but was about to give them a great victory over Moaba victory which would prevent Moab from causing any further trouble for half a century (2Ki 13:20). But Jehoram, being the embodiment of unfaith, is blind, hopeless, and helpless. It is otherwise with Jehoshaphat, who all his life “has prepared his heart to seek God” (2Ch 19:3). Danger and difficulty draw forth what is best in him, rouse him out of a sort of trance of religious indifference into which he had fallen, and cause him to fall back upon Jehovah as the only sure Refuge in time of trouble, and to ask, “Is there not here a prophet of the Lord, that we may inquire of the Lord by him?” Jehoshaphat’s faith makes him both hopeful and helpful. He suggests a course which leads to a happy result. Bat for him, so far as appears, the danger might have terminated in disaster.
2Ki 3:13-19
The servant of God in the presence of the great of the earth.
Three lessons may be learnt from the conduct of Elisha before the confederate kings.
I. A LESSON OF ZEAL FOR GOD. Elisha does not allow himself to be abashed by the earthly grandeur and dignity of his visitors, or to be rendered yielding and complaisant by the compliment which they have paid him in seeking him out, instead of summoning him to their presence. As the servant and minister of God, he is always in a grander presence than theirs (“As the Lord God liveth, before whom I stand,” 2Ki 3:14); and as God’s mouthpiece he is entitled to be approached, even by the most exalted of human dignitaries, as a superior. Out of zeal for God he asserts himself, and adopts a tone of rebuke, remonstrance, and almost contempt, which would have ill befitted a subject, had he not been acting in the capacity of God’s prophet and representative.
II. A LESSON OF FEARLESSNESS. Oriental kings are not accustomed to rebuke, and are apt to resent it. They have despotic, or quasi-despotic power, and can visit with very severe pains and penalties those who provoke them. Ahab imprisoned Micaiah the son of Imlah, and fed him with “the bread of affliction and the water of affliction” (1Ki 22:27); Jezebel sought Elijah’s life (1Ki 19:2); Joash was privy to the murder of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada (2Ch 24:20). In openly rebuking Jehoram, his sovereign, on account of his idolatry, Elisha showed a boldness and a fearlessness that were at once surprising and admirable. He evidently “did not fear what flesh could do unto him’ (Psa 56:4).
III. A LESSON OF PREPAREDNESS FOR DIVINE EFFLUENCES. Elisha, having exhibited his zeal for God and his fearlessness of man, had finally to address himself to the special needs of the occasion. Three kings had applied to him to know the will of God with respect to a certain difficult conjuncture. He did not yet know it. How could he bring himself into the frame of mind best fitted to receive an effluence from on high? He regarded music as, under the circumstances, the best preparation. His example teaches us
(1) that music has religious uses;
(2) that it is of the utmost importance to prepare ourselves, if we would have the Divine Spirit speak to our own spirits. Men often complain that they derive no benefit from sacramental and other ordinances. May not the reason be that they do not prepare themselves aright? The Holy Spirit will not enter into our hearts unless they are made ready for his august presence.
2Ki 3:21-25
God’s enemies rewarded after their deserving.
Whether or no the Moabites were, humanly speaking, justified in their attempt to shake off the Israelitish yoke, and re-establish their independence, at any rate they were, as a nation, distinctly hostile to Jehovah and his laws, and must be counted as among God’s enemies. Their Chemosh cannot be reckoned as an adumbration of the true God; he is rather an adumbration of the evil and malignant spirit. A people that delights in human sacrifice, and offers to its deities tender and innocent children, drowning their cries with the loud din of drums and tom-toms, must have depraved its conscience by long persistence in evil, and departed very far indeed from original righteousness. Moab, moreover, had, from the time of Balak, determinately set itself at once to oppose the Israelites, whenever opportunity offered, by armed force, and also to corrupt and deprave them morally and religiously. The Moabites had recently made what seems to have been an entirely unprovoked attack upon Jehoshaphat, and had stirred up the Ammonites and Edomites to do the same (2Ch 20:1-15). They had already suffered one chastisement for this wrong-doing, at the hand of God (2Ch 20:22-24); but God’s anger against them was not yet fully appeased. The rebellion on which Mesha had adventured led now to a further chastisementMoab was ravaged from one end of the country to the other, the towns were taken and demolished, the fruit trees cut down, the good land “marred,” only Kir-haraseth was left unharmed; and even there the inhabitants suffered greatly. Moab was severely punished; but, as usually, God’s justice was tempered with mercy. She was not crushed; she was not destroyed. If we may believe Mesha, she gradually recovered and rebuilt her towns. After fifty years of depression she was able to resume her raids into the land of Israel (2Ki 13:20), and it was not till the establishment of the Roman supremacy over the East that, having filled up the measure of her iniquities, she ceased to exist as a nation.
HOMILIES BY C.H. IRWWIN
2Ki 3:1-3
The continuity of evil.
How hard it is to get rid of the power of evil! Ahaziah had sought after strange gods. He had served Baal with all his corruptions. Jehoram his brother, who succeeds him, is a little better. “He put away the image of Baal which his father had made.” Perhaps he was frightened by Ahaziah’s fate as the consequence of his sin, and by the fire from heaven which had consumed the two captains and their fifties for their defiance of the Most High. But still “he cleaved unto the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.” Both Ahaziah and Jehoram had been trained in evil by their father and mother. The whole land had been contaminated by the influence of Ahab and Jezebel. How true are the poet’s words, “The evil that men do lives after them!” Beware of leaving evil influences behind you.C.H.I.
2Ki 3:4-12
Forgetting God, and its results.
We see from these verses how very partial was Jehoram’s reformation. He put away the image of Baal, but he experienced no change of heart. Outward observances of religion, outward conformity to God’s Law, are of little use, if the heart is not right within. Observe how Jehoram shows his entire forgetfulness or disregard of God.
I. BY HIS MUSTERING OF THE PEOPLE. The King of Moab had risen in rebellion against him. What is Jehoram’s first act? Is it to seek help or guidance from God? No; he goes forth and musters all Israel. He relied for safety upon the strength of his army. He forgot the chariots of Israel, and the horsemen thereof.” He forgot the judgments that had come upon Ahaziah for his disregard of God.
II. BY SEEKING HUMAN HELP AND GUIDANCE. He goes and seeks the help of Jehoshaphat King of Judah. “Wilt thou go up with me to battle?” From him also he seeks guidance. “Which way shall we go up?” There is no word of turning to God for direction. How very like the manner in which we act still! We seek guidance anywhere but from God. We ask of public opinion, of men of the world, of godless neighbors, “Which way shall we go up?” No wonder that our plans are so often failures, and that anxiety and trouble fill our hearts. Far better that we should turn to the Lord, as Moses did, and say, “If thy presence go not with us, carry us not up hence.” Where God‘s guidance is not sought, God‘s blessing cannot be expected. So Jehoram found. He and Jehoshaphat were joined by the King of Edom, and, as the three kings and their armies journeyed through the wilderness, there was no water for the host and for the cattle that followed them. Jehoram thinks of God then. He remembers there is such a thing as an overruling providence. But how does he think of him? Only to throw upon God the blame of his own actions. He says, “Alas! that the Lord hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab!” So we have heard men blame God for the consequences of their own acts. Like Jehoram, they will have none of God’s counsel, they follow their own way, and then they grumble at God because he lets them eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices. Then, in their trouble and difficulty, Jehoshaphat inquires for a prophet of the Lord. Jehoram never thought of it. Elisha is discovered, and the three kings do not wait to send for him, but go down in person, and together, to consult with him. What a beautiful testimony that is which Jehoshaphat bears to Elisha, “The word of the Lord is with him”! That was the secret of Elisha’s power.C.H.I.
2Ki 3:13-15
Elisha and the minstrel.
When the kings come down to see him, at first Elisha is filled with just indignation. He rebukes the King of Israel for his godlessness, and says, “What have I to do with thee? get thee to the prophets of thy father, and to the prophets of thy mother.” And then, when Jehoram repeats his profanity of throwing the blame upon God, Elisha protests that, but for the presence of Jehoshaphat King of Judah, he would have nothing more to do with him. But he has God’s people to think of, and God’s message, and so, in order to calm his mind and bring him into a fit state to deliver God’s message, he says, “Bring me a minstrel” (the Hebrew word means one who played upon the harp). “And it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him.” And then Elisha delivers to them that command of God by obeying which the armies obtained at once refreshing and safety, strength and victory. We learn here
I. THE USE OF MEANS IN GENERAL. The kings had not taken the right way to obtain success. In setting out on their expedition they had used no means to obtain God’s guidance. They trusted in the arm of flesh, and leaned to their own understanding. Then at last, when in a difficulty, in distress for want of water, and in danger of being defeated by their enemies, they think then of some means of obtaining God’s help. It was no harm for them to look to the state of their armies, and to take the best military advice, they could get, provided they had first of all sought direction from God. But this they had not done. Elisha acts very differently. He seeks to put his mind into a fit state to receive and deliver God’s message.
1. We ought to use means to bring our souls into fellowship with God. There are few persons, no matter how godless, no matter how worldly, who do not cherish the hope of getting to heaven and being with God hereafter. But when are they going to prepare for heaven? Many professing Christians lead practically godless lives. They seldom or never read the Word of God. They never pray to Godin any real sense of the word, at least. Are they in a fit state to enter God’s heaven? When, then, is the preparation to be made? Death-bed preparation is a rare thing, and at best a very mean thing, though one would rather see a poor sinner turning to his God at the eleventh hour than not at all. Unless you are converted, you are never fit to enter heaven. “Prepare to meet thy God.” Use the means which God has given you to obtain the salvation of your soul. Strive to enter in at the narrow door. Look to Jesus as your Savior. Search the Scriptures, for in them eternal life is to be found. They are able to make you wise unto salvation. Go where you will get blessing. Here is one means which Christ himself recommends to every sinner, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. The same exhortation is applicable to Christian people. Use the means to bring your souls into fellowship with God, to obtain the touch of God’s hand. Use every means to promote the spiritual life of yourselves and others. How important for parents and children is the observance of family prayer! Many a conversion, many a consecration of a young life to God, can be traced to the words read, to the earnest pleadings offered up, at the family altar.
Happy that home where God-fearing parents
” their secret homage pay,
And proffer up to heaven the warm request
That he who stills the raven’s clam’rous nest,
And decks the lily fair in flow’ry pride,
Would in the way his wisdom sees the best
For them and for their little ones provide;
But chiefly in their hearts with grace Divine preside.”
2. We ought to use also the best means for carrying on God‘s work. The Church must not despise the use of means. What progress is made in facilities for carrying on the business of the world! What rapid communication! What gigantic efforts made to push commercial enterprises! And is the Church of Christ to be the only body that is asleep? Is there no need for activity, for earnestness, for push, in the concerns of eternity? While immortal souls are perishing, while so many fields are white to harvest, ought we not to be up and doing? There are methods that it is no advantage for the Church to adopt, But the Church of Christ should avail itself of every lawful means to advance the Redeemer’s kingdom. It should use the press far more than it does. It should advertise far more than it does. It should do anything and everything in the way of enterprise that will bring the gospel to the people, and that will bring the people to the gospel. It must go out into the streets and lanes of the city, to the highways and hedges of the country, and compel the people to come in. The Church that knows best how to use the means which modern civilization has placed at its disposal, is the Church that will do most, with God’s blessing and the presence of his Spirit, to advance the kingdom of Christ. We must seek to use everything and win everything for Jesus. Some persons say that ministers are so often talking about money. There is so much money devoted to the service of the devil and of sin and of pleasure every week, that it is the minister’s duty to try to win a little of it for Christ. If he spoke about it every Sunday it would not be one whir too often. Let us use the means if we want to win the world for Jesus. Let us not think that anything will do for him. Let us not give to the Lord that which costs us nothing.
II. THE USE OF MUSIC IS PARTICULAR. When Elisha said, “Bring me a minstrel,” it was because he believed the harper’s music would be a real help to him in experiencing God’s presence and in doing God’s work. And he was right. For “it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him.” There are many uses of music in the Christian life.
1. Music is an inspiration for work and warfare. Why is it that our regiments go forth to battle accompanied by their bands of music? Is it not that they may be inspirited and cheered by martial and triumphant strains? Is there no place, then, for inspiring music in the Christian life? Are there not times when our spirits flag, and we are easily discouraged? At such times how inspiriting is a joyful song of praise!
2. Music is also a soother of the spirit. So it was here in Elisha’s case. So it was in the case of King Saul. When David played before him on his harp, the evil spirit went from him, and the troubled mind became at peace. We read also in the account of the Last Supper of our Lord, just before his agony at Gethsemane and on the cross, that “when they had sung an hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.” Who can doubt that the spirits both of Master and disciples were soothed and tranquillized as their hearts and voices joined together in the hymn of praise?
3. Music is largely the occupation of the redeemed in heaven. St. John tells us in the Revelation, “And I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: and they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and the four living creatures, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.” The sweetest earthly music we have ever heard, the largest and best-trained chorus of human voices, will give us but a faint conception of the sweetness and grandeur of the heavenly music. Mozart or Mendelssohn, Handel or Beethoven, never in their loftiest flights conceived a strain so thrilling as the song around the throne of God. Considering, therefore, the power of music, considering the uses to which it may be put on earth and the help it renders to true devotion, considering the place assigned to it in heaven,it may fairly be claimed that music should be more cultivated by the Christian Church. While we do not go to church for a musical performance, we should have in our churches the very best music it is possible to have. It is often the very worst. The best music ought not to be left to the service of the devil and of the world. To preach the gospel is our great work. Yea; but there is no special merit in preaching the gospel unless you try to get the people to come and hear it. There is really no reason why we should not preach the gospel, and have attractive services and bright music at the same time. Martin Luther said, “One of the finest and noblest gifts of God is music. This is very hateful to the devil, and with it we may drive off temptations and evil thoughts. After theology, I give the next and highest place to music. It has often aroused and moved me so that I have won a desire to preach. We ought not to ordain young men to the office of preacher, if they have not trained themselves and practiced singing in the schools.” Luther was not far wrong. Our congregations should devote more time to the practice and preparation of congregational psalmody. Young ladies, young men, with musical gifts and accomplishmentswhy not consecrate them to the service of Jesus?
“Sing at the cottage bedside;
They have no music there,
And the voice of praise is silent
After the voice of prayer.
“Sing of the gentle Savior
In the simplest hymns you know,
And the pain-dimmed eye will brighten
As the soothing verses flow.
Sing! that your song may silence
The folly and the jest,
And the ‘idle word’ be banished
As an unwelcome guest.
“Sing to the tired and anxious
It is yours to fling a ray,
Passing indeed, but cheering,
Across the rugged way.
“Thus, aided by his blessing,
The song may win its way
Where speech had no admittance,
And change the night to day.”
C.H.I.
2Ki 3:16-25
The valley full of ditches.
Two troubles had come upon Israel at this time. The kings of Israel, Judah, and Edom were gone forth to battle against the King of Moab. Strife is an evil between nations or individuals. It takes years for a nation to recover from the devastating effects of war. Terrible is the destruction of life and property which war causes. To the horrors and perils of war in this case was added a fresh difficulty. Their armies, passing through the desert, had no water to drink. Under the burning heat, they suffered fearfully from thirst. We know how greatly our own troops suffered from lack of water in Egypt and the Soudan. Dr. Livingstone, in his travels, has given us an idea of what it is to be without water in the desert. When he saw his children almost perishing of thirst before his eyes, he had a new idea of the value of water. It was no wonder, then, that, with the soldiers weak and languishing from thirst, with no water either for them or for their horses and cattle, they began to despair and regard defeat as certain. But the Prophet Elisha was sent for, as we have seen, and, on being consulted by the kings of Israel and Judah, he said, “Make this valley full of ditches. For thus saith the Lord, Ye shall not see wind, neither shall ye see rain; yet that valley shall be filled with water, that ye may drink, both ye, and your cattle, and your beasts. And this is but a light thing in the sight of the Lord: he will deliver the Moabites also into your hand.” We have here
I. A STRANGE COMMAND. “Make this valley full of ditches.”
1. It was a strange command that ditches should be dug in a desert place. But so it is also in the spiritual kingdom. God often chooses the most unlikely places and the most unlikely persons for the operations of his grace. Is it not a fact that, in thinking of the spread of the gospel, and in engaging in Christian work, we are too much guided by human calculations? We judge too much by outward appearances. We forget that God’s ways are not as our ways, nor his thoughts as our thoughts. People have sometimes refused to give to certain missions because they did not think there was any use in sending the gospel to the particular people for whom the mission was intended. Is God’s arm shortened that it cannot save? It is time for us as Christian Churches and as Christian people to work wherever God gives us the opportunity, even though it should be in the most unlikely and unpromising sphere. God calls us, wherever we are, to dig up wells in the valley.
2. Further, it was a strange command, because there was no appearance of rain at the time, and there was no river at hand from which the wells could be supplied. Why dig wells when you don’t know where the water is to come from? We live in a utilitarian age. Men like to have a reason for everything. They like to be assured of a return for their labor. Consequently, even professedly Christian men are disposed to question the utility of many of God’s commands. Why rest on the sabbath more than on any other day? Why attach any peculiar sanctity to the sabbath? Why not worship God at home, or walk in the fields, instead of going to church? We might show the benefit to the nation of religious observances and of religious teaching. We might show the benefit to the individual of assembling with others for devotional exercises instead of merely worshipping God in private or even in the home. But it is enough here to notice that God has commanded these duties. That ought to be enough to convince any intelligent being, any religious being. God gives no command for which there is not a good reason. I may not see the reason. I may not see the benefit that will result from it. But I am convinced by reason, by conscience, by history, by human experience, that whatever the command may be, a real benefit follows the obedience of it, and real unhappiness and suffering the disobedience of it.
3. One other thought this strange command of God suggestsGod wants us to be fellow-workers with him. God could have sent the water and provided a place of storage for it without the assistance of the Israelites here. But he does not choose to do so. He says, “Make the valley full of ditches.” When modern missions to the heathen first began to be spoken of about a century ago, those who advocated them were met on every side, and in many a church, from pulpit and from pew, from prelate and from presbyter, with the objection that God could save the heathen without their instrumentality. It is obvious that those who reasoned thus about God’s method of converting the world had read their Bible to very little purpose. We find human agency, as a rule, accompanying Divine grace. Christ’s own command is clear, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations and, lo! I am with you always.” How do we stand in regard to the commands of God? Is there any command that we are deliberately and constantly disobeying? It ought to be the daily prayer of every Christian, “Make me to go in the path of thy commandments; for therein do I delight.”
II. SUBMISSIVE FAITH. It is clear from the narrative that the men of Judah did as God had commanded them, and made the valley full of ditches. These Hebrew soldiers gave a good example of submissive practical faith.
1. They might have reasonedBetter to be going forth against our enemies than to be wasting our time digging these trenches. So men reason when they hurry forth to their work in the morning without waiting to give God thanks for the rest of the night, and to ask his blessing upon the work of the day. Is it any wonder that the life is so dry, and that things so often seem to go wrong, when we do not take time to dig up wells for God’s blessing? Is it any wonder that the Churches are so unfruitful, that conversions are so infrequent, that revivals are so rare, that there is not more spiritual power in the preaching of the Word, that the influence exercised upon the world around us is so slight, when, with all the attention to congregational machinery and church order, there is so little attention to congregational prayer? It is a fine sight to look at the great engines of a steamer when in motion, and admire the beautiful mechanism of cylinder and crank and piston. But all that elaborate and powerful machinery would be utterly useless unless the steam was there to set it in motion. Let us have our church machinery and organization as perfect as may be, but let us remember that the secret of power is behind and beyond it all. “Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord.” The Hebrew soldiers did not think the time lost which they spent in preparing the way for God’s blessing.
2. They might have reasonedBetter to move further on where we shall have water than to spend our labor in this desert place. So Christians are sometimes disposed to reason. Ministers grow weary of seeing no fruit of their labors. Sunday-school teachers grow weary of their class. But if all the workers in God’s vineyard had reasoned in that way, and abandoned any sphere of labor because it seemed unfruitful or because they were weary of waiting, the gospel would have made very little progress in the world.
3. They might have reasonedIf we‘re to be saved, we shall be saved. It is not likely that digging up trenches in the valley will deliver us out of the hands of the Moabites. So the sinner reasons when he is urged to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Satan, for his soul’s destruction, prompts him with objections to the plan of salvation. But objections to the plan of salvation can no more alter it than any suggestions which a man of science might make could alter the course of nature. The way of salvation is clear. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shelf be saved.” Is it not better for us, as these soldiers did, to take God’s plan, to believe that whatever he commands is for our good, to accept his loving offers of salvation purchased for us by the precious blood of his beloved Son, and to yield ourselves to him as willing servants, doing the will of God from the heart?
III. STREAMS OF REFRESHING AND SAFETY. “And it came to pass in the morning, when the meat offering was offered, that, behold, there came water by the way of Edom, and the country was filled with water.” Not more eagerly do the weary watchers watch for morning than those languid soldiers watched for the coming of the water. It was a welcome sight. So it is with the blessings of the gospel. “Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled,”
“As dew upon the tender herb,
Diffusing fragrance round,
As showers that usher in the spring
And cheer the thirsty ground,
So shall his presence bless our souls,
And shed a joyful light,
That hallowed morn shall chase away
The sorrows of the night.”
And then also the streams that filled the trenches proved to be streams of safety. When the Moabites arose in the morning, and looked over to the place where the Israelites were encamped, they only saw the glare of the sun upon the water as red as blood. They had probably no idea that water could be there. And so they said, “This is blood; the kings are surely slain, and they have smitten one another.” They thought they had nothing to do but plunder the deserted camp of the Israelites, and the result was that the Israelites gained an easy victory, and were delivered out of the hand of their enemies. It is the same with the blessings of the gospel. The gospel which satisfies also saves the soul. And it satisfies because it saves. Herein all human religion and philosophies fail. They may point out a high ideal, but they give us little help to attain it. They may point out the evil of sin, but they cannot strengthen us to overcome it or deliver us from its power. And all they can offer us is only for the present life. But the gospel not only puts before us the high ideal, but enables us through Divine grace to attain to it. It not only shows us the guilt of sin, but it points us to the cleansing blood. It not only shows us the evil of sin, but gives us the victory over it through Christ Jesus our Lord. It not only gives us blessings for the present life, but secures to all who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ the life of heaven, life with God, life that shall never end. Make the valley full of ditches. Open your heart to receive this satisfying, saving gospel Children of God, if you want God’s blessing to flow in upon you in reviving, refreshing streams, prepare the way for it. Dig up wells in the desert. Value your Sundays, your opportunities for private prayer, the house of God, the prayer-meeting. You need them all to refresh your souls and to revive your spiritual life amid the parching, chilling influences of the world. And then in your short life do what you can to make channels through which blessings may flow to others. In this aspect, what a privilege it becomes to help missions, to built! churches and schools, and to take part in every effort for the benefit and enlightenment of others! You may never see the streams of blessing flow, but at any rate you will have dug the channels for them. Such labor is not in vain in the Lord.C.H.I.
2Ki 3:26, 2Ki 3:27
The heartlessness of heathenism.
1. Heathenism blights the natural affections. Christianity honors and sanctifies them.
2. Heathenism disregards human life. What sacrifice of life by cannibalism, under the car of Juggernaut, in the suttees of India! What disregard of human life in the exposure of Chinese infants, in the aged and the sick left alone to die on the banks of the Indian rivers! Christianity has changed all this. It takes high views of human life. The body is the dwelling-place of an immortal soul. Care for the sick and for the dying is due to the influences of the gospel. Where are the hospitals, the philanthropic movements, of heathenism or of agnosticism? Even for the comforts of the present life we owe much to Christianity.C.H.I.
HOMILIES BY D. THOMAS
2Ki 3:1-5
Evil-the same in principle, though not in form.
“Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel,” etc. Two subjects are here illustrated.
I. THAT WHILST THE FORMS OF EVIL MAY CHANGE, THE PRINCIPLE MAY CONTINUE RAMPANT. “And he [that is, Jehoram] wrought evil in the sight of the Lord; but not like his father, and like his mother.” His father and mother worshipped Baal, but the very “image” of the idol “that his father had made he put away.” But notwithstanding that “he cleaved unto the sins of Jeroboam.” Observe:
1. Though the existing generation sins not in the form of the preceding, their sin is not less sin on that account. The forms in which barbarians and our uncivilized ancestors sinned appear gross and revolting to us; nevertheless, our sins are not the less real and heinous in the sight of God. Our civilization hides the revolting hideousness, but leaves its spirit perhaps more active than ever. Your father’s prominent sin, perhaps, was that of drunkenness, but though you touch not the inebriating cup, you sin in other formsthe forms, perhaps, of vanity, avarice, ambition, etc.
2. That mere external reformations may leave the spirit of evil as rampant as ever. Jehoram “put away the image of Baal,” but the spirit of idolatry remained in him in all its wonted force. “He cleaved unto the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which made Israel to sin; he departed not therefrom.” This is ever true. Religiously, you may destroy a superstitious organization, and yet leave the spirit of religious superstition, intolerance, and pride, even more vigorous than ever, to assume other forms. So of political institutions. You may destroy this form of government or that, monarchical or democratic, and yet leave the spirit in which these forms work, vital and vigorous to manifest itself in other forms.
II. THAT WHILST SIN MAY ONLY BE IN THE FORM OF NEGLECT OF DUTY, IT MAY IN THE CASE OF ONE MAN ENTAIL SERIOUS EVILS ON POSTERITY. “And Mesha King of Moab was a sheep master, and rendered unto the King of Israel a hundred thousand lambs, and a hundred thousand rams, with the wool. But it came to pass, when Ahab was dead, that the King of Moab rebelled against the King of Israel.” Moab was a tributary to the kingdom of Israel, and contributed largely to its revenue, not in cash, but in cattle, or in wool, but not the less valuable on that account. But now a rebellion had broken out, and a serious revolt was threatened. Why was this? Matthew Henry ascribes it to the neglect of Ahaziah, the former king, the brother of Jehoram. lie made no attempt to avoid such a catastrophe. Ah! sins of omission entail serious evils. The neglect of one generation brings miseries on another. The neglect of parents often brings ruin on the children. Negative sins are curses. “We have left undone the things we ought to have done;” and who shall tell the result on all future times?D.T.
2Ki 3:6-12
Worldly rulers-men in trial seeking help from a godly man.
“And King Jehoram went out of Samaria the same time, and numbered all Israel,” etc.
I. Here we have WORLDLY RULERS IN GREAT TRIAL. “And King Jehoram went out of Samaria the same time, and numbered all Israel. And he went and sent to Jehoshaphat the King of Judah, saying, The King of Moab hath rebelled against me.” The revolt of Moab threatened the ruin of Jehoram and his empire, and he, smitten with alarm, numbers, or rather, musters, all Israel, and hurries to Jehoshaphat to seek his aid. They, with their armies, go forth to meet in battle their enemy on a seven days’ journey, enduring the privation of water for themselves and their cattle. At the end of their journey, disheartened and exhausted, they reached a crisis of terrible anxiety and danger. Worldly rulers have their trials. “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.” What terrible ends in past ages kings have come to! and today all the thrones of Europe seem to be tottering to their fall. Providence destines that a man who aspires to the highest office must pay a terrible price for it. The trials of high office, added to the natural trials of man as man, are often overwhelming. Here we have worldly rulers in great trial
II. SEEKING HELP FROM A GODLY MAN. “But Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the Lord, that we may inquire of the Lord by him? And one of the King of Israel’s servants answered and said, Here is Elisha,” etc. Mark the cry, “Is there not here a prophet of the Lord?” The question is answered, and the three kingsthose of Israel, of Judah, and of Edomgo in earnest quest of him. They “went down to him.” This:
1. Proved their instinctive belief in the existence of one God, the Maker and Manager of worlds. Man always, in overwhelming distress, turns away from his systems and theories, and looks up to the Everlasting One.
2. Proved their faith in the power of a truly good man with that God. This is common; skeptics and worldlings on their death-beds are continually sending for those to visit them whom they believe to be men of God. The evil must ever bow before the good. What an illustration we have of this in the case of the two hundred and seventy-five men on board the ship tossed in the dangerous tempest on her way from Caesarea to Rome, with the Apostle Paul on board! Paul was a poor prisoner in chains, and the passengers were made up of soldiers and merchants and men of science; but to whom did they look in the turmoil? Paul, who at the outset, when “the south wind blew softly,” was nothing in that vessel, became the moral commander during the tempest. Amidst the wild roaring of the elements, the cries of his fellow-voyagers, the crashes of the plunging ship, the awful howl of death, in all he walked upon the creaking deck with a moral majesty, before which captain, merchant, soldier, and centurion bowed with loyal awe. So it has ever been; so it must ever be. The good show their greatness in trials, and in their trials, the evil, however exalted their worldly position, are compelled to appreciate them. How often do the world’s great men on death-beds seek the attendance, sympathies, counsel, and prayers of those godly ones whom they despised in health!D.T.
2Ki 3:13-27
Aspects of a godly man.
“And Elisha said unto the King of Israel, What have I to do with thee?’ etc. Elisha was confessedly a godly man of a high type, and these verses reveal him to us in three aspects.
I. AS RISING SUPERIOR TO KINGS. When these three kingsJehoshaphat the King of Judah, Jehoram the King of Israel, and the King of Edomapproached Elisha, was he overawed by their splendor? or was he elated by their visit? No. He was no flunkey; no true man ever is. Here are his sublimely manly words, “What have I to do with thee?”
1. He rebukes Jehoram for his idolatry. “Get thee to the prophets of thy father, and to the prophets of thy mother.” “In your prosperity you Israelite kings have been serving these false gods, and you have despised me as the servant of the true God. Why come to me now in your distress? Go and try what they can do for you.” What courage in this poor lonely man, thus calmly to confront and honestly to rebuke a monarch! Ah me! where is this courage now? The loudest professors of our religion in these times will too often crouch before kings, and address them in terms of fawning flattery.
2. He yields to their urgency out of respect to the true religion. “And Elisha said, As the Lord of hosts liveth, before whom I stand, surely, were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat the King of Judah, I would not look toward thee, nor see thee.” Jehoshaphat was pre-eminently a godly man (2Ch 17:5, 2Ch 17:6), and that influenced the great Elisha to interpose on his behalf. “Them that honor me I will honor,” saith the Lord. A godly man is the only true independent man on this earth; he can “stand before kings” and not be ashamed, and rebuke princes as well as paupers for their sins. Whither has this spirit fled? We are a nation of sycophants. Heaven send us men!
II. AS PREPARING FOR INTERCESSION WITH HEAVEN. What these kings wanted was the interposition of Heaven on their behalf, and they here apply to Elisha to obtain this; and after the prophet had acceded to their request, he seeks to put himself in the right moral mood to appeal to Heaven, and what does he do. But now bring me a minstrel. And it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him.” Probably his mind had been somewhat ruffled by the presence of these kings, especially at the sight of Jehoram, the wicked and idolatrous king, and before venturing an appeal to Heaven he felt the need of a devout calmness. Hence he called for music, and as the devout musician sounded out sweet psalmody on his ear, he became soothed and spiritualized in soul. The power of music, especially the music which is the organ of Divine ideas, has in every age exerted a soothing and elevating influence on the human soul. By the harp David expelled the evil spirit from the heart of Saul. “Buretti declares music to have the power of so affecting the whole nervous system as to give sensible ease in a large variety of disorders, and in some cases to effect a radical cure: particularly he instances sciatica as capable of being relieved by this agency. Theophrastus is mentioned by Pliny as recommending it for the hip gout; and there are references on record by old Cato and Varro to the same effect. AEsculapius figures in Pindar as healing acute disorders with soothing songs.”
“Music exalts each joy, allays each grief,
Expels diseases, softens every pain,
Subdues the rage of poison and of plague,
And hence the wise of ancient days adored
One power of physic, melody, and song.”
Luther taught that the “spirit of darkness abhorred sweet sounds.” There is a spiritual mood necessary in order to have intercourse with Heaven, and this mood it is incumbent on every man to seek and retain.
III. AS BECOMING THE ORGAN OF THE SUPERNATURAL.
(1) Through him God made a promise of deliverance. “For thus saith the Lord, Ye shall not see wind, neither shall ye see rain,” etc. (2Ki 3:17-19).
(2) Through him God effected their deliverance. “And when they came to the camp of Israel, the Israelites rose up and smote the Moabites,” etc. (2Ki 3:24, 2Ki 3:25). Thus the Almighty made this godly man both to foretell and fulfill his plans. We would remind those who are skeptical of this, and who perhaps ridicule the idea of man becoming the organ of Divine power:
1. That there is nothing antecedently improbable in this. God works through his creatures; since he created the universe he employs it as his agent. What wonders he works through the sun, the atmosphere, etc.! Science teaches that even through worms he prepares the soil of this earth to produce food for man and beast. But inasmuch as man is confessedly greater than the material universefor he is the offspring of the Infinite, and participates in the Divine natureit cannot be absurd to regard him in a preeminent sense as an organ of the supernatural.
2. Biblical history attests this. Moses, Christ, and the apostles performed deeds that seem to us to have transcended the natural. A morally great man becomes “mighty through God.” God has ever worked wonders through godly men, and ever will.D.T.
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
2Ki 3:1-3
Jehoram; or, qualified evil.
The successor of Ahaziah was Jehoram, another son of Ahab and Jezebel. It is said, however, concerning him, that, though he did evil, it was not like his father and mother, for he removed from its place the image of Baal which they had impiously set up. Nevertheless, he upheld the worship of the calvesthe distinguishing sin of the northern kingdom.
I. THERE ARE DEGREES IN SIN. Some go greater lengths in transgression than others. It is fight and dutiful to note even distinctions of this kind, and give every one his due. We may be thankful when even a less form of evil is substituted for a worse one. The impartiality and discrimination of the Bible, even among those whose actions it must condemn, is a proof of its fidelity.
II. PARTIAL REFORMS ARE POSSIBLE WHICH DO NOT TOUCH THE ROOT OF SIN. Jehoram so far profited by the experience of his predecessors that he withdrew his countenance from the Baal-worship. This was a real reform, and he gets credit for it. So, many men take certain steps in the direction of reformbreaking off particular evil habits, intemperance, perhaps, or profane swearingwho yet get no further. They are able to do this. It is gratifying to see them do it. But it leaves the root of the matter untouched.
III. QUALIFIED EVIL IS EVIL STILL. The foundation of Jehoram’s character was still evil” he wrought evil in the sight of the Lord.” This is the great fact which God looks at, and in the light of which he judges us. Herod “did many things” to please John the Baptist, but his bad heart remained unchanged (Mar 5:20). The cardinal necessity of the heart is renewalregenerationthe founding of the life on a spiritual basis.J.O.
2Ki 3:4, 2Ki 3:5
King Mesha’s rebellion.
The general causes of this rebellion are considered on 2Ki 1:1. The victories recorded on the Moabite Stone as achieved by the favor of Chemosh belong probably to the earlier stages of the revolt. They can hardly have followed the crushing destruction of verses 24, 25. Prior, also, to the expedition of this chapter, must be placed the attempt to overwhelm Jehoshaphat by the combined forces of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, etc. (2Ch 20:1-37.), which seems to be the invasion described in Psa 83:1-18. The language alike of the history and of the psalm in the description of that invasionwhich, like the present struggle, ended in supernatural defeatshows how dangerous an enemy an independent kingdom of Moab would have been to Judah, and how necessary it was, in the interests of the covenant nation, that this rival power should, on its first upspringing, he effectually broken. Jehoram’s action was overruled to bring about this effectual humbling of Moab, though, for his own humiliation, Moab does not seem ever to have been brought again under the yoke of Israel; Great as were the severities of the war, they were not greater than Moab, as a conquering power, meted out to others (see Moabite Stone), and would still have meted out had she been victor.J.O.
2Ki 3:6-8
The alliance of the three kings.
No time was to be lost, if the King of Israel was to check the progress of this formidable rebel, who, from the inscription on his stone, appears to have had some remarkable successes.
I. JEHORAM‘S PROPOSAL.
1. Jehoram’s first step was to muster for the expedition the whole army of Israel. His trust was in chariots and horses. How little they could do for him, apart from God’s help, was soon to be made manifest.
2. He next sent a message to Jehoshaphat, inviting him to accompany him. This shows, at least, that he took a sufficiently serious view of the difficulty of his enterprise. He did not enter on it lightly. Perhaps also he had the inward feeling that it would be likelier to go well with him if this godly king were on his side. A wicked man is always glad when he can get a good one to lend his countenance to any of his doings.
II. JEHOSHAPHAT‘S CONSENT. This was at once and freely given. Jehoshaphat had refused partnership with Ahaziah (1Ki 22:49). But:
1. Jehoram was a man of less impious character.
2. The war seemed just.
3. He had to secure the safety of his own kingdom. This had already been menaced, and would no doubt be menaced again, if Mesha continued his victorious career.
4. There was further the unfortunate bond of kinshipJehoram’s sister Athaliah being married to Jehoshaphat’s son. Entanglements with the wicked lead into many a snare. Jehoshaphat’s chief error was in deciding on his own responsibility, and not doing first what he was glad enough to do after” inquire of the Lord.” How many troubles we often get into through simply neglecting to seek Divine guidance! Secular things ought to be made the subjects of prayer as much as spiritual things. “In everything by prayer and supplication,” etc. (Php 4:6).
III. THE WAY BY EDOM. Which way would they take? Jehoshaphat urged that they should go by the wilderness of Edom, that is, round the foot of the Dead Sea. This route would be the longer, but it enabled Moab to be attacked from a safer side, and had the further advantage that it would secure to the allies the services of the deputy-king of Edom, who, as a vassal of Jehoshaphat, could not refuse to accompany them (1Ki 22:47; 2Ki 8:20). The Edomites had, indeed, but lately joined in the confederacy against Judah, but they were now probably burning to be avenged on the Moabites, who, in that expedition, had proved to be their worst enemies (2Ch 20:23). Thus providence overrules the passions of men to work out its own ends.J.O.
2Ki 3:9-17, 2Ki 3:20
Man’s extremity is God’s opportunity.
This expedition, begun without consulting God, soon landed the allies in dire straits.
I. THE STRAITS OF THE ARMY.
1. The failure of water. The host must have been a large one, and they had much cattle with them for sustenance. For some reason, the journey occupied seven days, and the desert was waterless. They were in the same distress that the Israelites were in centuries before under Moses (Exo 17:1-3; Num 20:1-5); but they had not the same right to rely on Divine help. When, at the end of seven days, they arrived at a valley where water might be looked forprobably “the brook Zered” (Deu 2:13)their condition became desperate.
2. God’s hand recognized. Jehoram recognized, when it was too late, that it was not Moab who was fighting against him in this expedition, hut God. “Alas! that the Lord hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab!”
(1) How readily God can humble man’s pride, and bring to nothing his best-laid schemes! We are reminded of Napoleon’s march against Moscow, and of the annihilation of his army by the severities of a Russian winter.
(2) God’s hand is often recognized in trouble, when it is not in prosperity.
(3) God frequently leads men into distress, that they may be convinced of their folly in neglecting him, and may be led to seek his help (Psa 107:1-43.).
II. THE APPEAL TO ELISHA.
1. Jehoshaphat‘s inquiry. The King of Israel abandoned himself to despair, but Jehoshaphat asked, “Is there not here a prophet of the Lord, that we may inquire of the Lord by him?” Had he inquired of the Lord at the beginning, he would not now have been in this difficulty. But:
(1) It was better to inquire lateif haply it might not be too latethan not to inquire at all A good man only needs to be convinced of his errors to endeavor to repair them. A touch of the rod of chastisement turns back his heart to God, whom he may have been forgetting. To whom else shall he go? God alone can help.
(2) Even the sinner, if convinced that God is contending with him, should not delay repentance through remembrance of past sins. If he has never prayed before, let him do it now. But, alas! repentances of this kind are too often insincerethe mere fruit of present fearand are not followed up by change of life.
2. The three kings and the prophet.
(1) Jehoshaphat’s question elicited the fact that Elisha the son of Shaphat was in the camp or near it. It was a servant of the King of Israel that gave this information, so that even in this ungodly king’s household there were some true worshippers (cf. 1Ki 18:3, 1Ki 18:4). This servant, though in a humble position, did the greatest service possible to his king and nation. But for his information, the armies of three kingdoms might have been annihilated. In like manner, it was “a little captive maid” who directed Naaman to the prophet (2Ki 5:2, 2Ki 5:3).
(2) Jehoshaphat felt at once they had the right man”The word of the Lord is with him.” Pretenders, false prophets, hypocrites, are of no avail when real trouble comes. It is the genuine prophet that is needed then. Elisha must have followed the camp by Divine direction, to give this aid in the hour of extremityanother evidence that the events of this expedition, like all other events, were being shaped by an overruling Providence.
(3) The kings at once repair to Elisha. They did not ask him to come to them, but, as suppliants, “went down” to him. It was a strange sightthe three kings standing before this prophet of the Lord, whom, at other times, two of them at least would have disdained to consult. But it was now felt that Elisha alone stood between them and death. He, the man of God, was, like his master before him”the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof”under God, the protector and salvation of the nation. There come seasons when religion gets the homage paid to it, which its importance at all times deserves.
3. Help only for the sake of Jehoshaphat. Elisha’s spirit seems to have been strangely perturbed by the visit of these three kings. He was roused in part by scorn at a king like Jehoram, who ordinarily paid no respect to religion, coming to ask his aid in the pinch of physical distress. It is Elijah’s fire which glows in him for the moment, as he sternly asks, “What have I to do with thee?” and bids the humbled monarch get him to the prophets of his father (the calves-prophets) and the prophets of his mother (the Baal-prophets), to see what they could do for him. But Jehoram knew that the prophets of the calves or of Baal could in that extremity give him little help. He deprecates Elisha’s anger, only to he told that, but for the sake of Jehoshaphat, the prophet would neither look towards him nor see him.
(1) It is character, not rank, which God regards. Jehoram harps upon the string that, if nothing is done, “three kings” will perish. He seems to fancy, with the French lady, that God will think twice before casting off persons of that quality. But Elisha undeceives him. Only because the good Jehoshaphat is in the company will God show any mercy to him.
(2) The ungodly often reap great benefits from association with the good. Jehoram now found this to his advantage.
(3) There will come a time of exposure for all “refuges of lies.” Elisha laid bare the folly of trusting to the idol-prophets, and Jehoram felt the truth of his rebuke. So will it be with all vain imaginations (Isa 28:14-18).
III. THE DIVINE DELIVERANCE.
1. Holy minstrelsy. The discomposed state of Elisha’s mind was not fitted for the reception of “revelations of the Lord.” If God would speak, passion must be stilled. To this end, he called for a minstrel, that by the soothing, subduing effect of sacred melody, his soul might be restored to a calm condition. It is a wonderful power that resides in music; we do well in God’s service to take advantage of it. “The noblest passages in ‘ Paradise Lost’ were composed as Milton’s daughter played to her father on the organ.” Music gives wings to the soul, reveals to it the existence of a world of harmony, touches and harmonizes it to like “fine issues.”
2. A labor of faith. As the minstrel played, the hand of the Lord came upon Elisha, and he gave directions to make the valley full of trenches. As yet there was not the slightest sign of water, nor would there be any. The work was to be done in entire dependence on the word of God that water would be sent. This is faithacting on God’s bare word of promise. All that night the laborers toiled, and when the morning came, the valley was seamed with trenches, and studded with pits, to hold the yet invisible supply of the life-giving water.
3. Streams from Edom. In the morning, true to the Divine promise, the wished-for water came.
(1) It came without visible sign. The people who looked for it saw neither wind nor rain, but simply “there came wafer by the way of Edom, and the country was filled with water.” Yet there is no necessity for supposing a supernatural creation of water, for God does not work without means, when means are available. The bursting of a waterspout, or heavy rains, at some distance, would give rise to the phenomenon. There was doubtless a providential preparation for the deliverance, as there was a providential design in the distress.
(2) It came at the time of the morning oblation. The deliverance was thus connected with the service in the templeJehovah’s true sanctuary. As it was for Jehoshaphat’s sake the deliverance was granted, so a token was now given that it was the religion of Judah to which God had respect. The hours of prayer are fit seasons for the conferring of blessing (cf. Dan 9:21).
(3) It came in great abundance. When God gives he gives plentifully. “The country was filled with water.” It is so with the supply God has given for the thirst of the worldthose living waters of which we do so wisely to drink (Joh 7:37, Joh 7:38). Such events as these pledge to us the fulfillment of Divine promises (Isa 44:3). The psalmist says, “The rain also filleth the pools” (Psa 84:6).J.O.
2Ki 3:10
An evil conscience.
“And the King of Israel said, Alas! that the Lord hath called these three kings,” etc.!
1. Trouble awakens the evil conscience.
2. The evil conscience takes the darkest view of the actions of God.
3. The evil conscience is glad to shelter itself by associating with others. (See excellent remarks in Krummacher.)J.O.
2Ki 3:18-27
The defeat of Moab.
This also was foretold by Elisha as a mercy from the Lord, in comparison with which the supply of water was “a light thing.” If these are God’s “light things,” surely we need not fear to ask from him all that we require. Our sin is, not in asking too much, but in asking too little (Joh 16:24). “He is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think” (Eph 3:20).
I. LOST THROUGH ILLUSION. The manner in which the defeat of the Moabites was brought about is very remarkable. The defeat was caused:
1. Through illusion. Their forces”all that were able to put on amour, and upward”were mustered on the mountains opposite, ready for battle on the morrow. As the morning sun rose, its red beams, falling on the pools of water in the valley, gave the water the appearance of bloodan effect to which the red soil may have contributed. This startling appearance the Moabiteswho knew nothing of the unlooked-for supply of waterinterpreted in their own way. They said, “This is blood,” and concludedremembering a recent experience of their own (2Ch 20:1-37.)that the attacking forces had fallen out, and destroyed each other.
2. Through over-haste and over-confidence. The cry was at once raised, “Moab, to the spoil!” and, casting aside all precautions, the people flew down, to find themselves in the power of their enemies. How many defeats are sustained in life from the same causes! We eagerly snatch at first appearances, which are often so deceptive; we hurry to the fray, without faking due precautions or counting the cost; we are confident in our strength or numbers as sufficient to bear down all opposition, if by chance we should be surprised. Therefore we fail. God often snares men through their own illusions. Haman went to Esther’s banquet under the illusion that it was the road to highest honor, and found it the way to death (Est 5:11, Est 5:12; Est 7:1-10.). Of the wicked it is said, “For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie” (2Th 2:11).
II. THE MERCILESS PURSUIT. The passage describing this pursuit is a terrible illustration of the severities of war. They were, perhaps, under the circumstances, not needless severities, but they are nonetheless extreme and painful to think of.
(1) The Moabites were pursued into their own country, and cut down in the pursuit.
(2) The cities were leveled to the ground.
(3) The good land was made useless by every man casting on it a stone, till it was covered with stones.
(4) Even fruit trees were cut down, and wells stopped.
(5) There remained only the city of Kir-haraseth, which, on its elevated plateau, defied direct assault; but it they besieged, while the slingers, taking their station on the surrounding eminences, galled it with their missiles. The words of the prophet in verse 19 are perhaps prediction, not command, but it may be inferred that he gave the policy pursued his sanction. The object was so effectually to cripple the power of Moab that it would not be able to lift up the head for many a day to come.
1. The most direct lesson we can learn from the passage is the dreadfulness of war. Wherever or however waged, wars are a source of incalculable misery. Even just wars entail a loss of life, a destruction of wealth, and a waste of the means of production and of human happiness, which may well make the heart of the lover of his species sicken.
2. An indirect lesson to be gleaned from verse 25 is the power of little things”every man his stone.” By each man bringing but a single stone, the ground was covered, and the end aimed at attained. The power was wielded here for destruction, but it may be wielded as well for good. Each doing his individual partthough that in itself is littlegreat results will be achieved.
3. We do well to carry into moral warfare the same thoroughness as is here displayed in physical warfare. Not content with operating on individuals, let us strike at causes and sourcesstopping the wells of poisonous influence, etc.
III. THE LAST TRAGIC ACT. The war was brought to a sudden and unlooked-for termination.
1. The fearful sacrifice. Beaten into his last stronghold, driven to desperation, the King of Moab, having made an unsuccessful sortie with seven hundred men, resolved on an act which, he rightly judged, would strike horror into the hearts of his enemies, while it might also propitiate his god. He took his eldest son, the heir to his throne, and offered him up for a burnt offering on the wall.
(1) The fact that he performed the sacrifice upon the wall would seem to show that he had in view as much the effect to be produced on the spectators as the possible effect to be produced on Chemosh.
(2) The deed was awful and inhumanperhaps, from Mesha’s point of view, not without its nobler and patriotic sidebut in itself most detestable. We have need to be thankful for a purer religious faith, which teaches us that God does not delight in such unnatural and cruel acts (Mic 6:6-9).
2. Repulsed by horror. “There was,” we read, “great indignation against [or, ‘upon’] Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.” The meaning seems to be that the ghastly act produced a universal horror, which turned into indignation against Israel as the original authors of the expedition which had so dreadful an end. There is an element of superstition in all men, and sudden revulsions of feeling, caused by an act that powerfully impresses the imagination, are not uncommon. The Israelites themselves so far sympathized with the emotion of horror which brought upon them the indignation of the Moabites, of neighboring tribes, perhaps also of the Edomites and others among their own allies, that they gave up the thought of proceeding further. This seems a more natural explanation than either
(1) that the indignation meant is that of Jehovah; or
(2) that it is the wrath of Chemosh (!); or
(3) the subjective horror of the Israelites themselves.J.O.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
C. The Reign of Jehoram, and his Expedition against the Moabites
2Ki 3:1-27
1Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years. 2And he wrought evil in the sight of the Lord; but not like his father, and like his mother: for he put away the image of Baal that his father had made. 3Nevertheless he cleaved unto the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which made Israel to sin; he departed not therefrom.1 4And Mesha king of Moab was a sheepmaster,2 and rendered unto the king of Israel a hundred thousand lambs, and a hundred thousand rams, with the wool [the wool of a hundred thousand rams].3 5But it came to pass, when Ahab was dead, that the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel. 6And king Jehoram went out of Samaria the same time [at that time], and numbered all Israel. 7And he went and sent to Jehoshaphat the King of Judah, saying, The king of Moab hath rebelled against me: wilt thou go with me against Moab to battle? And he said, I will go up: I am as thou art, my people as thy people, and my horses as thy horses. 8And he said, Which way shall we go up? And he answered, The way through the wilderness of Edom. 9So the king of Israel went, and the king of Judah, and the king of Edom: and they fetched a compass of seven days journey: and there was no water for the host, and for the cattle that followed them. 10And the king of Israel said, Alas! that the Lord hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hands of Moab! 11But Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the Lord, that we may inquire of the Lord by him? And one of the king of Israels servants answered and said, Here is Elisha the son of Shaphat, which poured water on the hands of Elijah. 12And Jehoshaphat said, The word of the Lord is with him. So the King of Israel and Jehoshaphat and the king of Edom went down to him. 13And Elisha said unto the king of Israel, What have I to do with thee? get thee to the prophets of thy father, and to the prophets of thy mother. And the king of Israel said unto him, Nay:4 for the Lord hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab. 14And Elisha said, As the Lord of hosts liveth, before whom I stand, surely, were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, I would not look toward thee, nor see thee. 15But now bring me a minstrel. And it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him. 16And he said, Thus saith the Lord, Make5 this valley full of ditches. 17For thus saith the Lord, Ye shall not see wind, neither shall ye see rain; yet that valley shall be filled with water, that ye may drink, both ye, and your cattle, and your beasts. 18And this is but a light thing in the sight of the Lord: he will deliver the Moabites also into your hand. 19And ye shall smite every fenced city, and every choice city, and shall fell every good tree, and stop all wells of water, and mar every good piece of land with stones. 20And it came to pass in the morning, when the meat-offering was offered [at the time of offering sacrifice], that, behold, there came water by the way of Edom, and the country was filled with water. 21And when all the Moabites [had] heard that the kings were come up to fight against them, they [had] gathered all that were able to put on armour, and upward, and stood in the border [had stationed themselves on the boundary]. 22And they rose up early in the morning, and the sun shone [rose] upon the water, and the Moabites saw the water on the other side [opposite them] as red as blood: 23And they said, This is blood: the kings are surely slain [have fought, to their own destruction],6 and they have smitten one another: now therefore, Moab, to the spoil. 24And when they came to the camp at Israel, the Israelites rose up and smote the Moabites, so that they fled before them: but they went forward smitting7 the Moabites, even in their country. 25And they beat down the cities, and on every good piece of land cast every man his stone, and filled it; and they stopped all the wells of water, and felled all the good trees [until there were left]8 only in Kir-haraseth left they [omit left they] the stones thereof; howbeit the slingers went about it, and smote it. 26And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew swords, to break through even unto the king of Edom: but they could not. 27Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt-offering upon the wall. And there was great indignation against [in] Israel: and they departed from him [Mesha], and returned to their own land.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
2Ki 3:1. Jehoram the son of Ahab, &c. In regard to the chronological statements see notes on 2Ki 8:16.In 2Ki 3:2 the Sept. and Vulg. read for , which Thenius wrongly declares to be better. According to 2Ki 10:26 sq., when the temple of Baal, which had been built by Ahab (1Ki 16:32), was destroyed, in the first place the (wooden) were burned, and then the (stone or metal) was broken in pieces. It is clear that this last was the principal statue, and we have to think here of the same or a similar one, which stood before the royal palace, and not in the temple. It is to be noticed that Jehoram only removed and did not destroy it. It is not entirely certain whether he did it immediately after his accession, or after the expedition against Moab.
2Ki 3:4. Mesha king of Moab, &c. The fruitful and well-watered land of Moab was especially fitted for the pasturage of flocks (Winer, R.-W.-B. i. s. 99). The wealth of the king seems, as he is himself called [shepherd or sheep-master], to have consisted in flocks, hence he paid the tribute in these. Michaelis, Maurer, and others, refer [wool], at the end of 2Ki 3:4, to both lambs and rams, so that Mesha would have had to pay only the wool from both; in that case, however, the rams must certainly have had a different wool from the sheep, which cannot be proved. Ewald and Thenius make it only refer to the , mentioned last before it, so that the sense is, since is used especially for a fatted lamb, that the lambs were given alive for food, but that from the rams only the wool or the fleeces were given up. The tribute was, in any case, a very considerable one; but this does not justify the conclusion that it was paid only on every change of government (Clericus). There is no doubt that we have to regard it as a regular annual tribute (cf. Isa 16:1). At the division of the kingdom, Judah took Edom and Israel Moab. As early as the time of Ahaziah the Moabites had declared their independence of Israel (2Ki 1:1); as he, however, soon fell sick, and did not reign for even two full years, it remained for Jehoram to try to resubjugate the rebels, and to retain them in tributary subjection. [In the year 1869 a basalt column, three feet high by one and a half feet wide, and one and a half feet thick, was discovered near Dibon, in Moab, on which was an inscription running in the name of Mesha and detailing his acts, especially the conquests made, and the temples built, by him. It was broken, through the jealousy and suspicion of the Arabs, before it could be removed, or a copy taken of it. Nothing remains but fragments. There are, therefore, several gaps in the inscription as we now possess it. It refers to the oppression of Moab by Israel. Omri is the king mentioned as having afflicted Moab, because Chemosh was angry with the king [of Moab]. A gap destroys the names of kings of Israel who reigned for forty years. The reference which is thus lost would be of the highest value for determining the date of the inscription. It goes on to say that Chemosh became gracious again in the days of Mesha, so that the king gained victories over Israel. Chemosh told him to take Nebo. He took it, and sacrificed seven thousand of its inhabitants to Ashtor-Chemosh, and took the vessels of Jehovah and offered them to Chemosh. The last part of the inscription is so fragmentary as to be hardly intelligible. As usual in such inscriptions, only the kings victories, and not his defeats, are mentioned. Cf. Art. Writing; Smiths Dict. Bib., Am. ed.W. G. S.]
2Ki 3:6. And king Jehoram went out of Samaria the same time, &c. That is, at the time when he became king, and Mesha refused him the tribute.He numbered, or mustered, i.e., he brought together, a large army, by a levy of men throughout all Israel who were capable of bearing arms; but he addressed himself to Jehoshaphat at the same time, in order to be so much the more certain of attaining his object, and the latter then entered into an alliance with him. Cf. on 2Ki 3:7, the remarks on 1Ki 22:4. The combined army could advance by the way (2Ki 3:8) over the Jordan, and then along the eastern side of the Dead Sea, and so fall upon Moab from the north; or it could march down on this side of the Jordan and the Dead Sea, as far as the southern extremity of the latter, and then force its way into Moab from the south through a portion of the land of Edom. Jehoshaphat decided in favor of the latter road, although it was longer and beset with more difficulties than the other, chiefly, we may well believe, because they could then call the king of Edom with his army to their assistance, and make sure that he did not profit by the opportunity and make war upon them himself. Perhaps they also thought that Moab could be more easily surprised from the south. [The fortifications of the Moabites were on their northern boundary. On the south they relied upon the natural obstacles to the advance of a hostile army. On the northern route, moreover, the armies of Israel would have been exposed to an attack from the Syrians, who were in a disposition to seize eagerly upon any such opportunity.W. G. S.] Edom had at this time no king of its own, but a governor appointed by Jehoshaphat (1Ki 22:48). The seven days journey (2Ki 3:9) cannot be understood of the distance from Jerusalem, which is only about sixty miles, for the king of Edom had already joined the two other kings with his army [i.e., it is said that the three kings wandered seven days journey, so that the time must be reckoned after their junction; but the king of Edom would not go to Jerusalem to meet them, and then march back again. He joined them at the borders of Edom, a very short distance from the scene of the distress for want of water.W. G. S.]. More probably they suffered for seven days from want of water in the desert-region to the south of the Dead Sea (Ewald). For a more particular description of this region, see Keil on the passage. in 2Ki 3:10 is not equivalent to for; but it serves either to intensify the assertion: Alas! for Jehovah, &c. (Keil, De Wette), or its only use is to introduce the assertion, and it is not to be translated (Luther, Thenius), as in Isa 15:1.
2Ki 3:11. But Jehoshaphat said, &c. Cf. 1Ki 22:5-7. As in that case, Jehoshaphat desires to hear a prophet of Jehovah, i.e., a true prophet, not a pretended one, a prophet of Ahab. That which Jehoram himself did not know was known by one of his servants, i.e., no doubt one of his chief officers, who was, perhaps, like Obadiah (1Ki 18:3), secretly a friend of the prophet.Which poured water, &c, i.e., who was about Elijah daily as his servant, and who is certainly the most reliable prophet since he is gone (Thenius).It is clear from the definite declaration of Jehoshaphat (2Ki 3:12), that the reputation of Elisha had extended already to Judah. It is very significant that the three kings did not summon him to them, but themselves went down to him. Probably the tents of the kings were set upon an eminence so as to overlook the encampment (Thenius). The inference which Josephus affirms, that the prophet had his tent outside the encampment, and at some distance from it, is not justified by the words.
2Ki 3:13. And Elisha said unto the king of Israel, &c. The prophet addresses himself to Jehoram because he is the principal person here, through whom the others have been brought into these straits. The question: What have I to do with thee? means: Why dost thou desire to come to me, the prophet of the God whom thou hast abandoned? The prophets of his father were, no doubt, those court-prophets, at whose head Zedekiah once stood (1Ki 22:6; 1Ki 22:11); the prophets of his mother Jezebel can have been only Baal-prophets (1Ki 18:19). We see from this that Jehoram, although he had removed the statue of Baal, still allowed the priests of Baal to perform their functions, as they had done before, without molestation. This is also clear from 2Ki 10:19. Jehoram does not mean by the curt expression : it cannot help me to go to the prophets of Baal (Rabbis), but (cf. Rth 1:13): Do not repel me, I am not alone at stake; shall three kings with their armies perish?On the words: Before whom I stand, see notes on 1Ki 17:1; 1Ki 18:15.Elisha demands (2Ki 3:15) a minstrel or harp-player, certainly not that he might chant the reply of God to the accompaniment of the harp (J. D. Michaelis), nor in order to pronounce his directions with a sufficiently solemn tone (Knobel). Bleek observes: The recitations of the prophets were, in early times, very lively, in a lyrical form of composition, and, as is generally the case with respect to the recitation of lyrical poetry, accompanied by music; the accompaniment in this case, then, was most probably the mode of prophetic recitation, which was not unusual at the time. But there is no mention in any other place of any such method, and it is impossible to appeal to 1Sa 10:5, according to which an entire band of the prophets came out with drum and flute and harp. That only proves that music was practised in the prophet-communities. It is also certain that Elishas master, Elijah, did not cause his recitations or speeches to be accompanied by music. The extraordinary means, which does not occur again in the story of Elisha, presupposes an extraordinary occasion therefor. In ancient times harp-music was often employed as a means of withdrawing the soul from the outer world, and of collecting, quieting, and elevating it. Among the numerous places which Bochart (Hieroz. i. 2. 44) collected upon this point, it may suffice to quote here only one. Cicero (Tusc. 4.) says that the Pythagoreans were accustomed mentes suas a cogitationum intentione cantu fidibusque ad tranquillitatem trducere. Cf. also 1Sa 16:16, and Clericus remarks on the place. Elishas dissatisfaction, which he expresses in 2Ki 3:13-14, although it was natural and just, was, nevertheless, not the disposition of soul which is demanded if one is to hear the voice of God within. The situation, the encampment, and the entire surroundings were unadapted for composure and elevation of soul for we find that the prophets usually received their revelations in retirement and quiet, not in the noise and bustle of the world. In order that he may be brought into the right disposition, may direct his inner self entirely towards the Lord, and may be able to surrender himself to the higher influence, Elisha makes use of the usual means, probably the one which was regularly employed for this purpose in the schools of the prophets, and indeed not without success, for during the playing upon the harp, the hand of the Lord came upon him. Cf. notes on 1Ki 18:46 (Jer 1:9).
2Ki 3:17. For thus saith the Lord, &c. According to Thenius we must identify the valley where they were to dig ditches in order to collect the water, which otherwise would have run quickly away, with what is to-day called Wady el Ahsy, which is the natural boundary of Moab on the south (Isa 15:7), and from which several ravines run up into the mountain region of Moab [Robinson 2:112, 157]. The prophecy itself, 2Ki 3:17-19, contains a climax in its two members: The Lord will not only save you out of the present need, but he will also grant you glorious victory over Moab. The words in the 19th verse are not a command, as 2Ki 3:16 is: they only declare what will occur. For this reason, in the first place, it is impossible to charge the prophet with commanding what Deu 20:19 sq. forbids; but, besides that, the place in Deut. refers to the conquest of Canaan, during which no fruit-tree was to be used for palisades or fortifications in sieges. To mar every good piece of land with stones, means to throw so many stones upon it that it would no longer be available for cultivation (Sept.: ). (2Ki 3:20) has the same meaning as in 1Ki 18:29; 1Ki 18:36. The interpretation which Von Gerlach and Keil give to this statement, that on account of the morning sacrifice offered in the temple at Jerusalem, according to the Law, God turned His favor once more upon the people, goes too far. The statement can scarcely be more than a mere designation of time, i.e., as it became light. Before the exile time was not defined by hours. Nevertheless, a reference may lie in it to the fact that help came just at the moment of time sacred to Jehovah. The express mention that there came water by way of Edom, makes the supposition inadmissible that, in digging the ditches (2Ki 3:16), the fresh springs bubbled up under the feet of the laborers (Krummacher), or that we must think of subterranean cisterns (Richter). A much more probable explanation is that a great shower fell at some distance from the Israelitish encampment (Josephus even asserts: three days journey from it), or a kind of a cloud-burst (water-spout) took place, by which the wady was filled all at once, although the Israelites did not notice the wind, which always arises before a rain-storm, in the Orient, nor see the rain itself (Keil).
2Ki 3:21. And when all the Moabites heard, &c. In order to await the attack on their own mountainsthat is, in an excellent positionthe Moabites had stationed themselves, with all their military force, on the frontier. The morning sun arising with a red light, caused the water to appear red, besides which the water itself was reddened by the red earth of Edom (Ewald). That they took it for blood was not, as the older interpreters supposed, a mistake which was brought about by God in a miraculous manner, but a perfectly natural error, into which they would fall all the more readily as they knew very well that there was no water in that desert. The supposition also, which they express in the 23d verse, is not by any means far-fetched, since similar events often occurred (2Ch 20:23; Jdg 7:22); and they well knew what jealousy existed between Israel and Judah, and the inclination of Edom to throw off the yoke of the latter (Gerlach). This supposition rose to a certainty in their eagerness for booty. The sentence in 2Ki 3:25 from to is to be joined with the commencement of the verse: and they beat down the cities. (What comes between describes the devastation of the land, which also had an influence on the cities.) Accordingly can only be understood in its real sense of actual wall-stones, and not of cliffs or rock, and the suffix on this word-refers to and not to Moab (Thenius). The city Kir Hareseth is the same which is called Kir Moab, (Isa 15:1), and Kir Heres, [Isa 16:1; cf. Jer 48:31; Jer 48:36). It was the capital city, the most important, perhaps the only fortification in the country, built upon a high, steep, chalk-cliff (Keil), now called Kerak, and provided with a fort [see Robinson, ii. 66], (Winer, R.-W.-B., i. s. 658 sq.). The are not those who applied siege-engines (Grotius: tormentarii), but slingers, in the common meaning of the word, funditores, who shot at the garrison upon the walls.Unto the king of Edom, i.e., toward the side where the king was with his subjects, either because this seemed to be the weakest part of the besieging force (Thenius), or because they hoped that they could most easily draw away the Edomite contingent from the allied army (Ewald).
2Ki 3:27. Then he took his eldest son, &c. Many take these words with the Rabbis, thus: During the sortie against the king of Edom, Mesha captured his son and offered him as a sacrifice. This occasioned such bitterness among the Edomites that they refused to continue the fight, and thereby compelled Israel to give up the war altogether and withdraw. This interpretation is decidedly false. The passage, Amo 2:1, to which reference is made to support it, refers to an entirely different event, which is not known to us more particularly. Amos, who lived, moreover, one hundred years later, there announces to the Moabites the avenging judgment of God, because they had burned the bones of the king of Edom into lime. In this case, however, the question is in regard to a son of the king, who was offered as a living sacrifice. The bones of the dead were never burned as a sacrifice, and captive kings or their sons, although they were sometimes executed out of revenge, were never sacrificed to the gods. Even in the darkest heathenism, sacrifice was always an offering of that which was nearest and dearest, and it was considered efficient only in so far as it was such. This is the case especially in respect to the child-offerings of western Asia. It was a custom among the ancients, says Philo, in the Phnician History (Euseb. Prep. Evang. iv. 16) . So also, in this case, Mesha sacrificed, in order to avert the threatening destruction, his first-born son, who should have succeeded him upon the throne; i.e., the dearest and most precious thing which he had, not to the God of Israel (Josephus and Grotius), but to the Moabitish War-god, Chemosh (cf. on 1Ki 11:7). (Cf. on human sacrifices, Symbol. des Mos. Cultus, ii. s. 241; Movers, Die Relig. der Phniz. s. 299, sq.) That the son also, for his part, willingly yielded himself to death for his fatherland (Ewald), is not in the text, and is in itself very improbable. The sacrifice was offered upon the wall, in order that the besiegers might see it, and fear the divinity, who might now be supposed to be appeased.
2Ki 3:27. And there was great indignation in Israel, &c. This sentence, on account of its curt-ness and brevity, is quite obscure and difficult Its meaning has been taken in different ways Most of the expositors, citing the same phrase Num 1:53; Num 18:5 (comp. with Lev 17:11); Jos 9:20; Jos 22:20; 2Ch 19:10; 2Ch 24:18, think of divine wrath or a divine judgment, and give as the meaning: As a result of this abominable action, which is so strictly forbidden in the Law (Lev 18:21; Lev 20:3), and to which the allied army had compelled the king of Moab, there came a divine judgment upon Israel, so that they withdrew without subjugating Moab (Keil). There is no objection to this in the usage of the language; but the context is decidedly opposed to it. The divine [wrath] is, in all the places mentioned above, the result of a definite guilt on the part of Israel; in this case, however, there is not a word to the effect that Israel had incurred guilt. That which had been brought about by the allied army, had taken place as the prophet had foretold (2Ki 3:18 sq.), and he had represented it as an especially great assistance of God. When, then, the king of Moab did something of his own accord which the Law strenuously forbade, that was his guilt and not Israels. On the hypothesis proposed, the withdrawal of the army, which was a piece of good fortune for him, would have been even a reward for his abominable crime, instead of being the punishment which he deserved, whereas the punishment would have fallen upon guiltless Israel. Moreover, in what did the heavy judgment of God against Israel consist? The text contains not a syllable in regard to any plague or calamity. These expositors are therefore compelled to take as meaning human anger (dissatisfaction, resentment, bitterness), in which sense it occurs, Ecc 5:17 [Hbr. text, 16]; Est 1:18, and as is so often found (Gen 40:2; Gen 41:10; Exo 16:20; Lev 10:16;Num 31:14). Many expositors, then, give to the words this sense, that on account of this shocking crime, there sprang up, in the kings of Judah and Edom, a great wrath or resentment against Israel and its king, as original cause of the war, and therefore of the crime, so that they would not fight any longer with and for Israel, but withdrew, and so compelled Israel to do the same (Dereser). It is not right, however, to fill out the text in this manner; and nothing justifies us in understanding under here, simply the army of Jehoram. We therefore follow the old translations, according to which is not, as it is generally understood, a designation of the object, but of the subject of the anger. The Sept. have: ; the Vulgata has: et facta est indignatio magna in Israel; so also the Syr. and Arab., and Luther in like manner: da ward Israel sehr zornig (Grotius, Clericus, Thenius). stands in a similar use 2Ki 3:15; Jer 8:18; Jon 2:7 [Hbr. text, 8], and often. According to Psa 106:37-39, by the sacrifice of sons and daughters the whole land was covered with blood-guilt, and was rendered impure and accursed. In the present instance this took place by the sacrifice of the first-born son of the king, which the ruler of the land himself offered. They did not wish to remain any longer in such a country, on account of their horror at this deed; they preferred to renounce further possession of it. The words: They departed from him and returned to their own land, certainly do hot mean to say: The end of the expedition was attained, and the land was forced back under the sceptre of the king of Israel again (Krummacher); on the contrary, they gave up the attempt to subjugate Moab by force.
HISTORICAL AND ETHICAL
1. The brief and general description of the reign of Jehoram brings out into prominence, as characteristic of it, two points. In the first place, that this king removed the statue of Baal, which had been erected by his father Ahab, then, however, that he clung all the more decidedly to the Calf-worship of Jeroboam. From the first statement it does not by any means follow, as has often been assumed, that he abolished the Baal-worship altogether (Winer, R.-W.-B. i. s., 599), for, according to chap 10, this worship endured yet throughout his entire reign, and Jehu was the first who put an end to it. It appears, therefore, that he only broke with the worship of Baal for himself, asking, and meant to declare publicly, by the removal of the statue, that the worship of Baal was not the prevailing state-religion. This was, at all events, a step towards improvement, yet without especial value; for, if the fear of the living God of Israel, and the conviction of the absolute repulsiveness of idol-worship had led him to this course, then he could not possibly have allowed idolatry to continue in its complete development. That he persevered so firmly in maintaining the institutions of Jeroboam, was brought about by the same cause as in the case of all his predecessors: the existence of the kingdom, separate from Judah, was conditioned upon these institutions (see 1 Kings 12. Hist. 1). It is therefore very probable that they were rather political motives and considerations than anything else which prompted him to the removal of the statue. By means of Elijah and the schools of the prophets, a large portion, and that, too, the best portion, of the people had already been won over to a disposition hostile to the worship of Baal, so that from that side danger might arise for the house of Ahab, which had introduced this worship of idols, as, in fact, at a later time, this danger became a reality through Jehu (chap. 9). Jehoram, therefore, for his own part, renounced the worship of Baal, and desisted from all persecutions of the opponents of the same; but he still tolerated it for the sake of his mother, the fanatically idolatrous Jezebel, if for no other reason. His policy of government was therefore a half-way one, and for that reason an ineffective one. Indecision, want of firmness, and a disposition to do everything only half-way, are the characteristics which present themselves prominently, in many ways, throughout his entire behavior, as will be shown still further, below.
2. King Jehoshaphat appears here just as in 1 Kings 22. He yielded to the request of Jehoram, in spite of the unsuccessful results of his undertakings with Ahab and Ahaziah, and in spite of the warning of the prophet Jehu not to help the apostates (2Ch 19:2), probably influenced by the conviction that the war against rebellious Moab was a necessary and just one, and was also in the interest of Judah. The restless Moabites had always had a disposition hostile to all the people of Israel (Deu 23:4-6). They had already once entered into an alliance with the Ammonites against Jehoshaphat (2 Chronicles 20), and were, therefore, dangerous neighbors for Judah: to permit them to become independent would have been only to make this danger greater. It was in the highest degree important for both kingdoms, on general principles, to hold the different kings who had been tributary since Davids time in subjection, since every defection or rebellion which succeeded would only have encouraged and stimulated to another. The restoration of the ancient greatness and glory of the united kingdom, which Jehoshaphat was striving for (see above on 1Ki 22:41 sq.), would have become more and more improbable. His behavior during the expedition stands in strong contrast with that of Jehoram. The latter does not know what to do in the time of need; he mourns and complains despairingly, while Jehoshaphat, the god-fearing, does not lose dignity and composure; he desires that the Lord should be inquired of, and he relies upon His help and counsel. The old expositors thought that he ought to have inquired of the Lord before the expedition, and that it was because he did not do this that he too came into so great distress. But Elisha is so far from giving utterance to any blame against him, that he declares, on the other hand, that it is only on his account that he is willing to, and will, answer and give counsel. The tendency of the whole story is to show how Jehovah, for the sake of the one king who is faithful to Him, saves the two others, in order that both they and the entire army may see that this God alone is mighty, and that victory comes from Him (Psa 62:11 [Hebrews 12]; Pro 21:31).
3. We see Elisha here, for the first time, step out face to face with kings, and interfere in the fortunes of the entire nation. Here too he maintains himself as one on whom Elijahs spirit rests (2Ki 2:15), and not alone as the one who had poured water on his hands. Without the orders or the knowledge of the king, he joins the toilsome expedition, and shares all the dangers of the army, by no means from soldier like passion for war, or from compulsion, but from prophetical zeal, in order that he may bear witness, by word and deed, to the God of Israel, His power and faithfulness, wherever and however circumstances might demand. Now, when need and distress occur, and the three kings and their train, Jehoram at the head, come to him, he knows nothing of fear, he neither allows himself to be overawed or terrified, nor does he feel himself honored and flattered; but he steps forth to meet the wavering king firmly and independently, as Elijah had once gone to meet Ahab (1Ki 18:18), and rebukes his sins, so that the king stands before him, as it were, with fettered hands, feels himself smitten, and begs that the prophet will not repel him, at least for the sake of the two other kings. Kster (Die Propheten des Alt. Test. s. 86) asserts that the prophet appears here, under the control of unspiritual pride and anger, to profit by the distress of the king, in order to hurt his feelings deeply, and that his conduct cannot be entirely justified; but he mistakes entirely the nature and position of the prophetical calling in Israel, in regard to which that holds true, which was said to Jerem. (2Ki 1:9 sq.): Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth. See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out and to pull down, and to destroy and to throw down, to build and to plant, and to Ezekiel (2Ki 3:17): Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore hear the warning from my mouth and give them warning from me. It is just on account of this directly divine calling that the prophecy of the Israelites stands as unparalleled in the world as the chosen people itself. Not of their own will or power did the holy men speak, but moved by the Holy Ghost (2Pe 1:21). In the case of Elisha it would have been impossible ever to say that the spirit of his master Elijah rested upon him, if he had fulfilled the desire of that king who clung firmly to the calf-worship, and at the same time tolerated idolatry, without saying to him a single word of rebuke. The reproof of Elisha deserves besides to be considered in another aspect. Ewald (Geschichte des V. Isr. iii. s. 487, 3d ed. s. 525) asserts: There is not a single sign from which it appears that Elijah and his school made war upon this image-worship (i.e., that introduced by Jeroboam) in any such powerful manner as Hosea did at a later time. On the contrary, the opposite of this appears true, in the case where this school reaches its final aim, namely, at the re-establishment of the constitution of the kingdom by Jehu (2Ki 10:31). He also goes on to say that, even if Elijah himself was not favorable to the image-worship, yet in his time there was no controversy about it in the kingdom of the ten tribes, but that it was allowed to endure among the people. Duncker (Gesch. des Alterthums, i. s. 404) goes still further. He perceives in the worship of Jeroboams calf-image a national reaction against the foreign worships which Solomon had introduced, nay, even the establishment of the Jehovah-worship, and then says: That those images did not shock the feelings of the people at that time, and did not give offence to the then existing measure of religious culture, is proved by the circumstance that such honored prophets as Elijah and Elisha had no objection to make to them. These assertions find their direct contradiction in this reproof of Elisha to Jehoram. Jehoram was no idolater, he had even removed the statue of Baal which his father had set up. All the more firmly, however, did he cling to the cultus which had been introduced by Jeroboam (2Ki 3:2-3). In like manner the prophets of Ahab, whom Elisha here definitely distinguishes from the prophets of Jezebel, were no idol-worshippers, as 1 Kings 22. shows, but they were false prophets of Jehovah (belonging to Jeroboams cultus). When now Elisha, nevertheless, assails the king so severely, when he then declares solemnly, in answer to the prayer of the king, that he will not repulse him, that he will respond to this prayer, not for the king of Israels sake, but for the sake of Jehoshaphat, who was not addicted to the image-worship, then nothing is clearer than that he made war mightily not only upon the Baal-worship, but also upon the worship of the calf-image. How could Elijah, the re-establisher of the organic law of Israel, the second Moses, and his successor Elisha, have been so zealous against the transgression of one Mosaic commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me, and then, on the other hand, have overlooked and allowed to pass without rebuke that other commandment which stands beside it and is most closely connected with it: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image (see 1 Kings 12. Hist. 1)? [It is a very remarkable fact that Elijah and Elisha say nothing about the Jehovah-calf-worship. The nation may have been so devoted to Baal-worship at this time that the calf-worship did not deserve attention. If there is any reference to that worship in this rebuke of Jehoram, which is very doubtful indeed, then, to say the least, it is a very indirect and indifferent reference, not by any means in the style of Elijah or Elisha. When they had anything to condemn we find that they did it without circumlocution or innuendo. Even if we recognised in this rebuke a reference to the calf-worship, the difficulty would scarcely be lessened: Why did he not explicitly condemn this worship? Why do we find no direct reference to it in his recorded words?W. G. S.]
4. The prophecy of Elisha forms the central point of the whole story; by the fulfilment of it he is confirmed, before the three kings of the entire army, as man of God and prophet. Although the fulfilment of this prophecy did not induce Jehoram to desist from his course (2Ki 3:3), yet it seems to have accomplished this much in his case, that he abstained from all persecution of the prophetdid not dare to behave towards him as Ahab had done towards Elijah, but took up a friendly disposition towards him (cf. 2Ki 4:13), and from that time on allowed him to reside at Samaria in peace (2Ki 5:24). To reduce this prophecy to a mere foreboding or presentiment, would be to make of the prophet a dreamer and a hero of mere thoughtless daring, and to cut out the nerve of the entire narrative, which even Thenius reckons among the purely historical portions of these books; for it is evidently incorporated in the historical record before us, for the sake of this prophecy. Elisha needed for a mere supposition or presentiment no harp-player, who should raise him into a higher state of mind, and yet no one can call this feature of the story legendary or unhistorical; it is described rather as in the highest degree characteristic of the more ancient Israelite prophecy (Eisenlohr). He intended, then, to prophesy and to have his promises regarded, not as his own opinion but as divine revelation. This circumstance by itself contradicts the rationalistic explanation, which is again repeated by Knobel (Der Prophet, der Heb. ii. s. 95): Elisha was a distinguished master in the knowledge of nature, for the times in which he lived. In this character he appears when he commands the soldiers, who are suffering for want of water, to dig ditches upon ditches, and thus procures them a rich supply. He seems to have recognised in the district the signs that it contained water, while these signs escaped the notice of those who were less instructed. In order to perceive that the locality contained water, or, in general, in order to make use of his remarkable knowledge of nature, he did not need harp-music; he could do all that without music. If he, however, demanded music when he really relied upon his knowledge of nature, he sinks to the level of a mere wizard. It has been inferred, not without justice, from this passage in connection with 1Sa 10:5, that, as was remarked above, music was practised in the schools of the prophets. It must, therefore, have been regarded as an essential means for withdrawing the soul from the external world, and for disposing it to divine things, so that they ascribed to it, as a gift of God, great value. This reminds us involuntarily of Luthers declaration (Luth. Werke, von Walch, xxii. s. 2062, 2248 sq.): One of the finest and noblest gifts of God is music. This is very hostile to Satan, and with it we may drive off many temptations and evil thoughts..
After theology, I give the next place and highest honor to music.. It has often aroused and moved me, so that. I have won a desire to preach.. I have always loved music. He who is master of this art is always well disposed and ready for anything which may arise. Music must necessarily be retained in the schools (N. B. in the higher, so-called Latin schools, exist). A schoolmaster must be able to sing, or not in the common schools, which did not then else I do not esteem him. We ought not to ordain young men to the office of preacher if they have not trained themselves and practised [singing] in the schools.
5. The salvation of the Israelitish army from the destruction which threatened it did not consist in a miracle which overruled the laws of nature, but only in this, that God caused the powers of nature, which He had prepared, to work in the manner which He had foreordained. As the abundance of water which suddenly presented itself was brought about in a natural way by a sudden flood of rain at a distance, so the illusion also, which was so ruinous to the Moabites, is to be explained in the natural manner which is stated in the text (Keil). [The inference would be more just to say that, as the Moabites mistake is explained in a natural way in the text, so we are justified in adopting a natural explanation of the supply of water.W. G. S.] Nevertheless this salvation of the army belongs to that series of extraordinary events which have their foundation in the selection of the Israelites to be the chosen people, and which bear witness to their especial, divine direction and guidance. The Old Testament knows nothing whatever of the difference between absolute and relative, or direct and indirect miracles. Every act of God in which there is revealed an especial, divine guidance and providence, especially a helping and saving might and grace of God, is called a miracle (Psa 9:1 [Hebrews 2]; Psa 71:17; Psa 72:18; Psa 77:11 [Hebrews 12]; Psa 136:4). In this sense the action before us is also a miracle, which had for its object not only to confirm Elisha as prophet, but also to serve the end that all Israel, and especially its king, who was tolerating idolatry, should perceive that Jehovah alone is God, and should confess, with the psalmist: Thou art the God that doest wonders; thou hast declared thy strength among the people (Psa 77:14). This act of God is great enough in itself, and does not need to be made greater, as it is by Krummacher: Without delay they follow the counsel of the prophet and dig out the trenches. Hardly, however, is the sand penetrated when, oh! marvel to relate! the fresh springs of water bubble forth beneath the feet of the laborers, or as it was by the old expositors, who assumed that God had miraculously influenced the eyes and imaginations of the Moabites (Menochius, Tostatus, and others).
6. The departure of the Israelitish army in consequence of the human sacrifice of the king of Moab, whether we understand by , ver 21, human or divine anger and dissatisfaction, is a very remarkable sign of the difference between the fundamental opinions of the Israelites and of the heathen. Whereas, among almost all heathen peoples, sacrifice culminates in human sacrifice, and this is considered the most holy and most effective, in the Mosaic system, on the other hand, it is regarded as the greatest and most detestable abomination in the sight of God. It is forbidden, not merely from considerations of humanity, but also because, as the Law declares with especial emphasis, the sanctuary of the Lord is thereby defiled, and His holy name (see notes on 1 Kings 6). is profaned (Lev 20:1-5; Lev 18:21). Human sacrifice stands in the most glaring contradiction to the revelation of God as the Holy One, in which character he was known in Israel alone; hence it was to be punished, without respite, by death (cf. Symb. d. Mos. Kult. ii. s. 333). From the preceding narrative we see how deep roots the detestation of human sacrifice had struck in the conscience of the people. Neither the cultus founded by Jeroboam, nor that of Baal, which Ahab had imported, with all its barbarism, had been able even to weaken this detestation. It was still so strong that a victorious army allowed itself to be led thereby to withdraw again from a land it had already subdued. Von Gerlach remarks, with justice: This occurrence serves at the same time as a strong proof that Jephthahs sacrifice of his daughter (Judges 11) cannot be understood literally. On the contrary, Ewald infers (Gesch. iii. p. 518, 3d ed. 558) from this very narrative that Israel at that time yet, for a great part, in its views of the subject of sacrifice, did not reach above or beyond the heathen conceptions, for the ancient Canaanitic sacrifice still had the intended effect upon the people, as if Jehovah himself were angry with the Israelites for having forced the king to this bold and horrible deed, so that the army, impelled by dumb horror, abandoned the fortress and commenced a retreat. But, apart from, the fact that the text does not in the least force us to take of the wrath of God, this acceptation is opposed to the promise of the prophet, 2Ki 3:18-19. For, according to that, it was Jehovah himself who helped Israel to take possession of the whole country, and to pursue the king to his capital. How then could they come to the opinion that the same Jehovah was now full of hard bitterness against Israel, which, after all, had only done what He himself had caused His prophet to promise them as His own act? It was not the supposed exasperation of Jehovah at the great victory of Israel which incited the army to return, but the conviction that the conquest and possession of the city over which so heavy blood-guilt and, at the same time, so severe a curse, was hanging, could not be either good-fortune or blessing for Israel. As for the act of Mesha itself, it does not indeed belong to the most memorable signs of what a king can dare for his people, which has only just won its freedom (Ewald, l. c.); it is rather a sign of a barbarism which violated all feeling of humanity, which was more than brutal, and in the highest degree detestable, on the part of a king who is so cowardly that, instead of fighting to the last as a brave soldier, and risking his own life for the sake of his first-born son, the future leader of his people, he puts him to death, rather than continue to pay as a tribute sheep and wool of rams (2Ki 3:4) from his great wealth of flocks. In his case, the thing at stake was not so much the freedom of his people as his own freedom from a yearly tax, payable in kind. [See note under Homilet. and Pract. on 2Ki 3:21-25.]
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
2Ki 3:1-3. Berleb. Bib.: He did that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord, and many thousands do that with him, who nevertheless sing: God has pleasure in us. If we do not remain in the footsteps of our fathers and ancestors, yet we do not, at best, go far from them. If we perceive that a reformation or an improvement is necessary, then we are glad to let it rest at the first stage. We satisfy ourselves so easily, if we are only like father or mother, or a wicked elder brother, and do not disregard all scruples quite so much as others. Whether God is satisfied with that, however, or not, and whether He gives us the testimony of a good conscience in regard to it, about that we do not trouble ourselves. If we do in truth tear down a statue of Baal or two, and adhere nevertheless to the sins of Jeroboam and to his calf-images, [i.e.] to those ordinances which, for political reasons, have been introduced and established in the Church, contrary to the will of the Lord, what will it help us?J. Lange: Those are also to be accounted godless rulers, who do indeed ordain something good here and there, or abolish something bad, and perceive still more which their duty would require them to remove, but cannot bring themselves to do it, from motives of policy which are not pure, or pleasing to God. He who, for himself, abstains from that which is opposed to Gods word and commandment, but continues to tolerate it in those who are connected with him, or subject to him, shows thereby that he is not in earnest in his own obedience to God, and that his principles are deduced only from external considerations and relations.
2Ki 3:4-27. The War of Israel with the Moabites. (a) The cause of it, and the preparation for it; (b) the danger of perishing; (c) the result.
2Ki 3:4. Cramer: When kings and lords fall away from God, then their subjects must fall away from them; and when the fathers are disobedient to God, the children and servants must also be disobedient to them, for their punishment, for with the froward, God shows himself froward [perverse]. (Psa 18:26 [Hbr. 27]).
2Ki 3:5. It was not on account of poverty and need and oppressive subjection that Mesha threw off his obligations (he was very rich) and rebelled, but from avarice and arrogance. Those are still the ordinary motives to insurrection and rebellion in individual instances, or among entire nations. The very ones who have much are often most inclined to divest themselves of their obligations.
2Ki 3:6-8, cf. above, under Hom. and Pract. on 1Ki 22:4. Osiander: When the unbelieving and wicked need the help of the pious, they tempt them with friendly words: secretly, however, they behave in a hostile manner towards them.Cramer: Covenants between believers and unbelievers are dangerous.
2Ki 3:8. A mans heart deviseth his way; but the Lord directeth his steps (Pro 16:9). Therefore, Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths (Pro 3:5-6; cf. Jam 4:13-15).By which way shall we go up? Only the narrow way leads upward, only upon this is the Lord with us (Mat 7:13-14).
2Ki 3:9-12. Krummacher: The Expedition against Moab. (a) The distress of the kings; (b) the seek refuge with the prophet.
2Ki 3:9. Cramer: If God did not let us sometimes fall into necessity and want, we should not often think of His word and His servants (Psa 67:2-3 [Hebrews 3, 4]).
2Ki 3:10-11. In need and distress the state of a mans heart is brought to light. Jehoram falls into despair, he does not know what counsel to take, nor how to help himself; instead of seeking the Lord and calling to Him for help, he accuses Him, and casts the reproach upon Him that He means to destroy three kings at once. In prosperity and in days of good fortune, resisting, and building upon human wisdom and power: in time of need, forthwith despairing and helplessthat is the disposition of the heart of the natural man who does not know the living God, or, at least, knows Him only by name. Jehoshaphat, who had always bent his heart to seek God (2Ch 19:3), does not wring his hands in despair, but is quiet and composed. He thinks within himself: The Lord has neither now, nor ever, withdrawn himself from His people. Therefore he trusts, and asks: Is there no prophet of the Lord here? He that dwelleth in the secret place, &c. (Psa 91:1-2).Krummacher: Jehoshaphat falls into the same calamity with Jehoram. He who goes hand in hand with the godless, and makes common cause with them, must be contented if he is cast to the earth at the same time with them, when the lightning strikes their house.Servants often know more and better where and with whom Gods word, consolation, and counsel are to be found than their masters, who, however, ought to inquire into this before all others.
2Ki 3:12. The word of the Lord is with him. It is the right testimony and the best one, when it can be said of a servant of God: He does not preach himself, his own, or other mens wisdom; his words are not sounding brass nor tinkling cymbal, but a hammer which breaks rocks in pieces, and an ointment which heals wounds.Wrt. Summ.: So long as men are free from distress and danger, they ask nothing about the poor ministers of the Gospel, they take no notice of them, they wish to have nothing to do with them, they throw their faithful warning to the winds; but when an accident or a death occurs, then they are glad to see the despised preacher, and they desire to make use of his services and of his prayers.Three kings descend from their elevation and come humbly and with petitions to the man who once was a servant of Elijah, and poured water over his hands, of whom they had not even known so much as that he had joined the expedition. Him who is proud He can humble (Dan 4:34). He raiseth up the lowly from the dust, that He may seat him by the side of princes (1Sa 2:4; 1Sa 2:7). So now emperors and kings bow the knee before Him, who came to His own and His own received Him not, who did not have a place to lay His head, who was so despised that people covered their faces before Him, and they confess, to the glory of God, that He is the Lord.
2Ki 3:13-19. Krummacher: The Miraculous Assistance. (a) Elishas address to the three Kings; (b) the minstrel; (c) the prophets counsel.Elisha before the three Kings as the one who stands in the Presence of the Lord. (a) His zeal for the Lord; (b) his independence and fearlessness; (c) his prophecy. (See Historical, 3.)
2Ki 3:13. Starke: Upright servants of God have an unterrified independence, and speak the truth distinctly to the face of the great as well as of the humble (1Ki 18:18).Elisha stood before the Lord, the living God; Jehoram before the calf-god. That was not only a difference in religious views and opinions, but also an entirely different stand-point in life. Where there is a life in God, there there can be no fellowship with those who have denied and abandoned the living God; the two ways diverge directly and decidedly (2Co 6:15). The relation in which a man stands to God is decisive for his relation to other men; it divides him from some by a separation which is just as wide as the communion into which it brings him with others is close.The children of this world have their prophets, whom they gladly hear because they speak just what the ears of their hearers are itching to hear. These prophets are to be found not only in the priestly class, but also among civilians, among poets, and learned men, in professorial chairs, and on the lecturers platform. It is true of them to-day: Thy friends have set thee on and have prevailed against thee: thy feet are sunk in the mire, and they are turned away back (Jer 38:22; Isa 3:12). When thy conscience awakes and thy sin torments thee, go to them and ask them, they have no consolation but that of the high-priest, Mat 27:4. When thy soul is saddened, even unto death, go and ask them; that which belongs to thy peace in time and in eternity they cannot give thee, for they themselves have not peace.
2Ki 3:14. He who has renounced God and His word can make no claim to esteem, even though he be a king; fidelity to God and holding fast to His word are what make a man truly estimable, even though he were the poorest and lowliest.God does not let the righteous perish with the unrighteous and godless (Gen 18:25); it rather comes to pass that, for the sake of a single righteous man, many godless persons are saved and preserved (Gen 39:5), in order that they may give up their habits and may turn to that God who is rich in compassion and grace, and who wishes, by kindness, to lead sinners to repentance.
2Ki 3:15. Since a prophet like Elisha called for harp-music, and was thereby brought into a state of mind which was fitted to receive divine revelations, therefore we may and ought to regard music as a gift of God, which is given to us that we may thereby elevate our hearts and bring them into a holy disposition. It is lack of understanding and lack of gratitude to exclude it from the Church. The Scriptures say: Praise the Lord with harp, &c. (Psa 33:2-3). Whoever sings and makes melody unto the Lord in his heart will do it also with his mouth and with his hands.Like every other gift of God which is given us for our salvation and blessing, music also can be abused: It is a dangerous art, this mover of souls, when it is employed in the service of the world, of vanity, and of sin (Krummacher).The world also often exclaims: Bring me a minstrel! not, however, in order to lift up the heart (sursum corda) and to soothe the soul, but rather to fan the fire of the smouldering passions into a flame, and to awaken the fleshly lusts that war against the soul.
2Ki 3:16-19. The great Promise of Elisha. (a) Its contents; (b) its aim and object.The Lord gives beyond what we pray for, beyond what we understand; He not only saves from need and danger, but He also gives the victory besides, out of pure, undeserved grace. That is the fundamental feature of all divine promises. The Lord not only does not deal with us according to our sins, but He gives us, besides that, the victory, through Him in whom all promises are yea! and amen! (2Co 1:20).
2Ki 3:21-25. The Fall of Moab a divine Vengeance upon fleshly Secureness and Pride, upon Avarice and Covetousness. This is written for the warning of individuals as well as of peoples. [This interpretation of the rebellion of Moab, as the result of avarice, or perhaps, more strictly speaking, of niggardliness, is not justified by the text, and could not fairly be presented in a homiletical treatment of the passage. We have not far to search for the cause of revolt. A nation which is tributary to another may well have other and nobler reasons for rebellion than to save the amount of the tribute. We have no reason for imputing any baser motivest to the Moabites. They may have been influenced by baser ones, but, so long as that is not even hinted at in the text, it is not a legitimate subject for homiletical treatment. The inscription referred to in the Exeg. notes on 2Ki 3:4 is very valuable as giving a glimpse of the relations between Moab and Israel at this time from the other side.W. G. S.]Cramer: When God is about to punish any one He first causes him to become secure, proud, bold, and arrogant, then He takes away from him cunning, sense, and understanding, and strikes him with blindness.
2Ki 3:26-27. The disgraceful act of the king of Moab shows how low man can sink and fall when he does not know the living God. By the most abominable crime he thinks that he will do God a service and save himself (Rom 1:28). Even yet human sacrifices occur among the heathen; how much we have to thank the Lord that He has saved us from the power of darkness, and has caused His holy word to enlighten us. Where this light shines, there the night of superstition flees, with all its abominations.Men often offer the hardest outward sacrifice more willingly than they do the inner sacrifice, which alone God demands, and which pleases him (Psa 51:17).
2Ki 3:27. Wrt. Summ.: When we see an abominable crime going on, or hear of it, we ought not to laugh at it, or to feel a pleasure in it, but we ought to loathe it, and turn away from it, that we may not be involved in the punishment, which will certainly come.We must renounce an object or a possession which is stained by bloodguilt and curses, although ever so great temporal advantage may be connected with it. We must renounce it for the sake of God and conscience.
Footnotes:
[1]2Ki 3:3.[, sing-fem. suff. referring to a plural noun, when separated from it by a considerable interval, as in 2Ki 10:26; 2Ki 17:22.
[2]2Ki 3:4.[ is well translated by sheep-master. The word was unintelligible to the Sept., who reproduce it in Greek letters. They add , after the insurrection, a detail which does not seem to be well founded.
[3]2Ki 3:4.[ . The words are best understood as suggested above. So the Sept. ( , either, in lanam, or in tonsuram, Schl.), Thenius, Bunsen, Bhr, and Ewald (Widder, i.e., Vliesze, Wollc). Keil undecided between this and wool of lambs or rams.
[4]2Ki 3:13.[ . The Sept. and Vulg. take this as a question; so also Ewald, 324, b: the same as a question implying fear, and expecting an answer confirmatory of the fear. Keil, Bunsen, Bhr, Thenius, all take it as in the E. V.
[5]2Ki 3:16.[Ew. 328, c, takes as standing for the first person, and compares 1Ki 22:30.
[6]2Ki 3:23.[, they have fought. The hof. inf. abs. is joined with it in the adverbial usage, to be destroyed.W. G. S.]
[7]2Ki 3:24.The keri is no improvement. We can read , as in 1Ki 12:12, where it stands for (Bhr). [The Sept. read , And they went in farther and farther, and smote Moab more and more. Thenius and Bunsen adopt this, and it makes the best sense. is the const. used for the abs.W. G. S.]
[8]2Ki 3:25.[ is infin. as in 1Ki 15:29; cf. also 2Ki 10:11; 2Ki 10:17. Ew. 238, d. (Keil). Frst, in the concordance, takes it as perf. must then be taken for .W. G. S.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
We are here presented with some account of the reign of Jehoram, In an enquiry concerning a quarrel between Israel and Moab, Elisha is commissioned with a gracious message from the Lord to Israel. The Moabites are conquered.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
The account of Jehoram is somewhat more favourable, than that of his father. He put away the image of Baal, it should seem, from his own house and family, but not out of Israel. What a strange thing this is? If he was convinced of the sin and folly in his own house: surely it must have been equally so in Israel. And we find that Jehu, as related in the after part of this history, found the kingdom, overrun with this idol. See 2Ki 10:19 . Moreover, it should seem that those sins which he followed of Jeroboam’s were particularly the worship of the calves in Bethel. 1Ki 12:28 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2Ki 3
1. Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign [lit., reigned] over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years.
2. And he wrought evil [did the evil in the eyes] in the sight of the Lord: but not like his father, and like his mother: for he put away [and he removed] the image [(Heb., “statue”) pillar. Comp. 2Ch 34:4 ] of Baal that his father had made.
3. Nevertheless he cleaved unto the sins of Jeroboam [1Ki 12:28 , seq., 1Ki 16:2 , 1Ki 16:26 ] the son of Nebat, which made Israel to sin; he departed not therefrom [“from it”].
4. And Mesha [” deliverance, salvation”] king of Moab was a sheepmaster, and rendered unto the king of Israel an hundred thousand lambs, and an hundred thousand rams, with the wool.
5. But [And] it came to pass, when Ahab was dead, that the king of Moab rebelled [refused payment of the annual tribute] against the king of Israel.
6. And king Jehoram went out of Samaria the same time [lit., in that day] and numbered [mustered, made a levy of] all Israel.
7. And he went and sent to Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, saying, The king of Moab hath rebelled against me; wilt thou go with me against Moab to battle [or, into Moab to the war]? And he [Jehoram] said, I will go up: I am as thou art, my people as thy people, and my horses as thy horses.
8. And he said, Which way shall we go up? And he answered [said i.e., Jehoshaphat], The way through the wilderness of Edom [a vassal king appointed by Jehoshaphat ( 1Ki 22:48 )].
9. So the king of Israel went, and the king of Judah, and the king of Edom: and they fetched a compass of seven days’ journey: and there was no water for the host, and for the cattle that followed them.
10. And the king of Israel said, Alas! that the Lord hath called these three kings together [omit “together”] to deliver them into the hand of Moab!
11. But [And] Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the Lord, that we may enquire of the Lord by him [same question asked in 1Ki 22:7 ]? And one of the king of Israel’s servants answered and said, Here is Elisha, the son of Shaphat, which poured water on the hands of Elijah.
12. And Jehoshaphat said, The word of the Lord is with him. So the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat and the king of Edom went down to him.
13. And Elisha said unto the king of Israel, What have I to do with thee? get thee to the prophets of thy father [ i.e., the Baal prophets (comp. 1Ki 18:19 ), and false prophets of Jehovah ( 1Ki 22:6-11 ), Elisha’s sarcasm indicates that the former had not been wholly rooted out] and to the prophets of thy mother. And the king of Israel said unto him, Nay [say not so, or, repel me not (comp. Rth 1:13 )]: for the Lord hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab.
14. And Elisha said, As the Lord of hosts liveth, before whom I stand [as a minister (comp. 1Ki 17:1 , 1Ki 18:15 )], surely, were it not that I regard the presence [lift the face (comp. Gen 19:21 ; Gen 32:21 )] of Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, I would not look toward thee, nor see thee.
15. But now bring me a minstrel. And it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him [in some MSS. “the Spirit of the Lord;” but comp. 1Ki 18:46 ].
16. And he said, Thus saith the Lord, Make this valley full of ditches, [lit., pits (comp. Gen 14:10 )].
17. For thus saith the Lord, Ye shall not see wind [which in the East is the usual precursor of rain], neither shall ye see rain; yet that valley shall be filled with water, that ye may drink, both ye, and your cattle, and your beasts.
18. And this is but a light thing in the sight of the Lord: he will deliver the Moabites also into your hand.
19. And ye shall smite every fenced city, and every choice city, and shall fell every good tree [ i.e., fruit-bearing trees], and stop [Gen 26:15 , Gen 26:18 ] all wells of water, and mar [lit., make to grieve, Isa 24:4 ; Jer 12:4 ] every good piece of land with stones.
20. And it came to pass in the morning, when the meat-offering was offered, that, behold, there came water by the way of Edom, and the country was filled with water.
21. And when all the Moabites heard that the kings were come up to fight against them, they gathered [lit., had been summoned, called together ( Jdg 7:23 )] all that were able to [lit., gird himself with a girdle] put on armour, and upward, and stood in the border.
22. And they rose up early in the morning, and the sun shone upon the water, and the Moabites saw the water on the other side as red as blood:
23. And they said, This is blood: the kings are surely slain [Heb., destroyed], and they have smitten one another: now therefore, Moab, to the spoil.
24. And when they came to the camp of Israel, the Israelites rose up and smote the Moabites [who were unprepared for resistance], so that they fled before them: but [or, they smote in it, even smiting] they went forward smiting the Moabites, even in their country.
25. And they beat down the cities, and on every good piece of land cast every man his stone, and filled it; [all this as Elisha foretold ( 2Ki 3:19 )] and they stopped all the wells of water, and felled all the good trees [Heb., until he left the stones thereof in Kir-haraseth]: only in Kir-haraseth left they the stones thereof; howbeit the slingers went about it [surrounded it], and smote it.
26. And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew swords, to break through even unto the king of Edom: but they could not.
27. Then [And] he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great indignation against Israel [or, and great wrath fell upon Israel]: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.
Jehoram and Moab
Jehoram undertakes an expedition against king Mesha, but in doing so he pays a tribute to the power of the king of Moab by allying with himself Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and also the king of Edom. A remarkable character is given of Jehoram. He was not an imitator of the evil of his father as to its precise form, but he had his own method of serving the devil. We should have thought that Ahab and Jezebel had exhausted all the arts of wickedness, but it turns out that Jehoram had found a way of his own of living an evil life. Warned by the untimely fate of his brother, which had fallen upon him expressly on account of his Baal-worship, Jehoram began his reign by an ostentatious abolition of the Phoenician state religion which his father had introduced. Jehoram went back to the olden times and re-established the worship of the calf, after the pattern which Jeroboam its founder had patronised. His doing so, however, he found to be quite compatible with a secret allowance that the people should practise their own form of worship. There is room in wickedness for the exercise of genius of a certain limited kind. The limitation is imposed by wickedness itself, for after all wickedness is made up of but few elements. Many persons suppose that if they do not sin according to the prevailing fashion they are not sinning at all. They imagine that by varying the form of the evil they have mitigated the evil itself. A good deal of virtue is supposed to consist in reprobating certain forms of vice. A man may be no drunkard, according to the usual acceptation of the term, and yet he may be in a continual state of intoxication. It is possible to shudder at what is usually known as persecution, and yet all the while to be beheading enemies and burning martyrs. Jehoram made a kind of trick of wickedness; he knew how to give a twist to old forms, or a turn to old ways, so as to escape part of their vulgarity and yet to retain all their iniquity. A most alarming thought it is to the really spiritual mind that men may become adepts in wickedness, experts in evil-doing, and may be able so to manage their corrupt designs as to deceive many observers by a mere change of surface or appearance. We do not amend the idolatry by altering the shape of the altar. We do not destroy the mischievous power of unbelief by throwing our scepticism into metaphysical phrases, and making verbal mysteries where we might have spiritual illumination. We are deceived by things simply because we ourselves live a superficial life and read only the history of appearances. What is the cure for all this manipulation of evil, this changing of complexion of form, and this consequent imagining that the age is improving because certain phenomena which used to be so patent are no longer discernible on the face of things? We come back to the sublime doctrine of regeneration, as the answer to the great inquiry, What is the cure for this heart-disease? “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.” We may change either the language or the manners of wickedness, or the times and seasons for doing wicked things; we may decorate our wickedness with many beautiful colours, but so long as the heart itself is unchanged, decoration is useless; yea, worse than useless, for it is a vain attempt to make that look true which is false an endeavour even to deceive Omniscience itself.
“And Mesha king of Moab was a sheepmaster, and rendered unto the king of Israel an hundred thousand lambs, and an hundred thousand rams, with the wool. But it came to pass, when Ahab was dead, that the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel” ( 2Ki 3:4-5 ).
The way of the approach having been settled, the kings proceeded to fetch a compass of seven days’ journey round by the south end of the Dead Sea. They little knew the difficulty that would arise in their way. We do not read that they made any religious enquiry at the outset of their journey, and therefore no responsibility could be charged upon God for the misadventure which occurred. The three kings seem to have consulted only with themselves, and to have resolved in their own counsel and strength upon their expedition against Mesha. What was the misadventure which occurred? It is related in the ninth verse: “And there was no water for the host, and for the cattle that followed them.” Even kings are dependent upon nature. Think of three kings, who supposed themselves at least to be very mighty, and all their people, stopped in their career simply for want of water; at how many points does God lay his hand upon us and say, Beyond this limit you cannot go without an acknowledgment of a power higher than your own! Again and again we have seen this in many relations of life. For weeks together we go forward as if a high road had been prepared for us, and, lo! in a moment we come to a place where our thirst reminds us that we want a well or a fountain, and looking round we discover that the whole land is barren, and that no spring invites us to its hospitality. Many men would deny God in religion if they could deny him or get rid of him altogether in nature. There are a thousand ways to church! Even nature becomes a kind of sanctuary when we find it impossible to extract anything from it even by the exercise of our ripest wisdom and completest strength. The barren harvest field is a far more likely place for prayer and supplication than is the field which is rich with the gold of mature wheat. We are more likely to turn an empty barn into a church than a full one. But it is thus through the body that God makes an assault upon the mind. Where there would be no consideration whatever of a religious kind, where circumstances were all favourable, there may be a kind of whimpering as of a coward’s voice when the fig-tree does not blossom and when there is no herd in the stall.
A very pitiable and yet very instructive picture is this of three kings and their armies standing still merely for want of water. The so-called little things of life are often turned into not only things that are great but things that are vital. Blessed indeed would be the man who sees even in natural arrangements and daily providences a call to him to lift up his head towards the heavens, and ask great questions about being and duty and destiny. So we have the usual religious appeal: “Is there not here a prophet of the Lord, that we may enquire of the Lord by him?” ( 2Ki 3:11 ). We put off enquiring of the Lord until the very last, until our lips are so dry that they can hardly open to utter their long-deferred appeal. God has only to pursue what may be termed a negative course of providence in order to bring some men to their senses. The visitations of God may be described as either positive or negative: sometimes he comes in destructive tempests, in devastating epidemics, in cholera, small-pox, and other diseases which mow down the people in hundreds and thousands, and then a great cry goes up from the decimated nation, asking in the name of pity that the tremendous visitation may be withdrawn; sometimes, on the other hand, God adopts a kind of negative treatment of the nation, with a view to testing its quality and purpose, it does not rain, the sun is hidden for many a day, the ground does not bring forth plentifully, the rivers are dried up. What is the consequence of all this negation? Extremes meet: the result of the negative amounts to the same as the result of the positive, emptiness, suffering, desolation, death. There need not be any demonstration of anger on the part of God, as anger is usually under-Stood: he has but to be indifferent to us, to let go his hold of us, to think of us no more, and this negative economy eventuates in our ruin, as certainly as if the Lord had smitten us with swords from heaven, or sent a destroying angel visibly into our midst.
Elisha now assumes a new attitude, and one certainly not destitute of spiritual grandeur. Turning to the king of Israel, he said:
“What have I to do with thee? get thee to the prophets of thy father, and to the prophets of thy mother. And the king of Israel said unto him, Nay: for the Lord hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab” ( 2Ki 3:13 ).
Now we come to a better phase of this history, namely, to the saving element, which appears and reappears in the course of our changeful life. Elisha was not to be placated by the king of Israel. In his eyes a vile person was contemned. The king of Israel was but a poor frail thing in the presence of a man who lived with God and was commissioned to denounce the judgments of heaven against evil. But the world is not made up of Jehorams. Blessed be God, there are men of another type whose very presence saves society from judicial ruin. “And Elisha said, As the Lord of hosts liveth, before whom I stand, surely, were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, I would not look toward thee, nor see thee” ( 2Ki 3:14 ). Now we know that the spirit of Elijah rested upon Elisha! We seem to hear the very tones of the old master in the new disciple. Is it not always so in life that it is one man who saves many: that the ten righteous men save the city, and that Paul saves all those who sail with him in the midst of the tempestuous sea? Your house is saved because of your little child. Your whole estate is protected from ruin because your wife is a praying woman. Your life would be cut off tomorrow in shame and disgrace, were it not that you have entered upon an inheritance of prayers laid up for you by those who went before. Life thus becomes very sacred and very tender, and we know not to whom we are under the deepest obligations. Enough to know that somewhere there is a presence that saves us, there is an influence that guards our life, and that we owe absolutely nothing in the way of security or honour to bad kings or bad men of any name. Wherever is it said, Because of the wickedness of this man society will be spared; or, because of the unfaithfulness of that man the nation will be allowed to continue? Nowhere is good influence attached to wicked policy. Everywhere wickedness goes down under judgment, and is thundered against mightily from heaven; and everywhere God declares that all grace, favour, protection and security must be traced to the presence of some saving element in society. This is a social figure by which we work our way upward to the highest truths. The whole universe itself is saved because of the presence of the Son of God. He “ever liveth to make intercession for us.” Whilst he lives our day of mercy will be continued. When he ascends from his mediatorial throne, the sun of grace is set to rise no more!
The remainder of the chapter is occupied with a prophecy of Elisha, and by a statement of the overthrow of the king of Moab. Nothing now could save Mesha. A strong delusion was sent upon him to believe a lie. When water came down by way of Edom, and the whole country was filled with it, the Moabites rose up early in the morning, and as the sun shone upon the water, the Moabites saw the water on the other side as red as blood. It looked so like blood that they declared it to be blood, and believing” that the kings were slain who had come up against them, the Moabites advanced to the spoil. Alas! they advanced to their ruin. “Therefore shall Moab howl for Moab; every one shall howl: for the foundations of Kir-hareseth shall ye mourn; surely they are stricken.” “My bowels shall sound like an harp for Moab, and mine inward parts for Kir-haresh.” The king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him. In his despair he took with him seven hundred men that drew swords, to break through even unto the king of Edom, but through the iron wall he could net force his way. In his madness he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and flung him for a burnt offering upon the wall. But the Lord will not be pleased with thousands of rams or with ten thousands of rivers of oil, nor will he accept the firstborn for a man’s transgression or the fruit of his body for the sin of his soul. Mark the fate of those who oppose God; even to men who object to the name of God, the word Destiny may come with some force of appeal. Let us say, therefore, in the language of fatalism, How awful a thing it is to attempt to oppose destiny! Who can fight it? who can smite it? who can take the measure of it? Behold, here we are at an utter loss; we are without sense or force or power of adequate treatment. The Christian man, however, objects to the word destiny, except it be associated with the name and providence of the living God; the Christian says, “Who can fight against God?” and again, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God;” and again, “On whomsoever this stone shall fall it shall grind him to powder.” Pitiable at the last will be the spectacle presented by the wicked. They shall call upon the rocks and upon the hills to cover them, but the rocks and the hills will make no reply to their vain appeal. “Behold, he cometh with clouds: and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him.” “They shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.” “They shall say to the mountains, Cover us; and to the hills, Fall on us” how long shall we insist upon opposing God lifting up a puny arm against his omnipotence? Let us hear what shall befall us if we persist in this rebellion of spirit: “When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.” “Howl ye; for the day of the Lord is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty. Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man’s heart shall melt: and they shall be afraid.” Wise men should look out for these final troubles, and not delude themselves with the notion that all things will continue as they are today. “Who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap.” “Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? His fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him.” Let us turn aside from these terrific issues, and find refuge whilst we may. The door of mercy stands open; the throne of grace is yet accessible: “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little.”
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
IX
ELISHA, THE SUCCESSOR OF ELIJAH
2Ki 2:13-13:21
For the sake of unity, this chapter, like the one on Elijah, will be confined to a single person, Elisha, who was the minister, the disciple, and the successor of the prophet Elijah. “Minister” means an attendant who serves another generally a younger man accompanying and helping an older man. A passage illustrating this service 2Ki 3:11 : “Elisha, who poured water on the hands of Elijah.” We may here recall a situation when no wash basin was convenient, and the water was poured on our hands for our morning ablutions. A corresponding New Testament passage is Act 13:5 : “Paul and Barnabas had John Mark to their minister,” that is, the young man, John Mark, attended the two older preachers, and rendered what service he could. Elisha was also a disciple of Elijah. A disciple is a student studying under a teacher. In the Latin we call the teacher magister. Elijah was Elisha’s teacher in holy things. Then Elisha was a successor to Elijah. Elijah held the great office of prophet to Israel, and in view of his speedy departure, God told him to anoint Elisha to be his successor, that is, successor as prophet to the ten tribes.
About four years before the death of Ahab, 800 B.C., Elijah, acting under a commission from God, found Elisha plowing, and the record says, “with twelve yoke of oxen.” I heard a cowman once say that it was sufficient evidence of a man’s fitness to preach when he could plow twelve yoke of oxen and not swear. But the text may mean that Elisha himself plowed with one yoke, and superintended eleven other plowmen. Anyhow, Elijah approached him and dropped his mantle around him. That was a symbolic action, signifying, “When I pass away you must take my mantle and be my successor.” Elisha asked permission to attend to a few household affairs. He called together all the family, and announced that God had called him to a work so life-filling he must give up the farm life and devote himself to the higher business. To symbolize the great change in vocation he killed his own yoke of oxen and roasted them with his implements of husbandry; and had a feast of the family to celebrate his going into the ministry. It is a great thing when the preacher knows how to burn the bridges behind him, and when the family of the preacher recognizes the fulness and completeness of the call to the service of God.
The lesson of this and other calls is that no man can anticipate whom God will call to be his preacher. He called this man from the plow handles. He called Amos from the gathering of sycomore fruit; he called Matthew from the receipt of custom; he called the fishermen from their nets; he called a doctor in the person of Luke. We cannot foretell; the whole matter must be left to God and to God alone, for he alone may put a man into the ministry. I heard Dr. Broadus preach a great sermon on that once: “I thank Christ Jesus, my Lord, for that he hath enabled me and counted me faithful, putting me into this ministry, who was before a blasphemer.”
Elijah served as a prophet fifty-five years. That is a long ministry. There were six kings of Israel before he passed away, as follows: Ahab, Ahaziah, Jehoram, Jehu, Jehoahaz, and Joash. There were five sovereigns of Judah, to wit: Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Athaliah (this one a woman) and Joash. Athaliah was queen by usurpation.
God said to Elijah, “Anoint Elisha to be thy successor; anoint Jehu to be king of Israel, and anoint Hazael to be king of Syria.” Now here were two men God-appointed to the position of king, as this man was to the position of prophet, and we distinguish them in this way: It does not follow that because the providence of God makes a man to be king, that the man is conscious of his divine call, like the one who is called to be a preacher. For instance, he says, “I called Cyrus to do what I wanted done: I know him, though he does not know me.” The lesson is that God’s rule is supreme over all offices. Even the most wicked are overruled to serve his general purposes in the government of the world.
The biblical material for a sketch of Elisha’s life 1Ki 19:16 to 2Ki 13:21 . Elisha means, “God the Saviour.” The Greek form is Elisaios; we find it in the Greek text of Luk 4:27 , where our Lord says, “There were many widows in Israel in the days of Elisaios. ” “Elijah” is Hebrew, and “Elias” is the corresponding Greek word; “Elisha” is Hebrew, and “Elisaios” is the corresponding Greek form.
We will now distinguish between the work of Elijah and Elisha, giving some likenesses and some unlikenesses. In the chapter on Elijah attention has already been called to the one great unlikeness, viz: that Elijah did not live in public sight; he appeared only occasionally for a very short time. Elisha’s whole life was in the sight of the public; he had a residence in the city of Samaria, and a residence at Gilgal; he was continually passing from one theological seminary to another; he was in the palaces of the kings, and they always knew where to find him. He had a great deal to do with the home life of the people, with the public life of the people and with the governmental life of the people. There were some points of likeness in their work, so obvious I need not now stop to enumerate them. Elijah’s life was more ascetic, and his ministry was mainly a ministry of judgment, while Elisha’s was one of mercy.
The New Testament likenesses of these two prophets are as follows: Elijah corresponds to John the Baptist, and Elisha’s ministry is very much like the ministry of Jesus in many respects.
There were many schools of the prophets in the days of Elijah and Elisha. Commencing with Jericho we have one; the next was at Bethel; the third at Gilgal not the Gilgal near Jericho but the one in the hill country of Ephraim and there was one at Mount Carmel. These stretched across the whole width of the country four theological seminaries. The history shows us that Elijah, just before his translation, visited every one of them in order, and that Elisha, as soon as Elijah was translated, visited the same ones in reverse order, and there is one passage in the text that tells us that he was continually doing this.
I think the greatest work of Elisha’s life was this instruction work; it was the most far-reaching; it provided a great number of men to take up the work after he passed away. Indeed the schools of the prophets were the great bulwarks of the kingdom of God for 500 years during the Hebrew monarchy. We cannot put the finger on a reformation, except one, in that five hundred years that the prophets did not start. One priest carried on a reformation we will come to it later. But the historians, the poets, the orators, the reformers, and the revivalists, all came from the prophets. Every book in the Bible is written by a man that had the prophetic spirit. Elisha was the voice of God to the conscience of the kings and the people, and when we study the details of his life we will see that as the government heard and obeyed Elisha it prospered, and as it went against his counsel it met disaster.
We have two beautiful stories that show his work in the homes. One of them is the greatest lesson on hospitality that I know of in the Bible. A wealthy family lived right on the path between the Gilgal seminary and the Mount Carmel seminary. The woman of the house called her husband’s attention to the fact that the man of God, Elisha, was continually passing to and fro by their house; that he was a good man, and that they should build a little chamber on the wall to be the prophet’s chamber. “We will put a little table in it, and a chair, and a bed, and we will say to him, Let this be your home when you are passing through.” Elisha was very much impressed with this woman’s thoughtfulness, and the reason for it. He asked her what he could do for her. But she lived among her own people, wanted no favor from the king nor the general of the army. Elisha’s servant suggested that she was childless, so he prophesied to her that within a year she would be the mother of a son. The son was born and grew up to be a bright boy, and, like other boys, followed his father to the field. One hot day when they were reaping and it was very hot in reaping time over there he had a sunstroke and said, “My head! My head!” The father told his servant to take him to his mother as usual, let a child get sick and the daddy is sure to say, “Take him to his mother.” I don’t know what would become of the children if the mothers did not take care of them when they are sick. But the boy died. The woman had a beast saddled and went to the seminary at Mount Carmel. She knew Elisha was there for he had not passed back. It was a very touching story. Anyhow, Elisha restored the boy to life, and to show how it lingered in his mind, years afterward he sent word to her that there would be a famine of seven years, and she had better migrate until the famine was over. She went away for seven years, and when she came back a land-grabber had captured her home and her inheritance. She appealed the case to Elisha, and Elisha appealed the case to the king, and then the kin said, “Tell me, I pray thee, all the great things that Elisha hath done.” When he had heard the full story of this man’s work he said, “Let this woman have her home back again, and interest for all the time it has been used by another.” This is a very sweet story of family life.
There is another story. One of the “theologs ” I do not know how young he was, for he had married and had children the famine pressed so debt was incurred, and they had a law then we find it in the Mosaic code that they might make a bondman of the one who would not pay his debts. The wife of this “theolog” came to Elisha and said, “My husband is one of the prophets; the famine has brought very hard times, and my boys are about to be enslaved because we cannot pay the debt.” Then he wrought the miracle that we will consider a little later, and provided for the payment of the debt of that wife of the prophet and for the sustenance of them until the famine passed away.
These two stories show how this man in going through the country affected the family life of the people; there may have been hundreds of others. I want to say that I have traveled around a good deal in my days, over every county in this state. It may be God’s particular providence, but I have never been anywhere that I did not find good people. In the retrospect of every trip of my life there is a precious memory of godly men that I met on the trip. I found one in the brush in Parker County, where it looked like a “razor-back” hog could not make a living, and they were very poor. I was on my way to an association, and must needs pass through this jungle, and stopped about noon at a small house in the brush, where I received the kindest hospitality in my life. They were God’s children. They fixed the best they had to eat, and it was good, too the best sausage I ever did eat. So this work of Elisha among the families pleases me. I have been over such ground, and I do know that the preacher who is unable to find good, homes and good people, and who is unable to leave a blessing behind him in the homes, is a very poor preacher. I have been entertained by the great governors of the state and the generals of armies, but I have never enjoyed any hospitality anywhere more precious than in that log cabin in the jungle.
The next great work of Elisha was the miracles wrought by him. There were two miracles of judgment. One was when he cursed the lads of Bethel that place of idolatry and turned two she-bears loose that tore up about forty of them. That is one judgment) and I will discuss that in the next chapter. Just now I am simply outlining the man’s whole life for the sake of unity.
The second miracle of judgment was the inflicting on Gehazi the leprosy of Naaman. The rest of his miracles were miracles of patriotism or of mercy. The following is a list (not of every one, for every time he prophesied it was a miracle): 2Ki 2:14 tells us that he divided the Jordan with the mantle of Elijah; 2Ki 2:19 , that he healed the bad springs of Jericho, the water that made the people sick and made the land barren, which was evidently a miracle of mercy. The third miracle recorded is in 2Ki 2:23 , his sending of the she-bears (referred to above) ; the fourth is recorded in 2Ki 3:16 , the miracle of the waters. Three armies led by three kings were in the mountains of Edom, on their way to attack Moab. There was no water, and they were about to perish, and they appealed to Elisha. He told them to go out to the dry torrent bed and dig trenches saying, “To-morrow all of those trenches will be full of water, and you won’t see a cloud nor hear it thunder.” It was a miracle in the sense that he foresaw how that water would come from rain in the mountains. I have seen that very thing happen. Away off in the mountains there may be rain one can’t see it nor hear it from where he is in the valley. The river bed is as dry as a powder horn, and it looks as if there never will be any rain. I was standing in a river bed in West Texas once, heard a roaring, looked up and saw a wave coming down that looked to me to be about ten feet high the first wave and it was carrying rocks before it that seemed as big as a house, and rolling them just as one would roll a marble.. So his miracle consisted in his knowledge of that storm which they could not see nor hear. If they had not dug the trenches they would have still had no water for a mountain torrent is very swift to fall. In that place where I was, in fifteen minutes there was a river, and in two or three hours it had all passed away. But the trenches of Elisha were filled from the passing flood.
The fifth miracle is recorded in 2Ki 4:2-7 , the multiplying of the widow’s oil, that prophet’s wife that I have already referred to. The sixth miracle is recorded in 2Ki 4:8-37 , first the giving and then the restoring to life of the son of the Shunamite. The seventh is given in 2Ki 4:38 , the healing of the poisonous porridge: “Ah, man of God! there is death in the pot,” or “theological seminaries and wild gourds.” The eighth miracle is found in 2Ki 5:1-4 , the multiplying of the twenty loaves so as to feed 100 men. The ninth, 2Ki 5:1-4 , the healing of Naaman’s leprosy, and the tenth, 2Ki 5:26-27 , the inflicting on Gehazi the leprosy of which Naaman was healed.
The eleventh miracle is found in 2Ki 6:1-7 , his making the ax to swim. One of the prophets borrowed an ax to increase the quarters; the seminary was growing and the place was too straight for them, and they had to enlarge it. They did not have axes enough, and one of them borrowed an ax. In going down to the stream to cut the wood, the head of the ax slipped off and fell into the water and there is a text: “Alas, my master, for it was borrowed.” The miracle in this case was his suspension of the law of gravity, and making that ax head to swim, so that the man who lost it could just reach out and get it.
Twelfth, 2Ki 6:8-12 , the revealing of the secret thought of the Syrian king, even the thoughts of his bedchamber. No matter what, at night, the Syrian king thought out for the next day, Elisha knew it by the time he thought it, and would safeguard the attack at that point.
Thirteenth, 2Ki 6:15 , his giving vision to his doubtful servant when the great host came to capture them. The servant was scared. Elisha said, “Open this young man’s eyes, and let him see that they who are for us are more than those who are against us.” What a text! His eyes were opened, and he saw that hilltop guarded with the chariots of God and his angels. We need these eye openers when we get scared.
Fourteenth, the blinding of that Syrian host that came to take him. He took them and prayed to the Lord to open their eyes again. An Irishman reported at the first battle of Manasseh, thus: “I surrounded six Yankees and captured them.” Well, Elisha surrounded a little army and led them into captivity.
Fifteenth, 2Ki 7:6 , a mighty host of Syrians was besieging Samaria, until the women were eating their own children, the famine was so great. Elisha took the case to God, and that night, right over the Syrian camp was heard the sound of bugles and shouting, and the racing of chariots, and it scared them nearly to death. They thought a great army had been brought up, and a panic seized them, as a stampede seizes a herd of cattle, and they fled. They left their tents and their baggage: their provisions, their jewels, and the further they went the more things they dropped, all the way to the Jordan River, until they left a trail behind them of the cast-off incumbrances. The word “panic” comes from the heathen god, “Pan,” and the conception is that these sudden demoralizations must come from deity. I once saw sixteen steers put an army of 4,000 to flight, and I was one of the men. We were in a lane with a high fence on one side and a bayou on the other side, and suddenly, up the lane we heard the most awful clatter, and saw the biggest cloud of dust, and one of the men shouted, “The cavalry is on us! The cavalry is on us!” and without thinking everybody got scared. A lot of the men were found standing in the bayou up to their necks, others had gone over the fence and clear across the field without stopping. I did not get that far, but I got over the fence.
Sixteenth, 2Ki 8:2-6 , the foreseeing and foretelling of the seven years of famine.
Seventeenth, 2Ki 8:11 , the revelation of the very heart of Hazael to himself. He did not believe himself to be so bad a man. Elisha just looked at him and commenced weeping. Hazael could not understand. Elisha says, “I see how you are going to sweep over my country with fire and sword; I see the children that you will slay; I see the bloody trail behind you.” Hazael says, “Am I a dog, that I should do these things?” But Elisha under inspiration read the real man) and saw what there was in the man. One of the best sermons that I ever heard was by a distinguished English clergyman on this subject.
Eighteenth, 2Ki 13:14 , his dying prophecy.
Nineteenth, the miracle from his bones after he was buried. We will discuss that more particularly later.
We have thus seen his great teaching work, his relation to the government, and his miracles.
Now, let us consider some of his miracles more particularly. The Romanists misuse the miracle of the bones of Elisha, and that passage in Act 19:11-12 , where Paul sent out handkerchiefs and aprons, and miracles were wrought by them. On these two passages they found all their teachings of the relics of the saints, attributing miraculous power to a bit of the cross, and they have splinters enough of that “true cross” now scattered about to make a forest of crosses. In New Orleans an’ auctioneer said, “Today I have sold to seventeen men the cannon ball that killed Sir Edward Packenham.” The greatest superstition and fraud of the ages is the Romanist theory of the miracle working power of the reputed relics of the saints. Some of Elisha’s miracles were like some of our Lord’s. The enlargement of the twenty loaves to suffice for 100 men reminds us of two miracles of our Lord, and his curing a case of leprosy reminds us of many miracles of our Lord like that. In the Bible, miracles are always numerous in the great religious crises, where credentials are needed for God’s people, such as the great series of miracles in Egypt by Moses, the series of miracles in the days of Elisha and the miracles in the days of our Lord.
The greatest of Elisha’s work is his teaching work, greater than his work in relation to the government, his work in the families, or his miracles. I think the more far-reaching power of his work was in his teaching. There were spoken similar words at the exodus of Elijah and Elisha. When Elijah went up, Elisha said, “My Father! My Father! The chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof!” The same words are used when Elisha died. What does it mean? It pays the greatest compliment to the departed: that they alone were worth more to Israel than all its chariots, and its cavalry; that they were the real defenders of the nation.
At one point his work touched the Southern Kingdom, viz: When Moab was invaded, and he wrought that miracle of the waters, filled the trenches and supplied the thirsty armies. Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah was along, and for his sake Elisha saved them.
There are many great pulpit themes in connection with Elisha’s history. I suggest merely a few: First, “Let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me” that was his prayer when Elijah was leaving him; second, “The chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof”; third, when he came to the Jordan he did not say, “Where is Elijah?” but he smote the Jordan and said, “Where is the Lord God of Elijah?” for it made no difference if Elijah was gone, God was there yet; fourth, “The oil stayed” not as long as the woman has a vessel to put it in; fifth, the little chamber on the wall; sixth, “Ah, man of God! There is death in the pot” or “theological seminaries and wild gourds” radical criticism, for instance there is death in the pot whenever preachers are fed on that sort of food; seventh, “Is it well with thy husband?” “Is it well?” and I will have frequently commenced a meeting with that text; eighth, Elisha’s staff in the hands of Gehazi, who was an unworthy man and the unworthy cannot wield the staff of the prophets; ninth, “Alas, my master, it was borrowed!”; tenth, the Growing Seminary “The place is too straight for us”; eleventh, “Make this valley full of trenches,” that is, the Lord will send the water, but there is something for us to do; let us have a place for it when it comes; twelfth, the secret thoughts of the bedchamber are known to God; thirteenth, “They that be with us are more than those that be against us”; fourteenth, “Tell me, I pray thee, all the great works done by Elisha.”
These are just a few in the great mine of Elijah or Elisha where we may dig down for sermons. The sermons ought to be full of meat; that is why we preach to feed the hungry. We should let our buckets down often into the well of salvation, for we cannot lower the well, and we may draw up a fresh sermon every Sunday. We should not keep on preaching the same sermon; it is first a dinner roast, then we give it cold for supper, then hash its fragments for breakfast, and make soup out of the bones for the next dinner, and next time we hold it over the pot and boil the shadow, and so the diet gets thinner and thinner. Let’s get a fresh one every time.
QUESTIONS
1. Who was Elisha?
2. What is the meaning of “minister to Elijah”? Illustrate and give corresponding passage in the New Testament.
3. What is the meaning of “Elisha, a disciple of Elijah”?
4. What is the meaning of “Elisha, a successor to Elijah”?
5. Give the date, author, manner, and nature of Elisha’s call, his response and how he celebrated the event.
6. What is the lesson of this and other calls? Illustrate.
7. How long his prophetic term of office and what kings of Israel and Judah were his contemporaries?
8. What secular calls accompanied his, how do you distinguish between his and the call of the others and what is the lesson therefrom?
9. What is the biblical material for a sketch of Elisha’s life?
10. What is the meaning of his name?
11. What is the Greek and Hebrew forms of his name? Give other examples.
12. What likenesses and unlikenesses of the work of Elijah and Elisha?
13. What New Testament likenesses of these two prophets?
14. How many schools of the prophets in the days of Elijah and Elisha, and where were they located?
15. What was Elisha’s great teaching work in the seminaries? Discuss.
16. What was Elisha’s part in governmental affairs?
17. What of his work in the families? Illustrate.
18. What two classes of his miracles and what miracles of each class?
19. What is the Romanist misuse of the miracle of Elisha’s bones and Act 19:11-12 ?
20. What miracles were like some of our Lord’s?
21. When and why were Bible miracles numerous?
22. Which of Elisha’s works was the greatest?
23. What words spoken at the exodus of Elijah and Elisha and what their meaning?
24. At what point did Elisha’s work touch the Southern Kingdom?
25. What New Testament lesson from the life of Elisha?
26. Give several pulpit themes from this section not given by the
27. What is the author’s exhortation relative to preaching growing out of this discussion of Elisha?
X
GATHERING UP THE FRAGMENTS THAT NOTHING BE LOST
The title of this chapter is a New Testament text for an Old Testament discussion. For the sake of unity the last two chapters were devoted exclusively to Elijah and Elisha. It is the purpose of this discussion to call attention to some matters worthy of note that could not very well be incorporated in those personal matters, and yet should not be omitted altogether.
It is true, however, that the heart of the history is in the lives of these two great prophets of the Northern Kingdom. In bringing up the record we will follow the chronological order of the scriptures calling for exposition.
Jehoshaphat’s Shipping Alliance with Ahaziah. We have two accounts of this: first, in 1Ki 22:47-49 , and second, in 2Ch 20:35-37 . I wish to explain, first of all, the locality of certain places named in these accounts. Tarshish, as a place, is in Spain. About that there can be no question. About Ophir, no man can be so confident. There was an Ophir in the southern part of Arabia; a man named Ophir settled there, but I do not think that to be the Ophir of this section. The Ophir referred to here is distinguished for the abundance and fine quality of its gold. Several books in the Bible refer to the excellency of “the gold of Ophir,” and to the abundance of it. Quite a number of distinguished scholars would locate it in the eastern part of Africa. Some others would locate it in India, and still others as the Arabian Ophir. My own opinion is, and I give it as more than probable, that the southeastern coast of Africa is the right place for Ophir. Many traditions put it there, the romance of Rider Haggard, “King Solomon’s Mines,” follows the traditions. The now well-known conditions of the Transvaal would meet the case in some respects.
Ezion-geber is a seaport at the head of the Gulf of Akaba, which is a projection of the Red Sea. What is here attempted by these men is to re-establish the famous commerce of Solomon. I cite the passages in the history of Solomon that tell about this commerce. In 1Ki 9:26 we have this record: “And King Solomon made a navy of ships in Eziongeber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red Sea, in the land of Edom. And Hiram (king of Tyre) sent in the navy his servants, shipmen that had knowledge of the sea, with the servants of Solomon. And they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to King Solomon.” Now, 1Ki 10:11 reads: “And the navy also of Hiram, that brought gold from Ophir, brought in from Ophir great plenty of Almug trees and precious stones.” This “almug-trees” is supposed to be the famous sweet-scented sandalwood. The precious stones would agree particularly with the diamond mines at Kimberly in the Transvaal.
Then1Ki_10:22 reads: “For the king had at sea a navy of Tarshish with the navy of Hiram: Once every three years came the navy of Tarshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks.” The ivory and apes would fit very well with the African coast, but we would have to go to India to get the spices, which are mentioned elsewhere, and the peacocks. A three years’ voyage for this traffic seems to forbid the near-by Arabian Ophir, and does make it reasonable that the merchant fleet touched many points Arabia, Africa, and the East Indies. It is, therefore, not necessary to find one place notable for all these products gold, jewels, sandalwood, ivory, apes, spices, and peacocks. Solomon, then, established as his only seaport on the south Eziongeber, a navy, manned partly by experienced seamen of Tyre, and these ships would make a voyage every three years. That is a long voyage and they might well go to Africa and to India to get these varied products, some at one point and some at another.
Now Jehoshaphat and Ahaziah (king of Israel) made an alliance to re-establish that commerce. The first difficulty, however, is that the Chronicles account says that these ships were to go to Tarshish, and the Kings account says that they were ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir. My explanation of that difficulty is this: It is quite evident that no navy established at Eziongeber would try to reach Spain by circumnavigating Africa, when it would be so much easier to go from Joppa, Tyre, or Sidon over the Mediterranean Sea to Spain. “Tarshish ships” refers, not to the destination of the ships, but to the kind of ships, that is, the trade of the Mediterranean had given that name to a kind of merchant vessel, called “Ships of Tarshish.” And the ships built for the Tarshish trade, as the name “lndianman” was rather loosely applied to certain great English and Dutch merchant vessels. It is an error in the text of Chronicles that these ships were to go to Tarshish. They were Tarshish ships, that is, built after the model of Tarshish ships, but these ships were built at Eziongeber for trade with Ophir, Africa, and India.
1Ki 22:47 of the Kings account needs explanation: “And there was no king in Edom; a deputy was king.” The relevancy of that verse is very pointed. If Edom had been free and had its own king, inasmuch as Eziongeber was in Edom, Judah never could have gone there to build a navy. But Edom at this time was subject to Judah, and a Judean deputy ruled over it. That explains why they could come to Eziongeber.
One other matter needs explanation. The account in Kings says, “Then said Ahaziah the son of Ahab unto Jehoshaphat, Let my servants go with thy servants in the ships. But Jehoshaphat would not.” Ahaziah attributed the shipwreck of that fleet to the incompetency of the Judean seamen. He did not believe that there would have been a shipwreck if he had been allowed to furnish experienced mariners, as Hiram did. So Kings gives us what seems to be the human account of that shipwreck, viz: the incompetency of the mariners; but Chronicles gives us the divine account, thus: “Because thou hast joined thyself with Ahaziah, the Lord hath destroyed thy works. And the ships were broken.” How often do we see these two things: the human explanation of the thing, and the divine explanation of the same thing. Ahaziah had no true conception of God, and he would at once attribute that shipwreck to human incompetency, but Jehoshaphat knew better; he knew that shipwreck came because he had done wickedly in keeping up this alliance with the idolatrous kings of the ten tribes.
THE TRANSLATION OF ELIJAH Let us consider several important matters in connection with the translation of Elijah, 2Ki 2:1-18 . First, why the course followed by Elijah? Why does he go from Carmel to Gilgal and try to leave Elisha there, and from Gilgal to Bethel and try to leave Elisha there, and from Bethel to Jericho and try to leave Elisha there? The explanation is that the old prophet, having been warned of God that his ministry was ended and that the time of his exodus was at hand, wished to revisit in succession all of these seminaries. These were his stopping places, and he goes from one seminary to another. It must have been a very solemn thing for each of these schools of the prophets, when Elisha and Elijah came up to them, for by the inspiration of God as we see from the record, each school of the prophets knew what was going to happen. At two different places they say to Elisha, “Do you know that your master will be taken away to-day?” Now, the same Spirit of God that notified Elijah that his time of departure was at hand, also notified Elisha, also notified each school of the prophets; they knew.
But why keep saying to Elisha, “You stay here at Gilgal; the Lord hath sent me to Bethel,” and, “You stay here at Bethel; the Lord hath sent me to Jericho,” and “You stay here at Jericho; the Lord hath sent me to the Jordan”? It was a test of the faith of Elisha. Ruth said to Naomi, “Entreat me not to leave thee, nor to forsake thee; for where thou goest, I will go; and God do so to me, if thy God be my God, and thy people my people, and where thou diest there will I die also.” With such spirit as that, Elisha, as the minister to Elijah, and as the disciple of Elijah, and wishing to qualify himself to be the successor of Elijah, steadfastly replied: “As the Lord liveth and thy soul liveth, I will not forsake thee.” “I am going with you just as far as I can go; we may come to a point of separation, but I will go with you to that point.” All of us, when we leave this world, find a place where the departing soul must be without human companionship. Friends may attend us to that border line but they cannot pass over with us.
We have already discussed the miracle of the crossing of the Jordan. Elijah smote the Jordan with his mantle and it divided; that was doubtless his lesson to Elisha, and we will see that he learned the lesson. I heard a Methodist preacher once, taking that as a text, say, “We oftentimes complain that our cross is too heavy for us, and groan under it, and wish to be relieved from it.” “But,” says he, “brethren, when we come to the Jordan of death, with that cross that we groaned under we will smite that river, and we will pass over dry-shod, and leave the cross behind forever, and go home to a crown to wear.”
The next notable thing in this account is Elijah’s question to Elisha: “Have you anything to ask from me?” “Now, this is the last time; what do you want me to do for you?” And he says, “I pray thee leave a double portion of thy spirit on me.” We see that he is seeking qualification to be the successor. “Double” here does not mean twice as much as Elijah had, but the reference is probably to the first-born share of an inheritance. The first-born always gets a double share, and Elisha means by asking a double portion of his spirit that it may accredit him as successor. Or possibly “double” may be rendered “duplicate,” for the same purpose of attenuation. The other prophets would get one share, but Elisha asks for the first-born portion. Elijah suggests a difficulty, not in himself, but in Elisha ; he said, “You ask a hard thing of me, yet if you see me when I go away, you will get the double portion of my spirit,” that is, it was a matter depending on the faith of the petitioner, his power of personal perception. “When I go up, if your eyes are open enough to see my transit from this world to a higher, that will show that you are qualified to have this double portion of my spirit.” We have something similar in the life of our Lord. The father of the demoniac boy says to our Lord, “If thou canst do anything, have compassion on us and help us.” Jesus replied, “If thou canst! All things are possible to him that believeth.” It was not a question of Christ’s ability, but of the supplicant’s faith.
The next thing is the translation itself. What is meant by it? In the Old Testament history two men never died; they passed into the other world, soul and body without death: Enoch and Elijah. And at the second coming of Christ every Christian living at that time will do the same thing. “In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, they shall be changed.” Now, what is that change of the body by virtue of which without death, it may ascend into heaven? It is a spiritualization of the body eliminating its mortality, equivalent to what takes place in the resurrection and glorification of the dead bodies. I preached a sermon once on “How Death [personified] Was Twice Startled.” In the account of Adam it is said, “And he died” and so of every other man, “and he died.” Methuselah lived 969 years, but he died. And death pursuing all the members of the race, strikes them down, whether king or pauper, whether prophet or priest. But when he comes to Enoch his dart missed the mark and he did not get him. And when he came to Elijah he missed again. Now the translations of Enoch and Elijah are an absolute demonstration of two things: First, the immortality of the soul, the continuance of life; that death makes no break in the continuity of being. Second, that God intended from the beginning to save the body. The tree of life was put in the garden of Eden, that by eating of it the mortality of the body might be eliminated. Sin separated man from that tree of life, but it is the purpose of God that the normal man, soul and body, shall be saved. The tradition of the Jews is very rich on the spiritual significance of the translation of Enoch and Elijah. In Enoch’s case it is said, “He was not found because God took him,” and in this case fifty of the sons of the prophets went out to see if when Elijah went to heaven his body was not left behind, and they looked all over the country to find his body. Elisha knew; he saw the body go up.
Now, in Revelation we have the Cherubim as the chariot of God. This chariot that met Elijah at the death station was the chariot of God, the Cherubim. Just as the angels met Lazarus and took his soul up to heaven, and it is to this wonderful passage that the Negro hymn belongs: “Swing Low, Sweet Chariot.”
Elisha cried as the great prophet ascended, “My Father! My rather I The chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof,” the meaning of which is that thus had gone up to heaven he who in his life had been the defense of Israel, worth more than all of its chariots and all of its cavalry. Now these very words “were used when Elisha died. “My Father! My Father! The chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof,” signifying that he had been the bulwark of the nation as Elijah had been before him.
ELISHA’S MINISTRY, 2Ki 2:19-25 As Elijah went up something dropped not his body, but just his mantle his mantle fell, and it fell on Elisha, symbolic of the transfer of prophetic leadership from one to the other. Now, he wants to test it, a test that will accredit him; so he goes back to the same Jordan, folds that same mantle up just as Elijah had done, and smites the Jordan. But, mark you, he did not say, “Where is Elijah” the man, Elijah, was gone, but, “Where is the Lord God of Elijah?” and the waters divided and he came over. There he stood accredited with a repetition of the miracle just a little before performed by Elijah, which demonstrated that he was to be to the people what Elijah had been. And this was so evident that the sons of the prophets recognized it and remarked on it: “The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha.” It is a touching thing to me, this account of more than fifty of these prophets, as the president of their seminary is about to disappear, came down the last hill that overlooks the Jordan, watching to see what became of him. And they witness the passage of the Jordan they may have seen the illumination of the descent of the chariot of fire. They wanted to go and get the body the idea of his body going up they had not taken in, and they could not be content until Elisha, grieved at their persistence) finally let them go and find out for themselves that the body had gone to heaven.
I have just two things to say on the healing of the noxious waters at Jericho. The first is that neither the new cruse nor the salt put in it healed the water. It was a symbolic act to indicate that the healing would be by the power of God. Just as when Moses cast a branch into the bitter waters of Marah, as a symbolic act. The healing power comes from God. The other re-mark is on that expression, “unto this day,” which we so frequently meet in these books. Its frequent recurrence is positive proof that the compiler of Kings and the compiler of Chronicles are quoting from the original documents. “Unto this day” means the day of the original writer. It does not mean unto the day of Ezra wherever it appears in Chronicles, but it means unto the day of the writer of the part of history that he is quoting from. More than one great conservative scholar has called attention to this as proof that whoever compiled these histories is quoting the inspired documents of the prophets.
THE CHILDREN OF BETHEL AND THE SHE-BEARS Perhaps a thousand infidels have referred Elisha’s curse to vindictiveness and inhumanity. The word rendered “little children” is precisely the word Solomon uses in his prayer at Gibeon when he says, “I am a little child” he was then a grown man. Childhood with the Hebrews extended over a much greater period of time than it does with us. The word may signify “young men” in our modern use of the term. And notice the place was Bethel, the place of calf worship, where the spirit of the city was against the schools of the prophets, and these young fellows call them “street Arabs,” “toughs,” whom it suited to follow this man and mock him: “Go up, thou bald bead; go up, thou bald head.” Elisha did not resent an indignity against himself, but here is the point: these hostile idolaters at Bethel, through their children are challenging the act of God in making Elisha the head of the prophetic line. He turned and looked at them and he saw the spirit that animated them saw that it was an issue between Bethel calf worship and Bethel, the school of the prophets, and that the parents of these children doubtless sympathized in the mockery, and saw it to be necessary that they should learn that sacrilege and blasphemy against God should not go unpunished. So, in the name of the Lord he pronounces a curse on them had it been his curse, no result would have followed. One man asks, “What were these she-bears doing so close to Bethel?” The answer is that in several places in the history is noted the prevalence of wild animals in Israel. We have seen how the old prophet who went to this very Bethel to rebuke Jeroboam and turned back to visit the other prophet, was killed by a lion close to the city.
Another infidel question is, “How could God make a she bear obey him?” Well, let the infidel answer how God’s Spirit could influence a single pair of all the animals to go into the ark. Over and over again in the Bible the dominance of the Spirit of God over inanimate things and over the brute creation is repeatedly affirmed. The bears could not understand, but they would follow an impulse of their own anger without attempting to account for it.
THE INCREASE IN THE WIDOW’S OIL, 2Ki 4:1-7
We have already considered this miracle somewhat in the chapter on Elisha, and now note particularly:
1. It often happens that the widow of a man of God, whether prophet or preacher, is left in destitution. Sometimes the fault lies in the imprudence of the preacher or in the extravagance of his family, but more frequently, perhaps, in the inadequate provision for ministerial support. This destitution is greatly aggravated if there be debt. The influence of a preacher is handicapped to a painful degree, when, from any cause, he fails to meet his financial obligations promptly. In a commercial age this handicap becomes much more serious.
2. The Mosaic Law (Lev 25:39-41 ; see allusion, Mat 18:25 ) permitted a creditor to make bond-servant of a debtor and his children. For a long time the English law permitted imprisonment for debt. This widow of a prophet appeals to Elisha, the head of the prophetic school, for relief, affirming that her husband did fear God. In other words, he was faultless in the matter of debt. The enforcement of the law by the creditor under such circumstances indicates a merciless heart.
3. The one great lesson of the miracle is that the flow of the increased oil never stayed as long as there was a vessel to receive it. God wastes not his grace if we have no place to put it: according to our faith in preparation is his blessing. He will fill all the vessels we set before him.
DEATH IN THE POT, 2Ki 4:38-41 We recall this miracle to deepen a lesson barely alluded to in the chapter on Elisha. The seminaries at that time lived a much more simple life than the seminaries of the present time; it did not take such a large fund to keep them up. Elisha said, “Set on the great pot,” and one of the sons of the prophets went out to gather vegetables. He got some wild vegetables he knew nothing about here called wild gourd and shred them into the pot, not knowing they were poisonous. Hence the text: “O man of God, there is death in the pot.” I once took that as the text for a sermon on “Theological Seminaries and Wild Gourds,” showing that the power of seminaries depends much on the kind of food the teachers give them. If they teach them that the story of Adam and Eve is an allegory, then they might just as well make the second Adam an allegory, for his mission is dependent on the failure of the first. If they teach them the radical criticism; if they teach anything that takes away from inspiration and infallibility of the divine Word of God or from any of its great doctrines then, “O man of God, there is death in the pot” that will be a sick seminary.
In a conversation once with a radical critic I submitted for his criticism, without naming the author, the exact words of Tom Paine in his “Age of Reason,” denying that the story of Adam and Eve was history. He accepted it as eminently correct. Then I gave the author, and inquired if it would be well for preachers and commentators to revert to such authorities on biblical interpretation. He made no reply. We find Paine’s words not only in the first part of the “Age of Reason,” written in a French prison without a Bible before him, but repeated in the second part after he was free and had access to Bibles. I gave this man a practical illustration, saying, “You may take the three thousand published sermons of Spurgeon, two sets of them, and arrange them, one set according to the books from which the texts are taken Gen 1:2 , Gen 1:3 , etc., and make a commentary on the Bible. By arranging the other set of them in topical order, you have a body of systematic theology.” Now this man Spurgeon believed in the historical integrity and infallibility of the Bible, in its inspiration of God, and he preached that, just that. As the old saying goes, “The proof of the pudding is in the chewing of the bag.” He preached just that, and what was the result? Thousands and thousands of converts wherever he preached, no matter what part of the Bible he was preaching from; preachers felt called to enter the ministry, orphan homes rose up, almshouses for aged widows, colportage systems established, missionaries sent out, and all over the wide world his missionaries die in the cause. One man was found in the Alps, frozen to death, with a sermon of Spurgeon in his hand. One man was found shot through the heart by bush rangers of Australia, and the bullet passed through Spurgeon’s sermon on “The Blood of Jesus.” Now, I said to this man, “Get all your radical critics together, and let them preach three thousand sermons on your line of teaching. How many will be converted? How many backsliders will be reclaimed? How many almshouses and orphanages will be opened? How many colportage systems established? Ah! the proof of the pudding is in the chewing of the bag. If what you say is the best thing to teach about the Bible is true, then when you preach, it will have the best results. But does it?”
We have considered Elisha’s miracle for providing water for the allied armies of Israel, Judah, and Edom, when invading Moab (2Ki 3:10-19 ). We revert to it to note partakelarly this passage: “And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew sword, to break through unto the king of Edom: but they could not. Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great wrath against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land” (2Ki 3:26-27 ). On this passage I submit two observations:
1. Not long after this time the prophet Micah indignantly inquires, “Shall I give my firstborn for my transgressions, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” The context is a strong denunciation of the offering of human sacrifices to appease an angry deity. The Mosaic law strongly condemned the heathen custom of causing their children to pass through the fire of Molech. Both this book of Kings and Jeremiah denounce judgment on those guilty of this horrible practice. The Greek and Roman classics, and the histories of Egypt and Phoenicia, show how widespread was this awful custom.
2. But our chief difficulty is to expound the words, “There was great wrath against Israel.” But what was its connection with the impious sacrifice of the king of Moab? Whose the wrath? The questions are not easy to answer. It is probable that the armies of Edom and Judah were angry at Israel for pressing the king of Moab to such dire extremity, and so horrified at the sacrifice that they refused longer to co-operate in the campaign. This explanation, while not altogether satisfactory, is preferred to others more improbable. It cannot mean the wrath of God, nor the wrath of the Moabites against Israel. It must mean, therefore, the wrath of the men of Judah and Edom against Israel for pressing Mesha to such an extent that he would offer his own son as a sacrifice.
QUESTIONS
I. On the two accounts of Jehoshaphat’s shipping alliance with Ahaziah, 2Ki 22 ; 2Ch 20 , answer:
1. Where is Tarshish?
2. Where is Ophir?
3. Where is Ezion-geber?
4. What is the relevance of 1Ki 22:47 ?
5. Explain “ships of Tarshish” in Kings, and “to go to Tarshish” in Chronicles.
6. What commerce were they seeking to revive, and what passage from 1 Kings bearing thereon?
7. How does the book of Kings seem to account for the wreck of the fleet, and how does Chronicles give a better reason?
II. On the account of Elijah’s translation (2Ki 2:1-18 ) answer:
1. Why the course taken by Elijah by way of Gilgal, Bethel, and Jericho?
2. How did both Elisha and the schools of the prophets know about the impending event?
3. What was the object of Elijah in telling Elisha to tarry at each stopping place while he went on?
4. What was the meaning of Elisha’s request for “a double portion” of Elijah’s spirit and why was this a hard thing to ask, i.e., wherein the difficulty? Illustrate by a New Testament lesson.
5. What was the meaning of Elijah’s translation, and what other cases, past or prospective?
6. What was the meaning of Elisha’s expression, “My Father! My Father! The chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof,” and who and when applied the same language to Elisha?
7. How does Elisha seek a test of his succession to Elijah and how do others recognize the credentials?
III. How do you explain the seeming inhumanity of Elisha’s cursing the children of Bethel?
IV. On the widow’s oil (2Ki 4:1-7 ), answer:
1. What often happens to the widow of a prophet or preacher, and what circumstance greatly aggravates the trouble?
2. What is the Mosaic law relative to debtors and creditors?
3. What one great lesson of the miracle?
V. On “Death in the Pot” answer:
1. What the incident of the wild gourds?
2. What application does the author make of this?
3. What comparison does the author make between Spurgeon and the Radical Critics?
VI. On Elisha’s miracle, the water supply, answer:
1. What is the allusion in Micah’s words, “Shall I give my first-born,” etc.?
2. What the meaning of “There was great wrath against Israel”?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
2Ki 3:1 Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years.
Ver. 1. In the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat. ] But in the second year of Jehoram, 2Ki 1:17 whom his father Jehoshaphat had made viceroy; but misliking his son’s evil practices, as it is probable, he resumed the sceptre.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 3
Now chapter 3.
Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, and he reigned for twelve years ( 2Ki 3:1 ).
So Jehoram, the other son of Ahab, began now to reign while Jehoshaphat was still king of Judah; he reigned for twelve years.
And he wrought evil in the sight of the LORD; but not as bad as his father: for he did remove the Baal image of Baal that his father had made. Nevertheless he continued in the ways of the first king of Israel, Jeroboam, and he made Israel to sin ( 2Ki 3:2-3 ).
Now this time Moab, the area across Jordan River, the area that is now Jordan, rebelled against Israel. They have been tributaries, and Moab had to pay a hundred thousand sheep and a hundred thousand goats a year as tribute. They have been conquered, and so this was the tribute that was laid upon them. A hundred thousand sheep, hundred thousand goats with the full wool were to be turned over to the king of Israel every year. And the king of Moab rebelled against this, so Jehoram drafted all of the men of Israel and he sent to Jehoshaphat the king of Judah asking him to go up against Moab with him in battle. And so he said, “Of course, I’m as you are. You know, my men with your men.” And so they said, “Which way shall they go?” And they said, “Let’s go down through Edom.” So they were going to go south and attack them at the flank from the southern flank. The king of Edom joined with them.
And so they made this journey. It would be south of the Dead Sea to Edom, and then coming north on the other side of the Jordan River to attack Moab. And they came to a barren area.
No water for them, and for the cattle that followed them. And the king of Israel said, Alas! the LORD has called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab! But Jehoshaphat said, Isn’t there a prophet around here, that we might inquire of the LORD by him? And one of the king’s servants answered and said, There is Elisha the son of Shaphat, which actually ministered unto Elijah. And Jehoshaphat said, The word of the LORD is with him. So the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat and the king of Edom went down to him. And Elisha said to the king of Israel, What have I to do with thee? Why don’t you go to the prophets of your father, and the prophets of your mother? ( 2Ki 3:9-13 )
Elisha really had no use for the king of Israel because of the idolatry that was in the land.
And he said, Nay: the LORD hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab. Elisha said, As the LORD of hosts lives, if it weren’t that I respected Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, I would not even pay any attention to you. I wouldn’t even look at you. But bring me now a minstrel. And it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the LORD came upon him. And he said, Thus saith the LORD, Make a valley full of trenches. For you will not see the wind, neither will you see the rain; yet the valley will be filled with water, that ye may drink, both ye, and your cattle, and your beasts. And this is but a light thing in the sight of the LORD: he will deliver the Moabites into your hand. And ye shall smite every fenced city, every choice city, and shall fell every good tree, and stop all the wells of water, and mar every good piece of land with stones. And so it came to pass in the morning, when the meat offering was offered, that, behold, there came water by the way of Edom, and the country was filled with water ( 2Ki 3:13-20 ).
Now this does happen down there in that great rift by the Dead Sea. It can be a hot sunny day, and suddenly you get torrents of water flowing down through the canyon from the rain that… It’s like out here in the desert when it rains in the mountains. You can be going through the desert, and it can be having a cloudburst up in the mountains, and these gullies just become filled with water. Though it may not even be raining where you are, the gullies become just torrents, rivers. And so this did happen there. They didn’t see the rain; they didn’t hear the winds. And yet, the valley was full of water that came from Edom.
And now when the Moabites heard that the kings were coming to fight against them, they gathered all that were able to put on armor, and they stood at the border. And they rose up early in the morning, and they saw this valley full of water but in the early morning sun reflecting off of it, it looked like blood ( 2Ki 3:21-22 ):
The early morning sun rising was a reddish, you know, the reddish tint that is, and as it was reflecting on the water, they said, “Oh, they must have all taken the sword against each other and they’ve been fighting with each other. Let’s go in and just mop them up.” And so, they came rushing in, in a mop-up operation, and of course, all of the fellows were just waiting for them. And so the Moabites were defeated, and they went forth and destroyed the cities. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
2Ki 3:1-3
Introduction
THE “THREE KINGS” AT WAR AGAINST MOAB
The Moabite Stone (discovered in 1868) has a parallel account of events in this chapter from the viewpoint of Mesha (2Ki 3:4), the Moabite king who authored the inscription on that stone. Dentan said of this stone that, “It is one of the greatest archaeological discoveries of all time (it may be seen in the Louvre in Paris) and provides interesting confirmation of the situation presupposed by this chapter.” This writer prefers the viewpoint that this chapter confirms what is written on the Moabite Stone!
We have cited examples of monuments with false inscriptions (as on Robert Fulton’s Tomb on Wall Street in New York City); and the critical dictum that any pagan inscription is a preferable record to the Holy Bible is merely another false axiom of critics!
As a matter of truth, the Moabite Stone is a magnificent account of the war discussed in this chapter, in full agreement with what the inspired author has written here.
2Ki 3:1-3
JEHORAM; KING OF ISRAEL; AFTER HIS BROTHER AHAZIAH
“Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years. And he did that which was evil in the sight of Jehovah, but not like his father, and like his mother; for he put away the pillar of Baal that his father had made. Nevertheless he cleaved unto the sins of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, wherewith he made Israel to sin; he departed not therefrom.”
The critical allegation that this paragraph is merely, “A Deuteronomic appraisal, and that the successive kings of Israel were judged by the Deuteronomic standard of the single sanctuary (in Jerusalem),”[2] is unacceptable in the light of truth. The implication of such an opinion is that the provision of Jerusalem as the single, one and only, acceptable sanctuary for the Chosen People came, not from Moses via the direct revelation of God, but that it resulted from a very long crusade of certain hard-headed priests who finally succeeded in making it so.
That implication is false. All Israel was aware of God’s Divine instructions regarding the uniqueness of His sanctuary, and it was that knowledge that compelled the kings of Northern Israel to persist in their unbelievably hard-headed preference of paganism as the most practical device for retaining their independence. Once all Israel had been allowed to return three times each year to Jerusalem in the great national festivals Divinely ordained for Israel, the northern kingdom could not have continued very long.
The theory of “a Deuteronomic” campaign, lasting through the history of Northern Israel, to make Jerusalem the only sanctuary is nothing but a fairy tale. It had been “the only sanctuary” ever since the days of David, and even prior to that, there was never more than one sanctuary at a time. The efforts of Northern Israel to change that were founded upon absolutely nothing except the vain-glorious ambition of their evil, unbelieving, and conceited rulers.
“He put away the pillar of Baal” (2Ki 3:2). Yes, he put it away, but he did not destroy it, nor did he get rid of the illegitimate sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel, since they were the king-pins of his stability on the throne. “He did not succeed in exterminating the worship of Baal. It not only continued but appears to have been carried on in the most shameless manner (2Ki 10:18 ff), at which we should not be surprised, because his mother Jezebel, that fanatical worshipper of Baal, was living throughout the whole twelve years of his reign.”
E.M. Zerr:
2Ki 3:1. It is important that the reader avoid confusion over the switching back and forth of the accounts con cerning the kingdom of Judah and Israel. Read the comments at 1Ki 12:17 frequently. Also remember that the Bible is not always chronological in its historical reports in other parts; much less would it be in this place, where two rival, but related kingdoms, are being reported simultaneously. Jehoram’s reign was mentioned in 2Ki 1:17 and then dropped to give us accounts of the two great prophets, Elijah and Elisha, whose lives were so closely woven together for a time.
2Ki 3:2-3. The Bible gives credit where it is due. Jehoram was the son of Ahab and Jezebel, who were exceptionally wicked people. This son was not as bad as they, and had corrected a part of their evil work by removing the image of Baal. He was bad enough, however, and followed the example of Jeroboam, the first king of Israel.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
At this point the history goes back and describes the beginning of the war with Moab, to which reference was made at the opening of the book. It was a combined movement of Israel and Judah and Edom against Moab.
Elisha’s capacity for sternness was manifested in the refusal to deal with the king of Israel. The armies lacked water, and appealed to him. His answer immediately called into prominence the fact of the divine government, that God is still able, in supernatural ways, to make provision for the needs of His people if they will but trust Him. Their faith was called into activity in digging the trenches. The coming of the water was by the act and will of God. Thus the prophet stood for the righteousness of God in his refusal to deal with the king of Israel, and for the beneficent purpose of God in providing water for the armies. He thus stood before them as a veritable prophet, and called them back, if they would but hear it, into true relationship to their one King, Jehovah.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
an Unwise Alliance
2Ki 3:1-12
Jehorams reign over the ten tribes was marked by some measures of reform. He discountenanced Baal worship; though, in defiance of the Second Commandment, he clave to Jeroboams calves. Therefore Jehoshaphat was ill-advised to enter into alliance with him. The servant of Jehovah had no right to say to such a man, I am as thou art, etc. He had said this before, and narrowly escaped with his life. It was very bad, therefore, to repeat a policy which was already discredited. See 1Ki 22:4.
How often we rush into alliances and undertake engagements without prayer for guidance, and begin to seek God only when faced with disappointment! In the day of sore trouble, when it seemed likely that kings and troops would perish in the waterless desert, Judah sought divine help. But it was foolish and wrong to charge the Lord with their disasters, as in 2Ki 3:10. When the curtains of the night are drawn, sailors steer by the stars; and often it is the pressure of dark trials that drives men to seek the advice and help of the servants of God. They know where to find such helpers, when they want them, though in their prosperity they ignore and deride. He who is willing to pour water, as a servant, will not be inflated with pride when three kings visit him.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Joram (Or Jehoram)
(Exalted by Jehovah)
2Ki 1:17; 3:1-27; 6:8-7:20; 9:1-26
Contemporary Prophet, Elisha.
The wicked are overthrown, and are not: but the house of the righteous shall stand.-Pro 12:7
Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years. And he wrought evil in the sight of the Lord; but not like his father, and like his mother-in contrast with his late brother Ahaziah, see 1Ki 22:52-for he put away the image of Baal that his father had made. Nevertheless he cleaved unto the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, which made Israel to sin; he departed not therefrom. There is no discrepancy between the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat, here, and the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat, as in 2Ki 1:17. Jehoshaphat made his son joint-king a number of years before his death, (see 2Ki 8:16, marg.) which readily accounts for the seeming contradictions in the above noted passages.
Then Moab rebelled against Israel after the death of Ahab. And Mesha king of Moab was a sheep master, and rendered unto the king of Israel a hundred thousand lambs, and a hundred thousand rams, with the wool. But it came to pass, when Ahab was dead, that the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel (2Ki 3:4, 5). The defeat of the allied forces of Israel and Judah at Ramoth-Gilead, probably, emboldened him to take this step. Moab had been tributary to Israel ever since their subjugation by David, more than two hundred years before (see 2Sa 8:2). On the division of the kingdom, they appear to have paid their accustomed tribute to Jeroboam, as his kingdom embraced the two and a half tribes east of Jordan, whose territory extended to the kingdom of Moab. This revolt of Mesha is mentioned on the Moabite, or Dibon, stone. (See also Isa 16:1.) The loss of this enormous annual income must have been keenly felt by Israel, and the attempt to secure its resumption occasioned this unhappy war in which Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, again guiltily allied himself to Jehoram.
And king Jehoram went out of Samaria the same time [of Meshas rebellion-see Ahaziah], and numbered all Israel. And he went and sent to Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, saying, The king of Moab hath rebelled against me: wilt thou go with me against Moab to battle? And he said, I will go up: I am as thou art, my people as thy people, and my horses as thy horses. It is a sadly compromising declaration to come from the lips of a king of the house and lineage of David. But it was the result of his joining affinity with the house of Ahab by his son Jehorams marriage to the infamous Athaliah. So not only do evil communications corrupt good manners, but that delicate sense of truthful consistency, so evidently lacking in Jehoshaphat here.
And he said, Which way shall we go up? And he answered, The way through the wilderness of Edom. So the king of Israel went, and the king of Judah, and the king of Edom. This king of Edom was not a native Edomite, but a deputy (1Ki 22:47) appointed, probably, by Jehoshaphat (2Ki 8:20), and formed a party to the expedition in the capacity of a vassal, rather than as an independent prince. And they fetched a compass of seven days journey: and there was no water for the host and for the cattle that followed them. And the king of Israel said, Alas! that the Lord hath called these three kings together to deliver them into the hand of Moab. When such a man of God as Jehoshaphat identifies himself with such a man as the king of Israel, distress must needs come upon them, that victory may be recognized as an act of Gods sovereign grace, and not a spark of honor left to the follower of Jeroboams calves.
But Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the Lord, that we may enquire of the Lord by him? Elisha is here, said one of the king of Israels servants. And Jehoshaphat said, The word of the Lord is with him. So the king of Israel, and Jehoshaphat, and the king of Edom went down to him. Even wicked men will cry to God in the hour of their calamity, yet without change of heart. But Elisha had as little respect for or fear of Jehoram, as Elijah his master had had for his idolatrous predecessors. And Elisha said unto the king of Israel, What have I to do with thee? get thee to the prophets of thy father, and to the prophets of thy mother. And the king of Israel said unto him, Nay: for the Lord hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab. And Elisha said, As the Lord of hosts liveth, before whom I stand, surely, were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, I would not look toward thee, nor see thee.
Then, as the minstrel played, the hand of the Lord came upon him, and he ordered the valley to be filled with ditches, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Ye shall not see wind, neither shall ye see rain: yet that valley shall be filled with water, that ye may drink, both ye, and your cattle, and your beasts. And this is but a light thing in the sight of the Lord: He will deliver the Moabites also into your hand. And so, It came to pass, in the morning, when the meatoffering was offered, that, behold, there came water by the way of Edom, and the country was filled with water.
This sudden and abundant water supply was, probably, as has been suggested, caused by heavy rains on the eastern mountains of Edom, so far away that no signs of the storm were visible to the invaders. In any case it was Gods doing, whatever the physical forces used by Him to bring it about. Faith never gives itself concern about the scientific explanation of such occurrences. God could have created the water, had He so ordained. And He giveth not account of any of His matters, either to adoring, wondering faith, or caviling, questioning unbelief. A starving man need not concern himself as to how, or where, the food set before him was obtained by his benefactor. It is his to eat, and be thankful. And any to whose ears the report of this benevolence comes, should, also, not be occupied with questions concerning the manner or means by which the philanthropist was enabled to do the beggar this kindness. Their business should be to admire and laud the spirit of disinterested love and mercy that prompted the deed of generosity.
And when all the Moabites heard that the kings were come up to fight against them, they gathered all that were able to put on armour, and upward, and stood in the border. When the morning dawned they saw the water, as the sun shone upon it, in the ditches, and it appeared to their eyes red as blood. And they said, This is blood: the kings are surely slain, and they have smitten one another; now therefore, Moab, to the spoil. They probably supposed that the Edomites had turned mutinous at the last, and in their effort to free* themselves of Hebrew domination, had caused the mutual destruction of the confederate armies. But alas, for them and their over-sanguine conclusion. When they approached the Israelitish camp, The Israelites rose up and smote the Moabites so that they fled before them. Their defeat was thorough and crushing, as it was unexpected. Israel seems now to have exceeded in unmerciful persuit and pressure upon the king of Moab, who, in desperation, took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great indigna- tion against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.
This was Jehoshaphats second act of affinity with the ungodly, and like the first, it ended in failure, or was entirely barren of results. If even sinners wish success in their undertakings they should be careful not to admit into their partnership Gods children, for Gods hand may be upon His own for discipline, and ill fortune will attend them. Neither Ahab, nor Jehoram gained anything by having the godly Jehoshaphat as their ally-so jealous is God of His peoples associations.
How strange, yet sadly true it is, that the history of a country is largely the history of its wars. The maxim holds good, not only of the land of Israel, but of its kings especially. Omit the records of their warfare, and there would be little to say of any of them. How it all tells of mans fall and ruin, and of Gods righteous government.
The second important incident recorded of Jehorams life is in connection with the invasion of his territory by the king of Syria. Then the king of Syria warred against Israel, and took counsel with his servants, saying, In such and such a place shall be my camp. And the man of God sent unto the king of Israel, saying, Beware that thou pass not such a place; for thither the Syrians are come down. And the king of Israel sent to the place which the man of God told him and warned him of, and saved himself there, not once nor twice. The prophet seems to look upon Jehoram here with somewhat less disfavor than when on the expedition against the Moabites. (See also 2Ki 3:13.) He seems to have been pursued by the king of Syria, and there may have been some change in his conduct too, which Elisha would be quick to take note of, and encourage in every possible way-so gracious is God in His governmental dealings with the sons of men.
On learning how Jehoram obtained the information by which he was enabled to repeatedly escape the ambushments set for him, the king of Syria sent to apprehend the revealer of his military secrets. In answer to His servants prayer, the Lord smote the Syrians with blindness, and the man they were bent on arresting led them into the very midst of their enemys capital. And the king of Israel said unto Elisha, when he saw them, My father, shall I smite them? shall I smite them? But, in New Testament spirit, he answers, Thou shalt not smite them; wouldest thou smite those whom thou hast taken captive with thy sword and with thy bow? Set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink, and go to their master. And he prepared great provision for them: and when they had eaten and drunk, he sent them away, and they went to their master. The Syrians had heard before that the kings of the house of Israel were merciful kings (1Ki 20:31); they were now given a demonstration of the mercy of Israels God through His prophets intervention. And it was not without some effect, nor at once forgotten, for we read, So the bands of Syria came no more into the land of Israel. Such is the power of grace, over hardened, heathen soldiers, even.
And it came to pass after this, that Ben-hadad king of Syria gathered all his host, and went up, and besieged Samaria. This does not in any way contradict what is stated in the preceding verse (2Ki 6:23, 24). Josephus says, So he [Ben-hadad] determined to make no more secret attempts upon the king of Israel (Ant. ix. 4, 4). He afterwards made open war upon him, by legitimate methods; no more by marauding bodies and ambushments.
Alas, Israels heart was hardened, so that, in the famine accompanying the siege, instead of turning to Jehovah, some of the inhabitants in their terrible extremity turned to the horrible deed of eating even their own offspring! See Lev 26:26-29; Deu 28:52, 53; which was finally fulfilled under the Romans.
And as the king of Israel was passing by upon the wall, there cried a woman unto him, saying, Help, my lord, O king. And he said, If the Lord do not help thee, whence shall I help thee? out of the barn-floor, or out of the winepress? And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And then he has told into his ears the terrible tale of women deliberately agreeing to boil and eat their own children! And it came to pass, when the king heard the words of the woman, that he rent his clothes; and he passed by upon the wall, and the people looked, and, behold, he had sackcloth within upon his flesh. Then he said, God do so and more also to me, if the head of Elisha the son of Shaphat shall stand on him this day. He had sackcloth on his flesh, but murder in his heart. Alas, what power of Satan over mans heart and mind is manifested in this! The heart of the king rises in bitter passion against God, and His prophet will serve to vent the rage of his unrepentant, unsubdued heart. It is not the only occasion in history where rulers have put the blame of national calamities upon God; and how often mens hearts rise against God, rather than humble themselves in repentance, under the pains of what they cannot change or overcome. (See Rev 16:10, 11)
The king therefore sent an executioner to make good his hasty threat. His motive in following after his executioner is not clear. Was it to see the accomplishment of his murderous design, or regret at his reckless order?
But Elisha sat in his house, and the elders sat with him; and the king sent a man from before him: but ere the messenger came to him, he said to the elders, See ye how this son of a murderer hath sent to take away my head? Look, when the messenger cometh? shut the door, and hold him fast at the door: is not the sound of his masters feet behind him ? And while he yet talked with them, behold, the messenger came down unto him: and he (the king) said, Behold, this evil is of the Lord, what [why, N. Tr.] should I wait for the Lord any longer? He had professedly been waiting upon the God of Elisha, and now when deliverance seems as far off as ever, throws it all up, as much as saying, It is useless to look to the Lord for deliverance; and the unbelief and passion of his heart break out.
But human extremity is the divine opportunity; and when the unbelieving king breaks out in fretful despair, the faith of Gods prophet shines out, proclaiming full relief and abundance on the morrow. Then Elisha said, Hear ye the word of the Lord; Thus saith the Lord, To-morrow about this time shall a measure of fine flour be sold for a shekel, and two measures of barley for a shekel, in the gate of Samaria. And as the man of God foretold, so it came to pass. A miraculous noise from the Lord frightened the besieging army, supposing it to be a mighty hosts arrival. For the Lord had made the host of the Syrians to hear a noise of chariots, and a noise of horses, even the noise of a great host: and they said one to another, Lo, the king of Israel hath hired against us the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of the Egyptians, to come upon us. Wherefore they arose and fled in the twilight, and left their tents, and their horses, and their asses, even the camp as it was, and fled for their life. Lepers, in the night, bring the welcome news to the king, who delays the deliverance by his unbelief, sending even to the Jordan, a score of miles away, for proofs of the report. Thus was Samaria relieved.
As for Syria, the dynasty of the first two Benhadads was soon after ended with the strangling of the king on his sick-bed by his prime minister Hazael, who reigned in his stead. News of this revolution, probably, encouraged Jehoram to attempt the recovery of Ramoth-Gilead, which his father, fourteen years before, had attacked in vain, with fatal consequences to himself. And he [Jehoram, king of Judah] went with Joram the son of Ahab to the war against Hazael king of Syria in Ramoth-Gilead; and the Syrians wounded Joram. And king Joram went back to be healed in Jezreel of the wounds which the Syrians had given him at Ramah [or Ramoth], when he fought against Hazael king of Syria.
How he was shortly after slain by Jehu his commander-in-chief, will be dwelt upon in the review of that kings life. (See Jehu; also Jehoram king of Judah.) The dynasty of Omri (the most powerful of the nine that ruled over Israel) ended with his life. His character was neither strong, nor very marked in anything. He appears to have had leanings toward the worship of Jehovah; but as a patron, rather than in heart-subjection to Him as the one true God of heaven and earth. He evidently looked upon Elishas miracles as matters of speculation, in idle curiosity inquiring of the prophets disgraced servant Gehazi. And the king talked with Gehazi the servant of the man of God, saying, Tell me, I pray thee, all the great things that Elisha hath done. These marvellous signs of Jehovah were to him material for entertainment, merely, as the miracles of Elishas great Antitype were to Herod. (See Mar 6:14, 20; Luk 9:9; 23:8.) He was the counselor of Jehoram king of Judah, to his destruction (2Ch 22:4, 5); and such was his unpopularity with his subjects that Jehu had but little difficulty in effecting a revolution, and supplanting him upon the throne after his murder.
He appears to have been, in spiritual matters, one of those undecided, neutral characters, who puzzle most observers, and who never seem to know themselves just where they stand, or belong. He put away the Baal statue, made by his father Ahab, but never become a real believer in Jehovah. The reading of the inspired record of his life leaves the impression on ones mind that he was, in all matters of faith, both skeptical and superstitious. God, who knew him and his ways perfectly, has caused it to be recorded of him, He wrought evil in the sight of the Lord. As such, we and all posterity know him. And as such he shall be manifested in the coming day, when great, as well as small, shall stand before the throne to be judged, every man, according to his works.
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
2Ki 3:15
On this occasion Elisha was ruffled or heated; and he felt that he was in no fit frame to receive Divine communications and impressions. The angry heart shuts out the gracious Spirit of God. So the prophet felt he must be soothed, and he called for a minstrel to play before him. The gentle strains calmed nerves and heart, soul and spirit, and he was able to receive God’s message and explain it to others.
I. This story teaches us that it is fit we seek by natural means to soothe and calm ourselves into a favourable mood to welcome the influence of that Spirit without whom we can neither pray nor praise aright. There is no natural means like music.
II. The text teaches that we should try to have all natural surroundings favourable to us, so that we may start fair when we seek to rise to what is above mere nature. “Music,” says the most influential American preacher, “is the preacher’s prime minister.” It is the function of music to begin at the point where the sermon ends. “Music takes up and renders substantial the same truths which may have been expressed dogmatically.” The grandest music is essentially sacred; it is an expression of faith and hope; it is vitally prayer and praise in every pure and upward-looking human spirit.
A. K. H. B., The Graver Thoughts of a Country Parson, 3rd series, p. 16.
References: 2Ki 3:15.-Bishop Woodford, Sermons on Subjects from the Old Testament, p. 92; Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxvii., No. 1612. 2Ki 3:16.-Congregationalist, vol. iv., p. 332. 2Ki 3:16, 2Ki 3:17.-S. Cox, The Bird’s Nest, p. 47; J. M. Neale, Sermons for the Church Year, vol. ii., p. 41; Spurgeon, Evening by Evening, p. 137. 2Ki 3:16-18.-Ibid., Sermons, vol. xiii., No. 747. 2Ki 3-Parker, vol. viii., p. 101. 2Ki 4:1-7.-Ibid., Fountain, March 15th, 1877; J. M. Neale, Sermons in Sackville College, vol. iii., p. 69; A. Edersheim, Elisha the Prophet, p. 81. 2Ki 4:1-8.-H. Macmillan, Two Worlds are Ours. p. 253.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
2. Jehoram, Moab, and Elisha
CHAPTER 3
1. Jehoram, King of Israel (2Ki 3:1-3)
2. Moabs rebellion (2Ki 3:4-9)
3. Elishas message and prediction (2Ki 3:10-20)
4. The defeat of Moab (2Ki 3:21-27)
In chapter 1:17 we read, And Jehoram reigned in his stead (Ahaziah) in the second year of Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, King of Judah. (He was associated with his father in the government of the kingdom. See 2Ki 8:27; 2Ch 21:6.) There was, therefore, a Jehoram, king over Judah, as well as a king of Israel by the same name. They are also known by the name Joram. Joram and Jehoram are used interchangeably. In 2Ki 1:17 and 2Ch 22:6 both kings are called Jehoram; in 2Ki 9:15; 2Ki 9:17, the King of Israel is called Joram; in 2Ki 8:21, etc., the King of Judah is called Joram; comparing 2Ki 8:16 and verse 29 we find these two names inverted. We mention this to clear up a possible difficulty some may find here. Jehoram was another son of Ahab, the brother of Ahaziah. A partial reformation was attempted by him, but he continued in the sins of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat (1Ki 12:25-33).
The full record of Moabs rebellion is now given. Jehoram formed an alliance with Jehoshaphat, the King of Judah and the King of Edom. Jehoshaphat had been in league with Ahab (1 Kings 22) and now we see him in a similar alliance with Ahabs second son. It was an alliance displeasing to the LORD and Jehoshaphat was troubled in his conscience about it. The same question he had put to Ahab, he now puts to Ahabs son, Is there not here a prophet of the LORD, that we may inquire of the LORD by him? (cf. 1Ki 22:7). Jehoshaphat knew the LORD, but was in evil company. When the three kings met in Elishas tent, the prophet manifests the boldness of Elijah in rebuking the wicked King of Israel. But he honors the King of Judah. As the LORD of hosts liveth, before whom I stand, surely, were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat the King of Judah, I would not look toward thee, nor see thee. But there was also a rebuke for the good King of Judah. The Spirit of God was grieved and Elisha had not the power of prophecy. He needed a minstrel first to calm his own agitated spirit and get into the condition of soul to utter the needed message. How it should have humbled the king, who served Jehovah, that after calling for a prophet of the LORD, the divine mouthpiece was unable to prophesy at once! Unholy alliances hindered the manifestation of the Spirit of God. Such is the case almost everywhere in our days of departure from the truth of God.
Then the ditches which had been made in obedience to the command given through Elisha were miraculously filled with water. On the next morning the Moabites saw the water and imagined that it was blood, on account of the reflection from the rising sun. And they said, This is blood; the kings are surely slain, and they have smitten one another, now therefore Moab to the spoil. The onrushing Moabites were met by the Israelites and Elishas prediction was fulfilled in the defeat of the Moabites and the devastation of their own land. It was the supernatural gift of water when the meal-offering was offered which led to the defeat of the enemy and the victory for Israel. And God has supplied the water of life through Him who is the true meal offering.
Kir-hareseth alone was left intact, all other cities were razed, all wells stopped up and every good tree cut down. (Kir-hareseth is repeatedly mentioned as the stronghold of Moab. See Isa 16:7.) On the devastation of Moab remarks a commentator, that the spirit of the times must be considered and that the half barbaric nations of that time all did this. But could the devastation of Moab hundreds of years before Christ have been any worse than the devastation of Belgium, Poland and Galicia in the twentieth century after Christ?
Then in despair the King of Moab did the horrible thing of sacrificing his eldest son, the one to reign after him. He offered him upon the wall, in plain sight of Israel, as a burnt offering, to conciliate his god Chemosh, who is mentioned on the Moabite stone. (See Appendix.)
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Jehoram: 2Ki 1:17, 2Ki 8:16, Joram, 1Ki 22:51
Reciprocal: Gen 19:37 – Moabites 2Ki 3:11 – that we may Mat 1:8 – Josaphat
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
ELISHAS MINISTRY BEGINS
MANEUVERING AN ARMY (2 Kings 3)
The incident about Mesha (2Ki 3:4-5) is interesting from the point of view of Biblical criticism. This is the only time he is mentioned in Sacred Writ and his name does not appear in profane history. For this cause objectors to the Bible have demanded proof of his existence at the time named. Also, was Moab noted for its wool? Was it tributary to Israel at this period? Did this rebellion occur? etc.
It was impossible to answer these questions outside of the Bible until about forty years ago when the Moabite Stone was discovered, on which an inscription by Mesha recorded all these facts.
What earlier alliance does this between Judah and Israel recall (2Ki 3:7)? What earlier situation does Jehoshaphats inquiry recall (2Ki 3:11)? Note the outward respect, at least, which the three kings pay to Jehovahs prophet (2Ki 3:12).
Why Elisha calls for the minstrel (2Ki 3:15) is not clear, except as a way of quieting his mind in the midst of turbulent scenes of battle, and so preparing him in the physical sense to listen to Gods voice. In our own experience we see the value of worshipful hymns as we approach the throne of grace.
How water came by the way of Edom (2Ki 3:20), may be explained by a shower or cloudburst. The water was reddened by flowing through the red earth of Edom, an effect heightened by the red light of the morning sun (2Ki 3:22).
The act of the king of Moab (2Ki 3:27) was not exceptional, but his thought in presenting the sacrifice upon the wall was probably that the besiegers beholding it might fear the heathen divinity to whom it was offered. He would now be appeased, presumptively in favor of his subjects, and it would go hard with their opponents. The meaning of indignation against Israel is obscure. Some understand it as indignation the Israelites themselves felt at this act so abominable in their sight, and which made them prefer to renounce further possession of Moab than to pursue the conflict. Or it may mean that Gods wrath fell upon them for returning home with their work of judgment half done.
MINISTERING TO INDIVIDUALS (2 Kings 4)
Notice the contrast between a poor woman (2Ki 4:1-7) and a rich one in the verses following. Both have needs which only God can supply, and He is as ready to show His power in the one case as in the other, and His prophet makes no distinction between them in his ministry.
In the story of the Shumanite notice that out of modesty and respect, when the prophet calls her (2Ki 4:15), she stood in the door. …. It is well (2Ki 4:23; 2Ki 4:26) is not to be understood as prevaricating, but as wishing to be let alone for the present.
The prophets staff (2Ki 4:29) was the badge of prophetic office. Recall Moses rod which was the symbol of divine power. It seems an error for Elisha to have dispatched his servant on this commission, but prophets are not infallible except where they speak or write by inspiration of God. (Compare Nathan in 2 Samuel 7.) In his desire to hasten matters, hoping the child was not quite dead, he hurries his servant hence; but he has to learn that he cannot delegate Gods grace and power according to his own will.
How does Elishas action (2Ki 4:33-35) compare with Elijahs under similar circumstances? The miracle that follows corresponds closely with that in 2Ki 2:19-22, and may be understood in the same way. The concluding miracles of the chapter suggest Christs multiplication of the loaves and fishes; but the difference is that here there was no multiplication, but the men were satisfied with the little each received. It was a miracle wrought on the men rather than the food.
MAGNIFYING HIS OFFICE (2 Kings 5)
That is a noticeable phrase in 2Ki 5:1, by him the Lord had given deliverance unto Syria, which shows that the inspired annalist regards Jehovah as the God of the whole earth without whose providence even the heathen nations gained no victories.
Observe God using the weak things of the world in the case of the little maid (2Ki 5:2), whose testimony influences the general, and the kings of Syria and Israel, to say nothing of the prophet, and is handed down as a force for righteousness and truth for thirty centuries!
Both kings misunderstood the situation, however, he of Israel being without excuse. It is this that gives Elisha the opportunity to magnify his office (2Ki 5:8), which he does again in the case of Naaman (2Ki 5:10). The Syrians greatness made no difference, he must be healed like any other leper, solely by the power and grace of God. The prophets humility and disinterestedness are established by his reply in 2Ki 5:15-16.
Naamans request for earth (2Ki 5:17) was not superstition but reverence. His request in 2Ki 5:18 indicates a tender conscience rather than a compromising spirit, or the prophet could hardly have bidden him go in peace.
QUESTIONS
1. Give the story of Mesha and its value as evidence of the truth of the Bible.
2. What three kings were in this combination against Moab?
3. Why, probably, was the kings son offered on the wall of the city?
4. What lessons may be drawn from Elishas treatment of the two women?
5. What lesson was Elisha to learn from Gehazis failure?
6. How does the miracle of the food differ from that in the gospels?
7. How does Elisha magnify his office in the case of Naaman?
8. In what two ways is Naamans conversion established?
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
2Ki 3:1. Jehoram began to reignthe eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat. There is a small difficulty here in regard to the chronology of those times. It is said that Ahaziah began to reign the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat. 1Ki 22:51. To reconcile the variation, it is supposed that either Jehoshaphat or Ahaziah began to reign before his father was dead, as was the case with Solomon.
2Ki 3:2. He put away the image of Baal. This god was becoming unpopular, for he had not, like Jehovah, sent fire from heaven; neither had he shielded Ahab nor Ahaziah from the piercing arrow.
2Ki 3:11. Which poured water on the hands of Elijah, was his disciple, and joyfully attended him as a servant.
2Ki 3:13. Get thee to the prophets of thy father. There is great majesty in these indignant words: and how will the wicked bear to be sent to their idols in a dying hour! Go to thy physicians, go to thy harlots, go to thy clubs!
2Ki 3:22. The sun shone upon the water. The morning sun, says rabbi Abulensis, with rays of rouge, which the waters reflected. There is however another opinion, that the red earth disturbed by convulsion, had tinted the water with red.
2Ki 3:26. Break through to the king of Edom, hoping that he would spare their lives. Though it be not named here; yet the Israelites took the king of Moab, and burned his bones to lime. These cruelties are severely reproved by the prophet Amo 2:1. Our surgeons carry the practice of dissection to profane excess.
REFLECTIONS.
Two hundred thousand sheep and lambs driven annually into the land of Israel, were a considerable tribute for Moab to pay, and a great augmentation of Ahabs revenue. We need not be surprised therefore, that on his death they threw off the yoke. Ahaziah, because of affliction, could not reduce them to obedience; and the task was left for his brother Jehoram, who began his reign by removing the long degraded altar of Baal, but retained the calves of Jeroboam. And how many sinners, under certain circumstances, will part with one vice, and retain another. Do they think that God will ever compound with his enemies, or resemble a tradesman who barters for services by an advance or a reduction of wages? Let us learn to be wholly the Lords, and he will be wholly ours.
The Moabites, in the fury of revolt, having burnt Mesha alive in the limepits, and probably all the collectors of the tribute they could seize, exposed themselves by those atrocities to the wrath of heaven, and the allied vengeance of Israel. Amo 2:1. Therefore Jehoram, Jehoshaphat, and the new viceroy of Moab, marched against the rebels. But taking a circuitous route, the three kings and the whole army were on the point of perishing for want of water. God leads man into straits that he may lead him to devotion, and to the counsel and advice of religion: then he has compassion on the poor and needy when they seek water, and when their tongue faileth them for thirst.
Humiliation and piety are essential, in seeking communion with God. Jehoshaphat, having enquired for a prophet, humbly stooped to go to him in person; and Elisha took a minstrel for psalmody, that his passions might be composed, and his soul aim at abstraction to receive with greater clearness the high communications of his God. This was a practice often honoured by divine revelations. 1Sa 10:5-6. How compassionate was the Lord to save the armies from death by a torrent of water, as he saved their fathers at Horeb; especially as the gift of water was accompanied with the promise of victory. The wicked often fare the better for being connected with the righteous. The king of Israel and all his host had surely now perished, had it not been that the king of Judah was in covenant with the Lord. We cannot but regard this miracle as a most signal indulgence of heaven, and more for the entire conversion of Israel, than for the salvation of the army. May all the special mercies of providence for our safety and comfort make us more pious, and more obedient.
Great crimes we see are often punished with great severity. Moab, by so horribly burning her king, had placed herself in the most awful situation. The law forbade the fruit-trees to be cut down. Deu 20:19. But in this case the whole land was devoted, for the expiation of so much innocent blood. Learn then, young men, to shun political and fanatical factions, which lead to riot, to sedition, and blood; for God will one day surely requite every outrage committed against the innocent. The very waters which saved Israel, muddy with the ruddy earth, having, when the sun shone, an appearance of blood, were made the cause of alluring the bloody Moabites to destruction. So it often happens, that the power which defends the righteous fights against the wicked.
We have lastly, the extremities to which this people was reduced. The new and desperate king, closely besieged in his capital, having tried in vain to cut his way through the assailants, and unable to obtain terms, obeyed a sort of standing oracle among the heathen, to offer in time of sore famine or war, whatever was most precious. It being thought, in extreme cases, that the life of man must go to save the life of man, this king offered up to Chemosh the god of Moab, his firstborn, whom he had designated to the throne; and the deeper to impress the Israelites with the horrors of the sacrifice, he burnt him on the wall. Here the heart of Jehoshaphat gave way; here the pity of the assailants, aided by terror of conscience, was excited; and it is more than probable that the wrath of God afflicted the camp with disease. Hence they abandoned the siege; for God who pities the errors of man, would not suffer the whole of Moab to be cut off.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Ki 3:1-27. Reign of Jehoram. War with Moab.The only two kings of Israel on whom the censure pronounced is in any way qualified are Jehoram, the last of the house of Omri, and Hoshea (2Ki 17:2), the last king of Israel. All the others are said to have done evil.
The war with Moab is the subject of the famous inscription of Mesha discovered in 1868 (pp. 34, 69). On this Mesha states that Omri occupied the land of Mehedebah (Medeba, Num 21:30, Jos 13:9, Isa 15:2) his days, half his sons days, forty years. In Kings it is specially said that Meshas rebellion was after the death of Ahab. Omri and Ahab together according to Kings reigned only thirty-four years; Ahaziah and Jehoram fourteen years, making only forty-eight years from the accession of Omri to the extinction of his dynasty. Mesha must not only have thrown off the yoke of Israel, but have engaged in considerable building operations after his victory, which makes it probable that the war to reduce him took place some time after his rebellion against the house of Omri. Jehoshaphat (2Ki 3:7) used the same language to Jehoram as he did to Ahab (2Ki 22:4). Judah and its dependent Mesha, a Noked (Amo 1:1*), state of Edom, were evidently vassals of the more powerful king of Israel. The king of Edom (1Ki 22:47) may have been the deputy appointed by Jehoshaphat, but 2Ki 3:26 may imply that he was a native king. The three kings did not directly attack Moab, which according to Meshas inscription was strongly fortified, but approached it by a circuitous route. Elisha, unknown to the kings, was with the army, and was called the servant (2Ki 3:11) which poured water on the hands (cf. Psa 60:8) of Elijah. He was accustomed (2Ki 3:15) to prophesy under the influence of music (1Sa 10:5*), and the formula (2Ki 3:14) As Yahweh liveth, before whom I stand (cf. Jer 35:19) is the same as that used by his master (1Ki 17:1). The supplying of water by the digging of pits in the sand is a known expedient (see Cent.B). [R. H. Kennett suggests that the Moabites took the ruddy light on the water for an omen of blood rather than for actual gore. (See J. G. Frazer, Adonis Attis Osiris, i. 53.)A. S. P.] Elisha (2Ki 3:19) foretells all the barbarous methods which Israel would employ in victory in the same manner as he does the atrocities Hazael would commit when he became king of Syria (2Ki 8:12). The acts committed when Moab was defeated (2Ki 3:25) were forbidden (Deu 20:19 f.). The war ended by the desperate act of the king of Moab offering his son as a burnt sacrifice (2Ki 3:27) on the wall of Kir-hareseth (Isa 16:7, Jer 48:31, the modern Kerak). Mesha attributes all his troubles to the wrath of his god Chemosh (Moabite Stone, 1. 5). Chemosh certainly delighted in human sacrifices. The great wrath which came forth against Israel was from the god of Moab who had accepted the supreme sacrifice of his worshipper.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
JEHORAM, JEHOSHAPHAT AND MOAB
(vv.1-27)
Jehoram, Ahab’s son, reigned, over Israel 12 years and followed the sinful example of Jereboam, though not doing so wickedly as Ahab, for he got rid of the idolatrous pillar of Baal that Ahab had made.
Moab had been put under tribute to Israel, the Israelites requiring from Moab 100,000 lambs and the wool of 100,000 rams, regularly, no doubt every year (v.4). But when Ahab died the king of Moab rebelled against Israel, evidently refusing to render the yearly tribute (v.5).
Jehoram therefore prepared to attack Moab, but feeling some inadequacy, wanted the help of Judah, a stronger company. Just as Ahab had asked Jehoshaphat to help him in battle, so Jehoram asked him the same (v.7).
Why had Jehoshaphat not learned from his previous experience? But believers too easily allow their kindly feelings to lead them into wrong situations, and Jehoshaphat yielded, compromising himself, his people and his armies. The more prominent one is, the more harm he will do by his bad example. Israel was engaged in the false worship of idols, and Jehoshaphat’s friendliness with Jehoram was unfaithfulness to God.
While Jehoshaphat’s agreement to go with the king of Israel to fight against Moab was a serious compromise of any devotion to God, yet the Lord bears with much that is not according to His will. The question is asked, “Which way shall we go up,” and the answer was “By way of the wilderness of Edom” (v.8). Edom is a type of the flesh, so they go up by way of the barrenness of the flesh, a contrast to being led by the Spirit of God. No wonder that, after seven days’ march they found no water either for themselves or their animals. The flesh can provide no true refreshment. Having not been led by God, what else could they expect? Jehoram was stricken by apprehension. How could he say that the Lord had called these kings together? (v.10). He had not consulted the Lord, nor had Jehoshaphat.
But Jehoshaphat at least now recognised their need of the Lord, and asked if there was a prophet of the Lord available to be consulted (v.11). It so happened that Elisha was in the area, so Jehoshaphat, Jehoram and the king of Edom (who had evidently joined them) went to Elisha (v.12). That prophet had a biting message for Jehoram, asking him why he did not go to the idolatrous prophets of his father and mother (v.13). No doubt Jehoram realised that those prophets could do no good in a case of serious emergency, and he told Elisha these three kings were in imminent danger of being overcome by Moab.
Elisha responded by telling him that if Jehoshaphat had not been with him, Elisha would have no regard whatever for Jehoram (v.14). God does make a difference between believers and unbelievers, though at this time Elisha did not reprove Jehoshaphat for his friendliness with Jehoram. Yet Jehoshaphat should surely have had serious twinges of conscience when he heard Elisha’s wards.
Because the whole situation was a compromising one, Elisha asked for a musician (v.18). A disturbed spirit need the soothing ministry of the Word of God (of which the music speaks) to find the quietness of the Lord’s presence. As the musician played, the hand of the Lord came upon Elisha, and he gave the Lord’s message, “Make this valley full of ditches” (v.16). Though they would not observe wind or rain, yet those ditches would be filled with water for the men and animals to drink. More than this, the Lord said He would also deliver the Moabites into their hands (v.18). He would show His faithful care for Israel, His people, in spite of their low and disobedient condition.
Because Moab stands for what is opposed to the character of the God of Israel, Israel is told to attack every city of Moab, cut down every good tree, stop up every spring of water and ruin, every good piece of land with stones (v.19). Moab is typical of the principle of religious self indulgence. “Moab has been at ease from his youth; he has settled all his dregs, and has not been emptied from vessel to vessel, nor has he gone into captivity. Therefore his taste remained in him, and his scent is not changed” (Jer 48:11). This principle must be zealously destroyed by Israel.
But Israel ought to have learned by this not to be like Moab in any way. Indeed, Israel’s practices had too sadly followed the practices of Moab, so that Moab was an object lesson. If the principle of evil should be judged, then certainly the practices should be also.
As the Lord had promised, the next morning the land was filled with water (v.20), coming at the time the meal offering was offered. Thus the thirst of men and animals also was relieved. But the water served a two-fold purpose. As the Moabites came to fight against Israel, the early morning sun shining on the water made it appear as red as blood (v.22). The Moabites knew that this was not an area where water was normally found, and concluded they were observing blood, thinking it was the blood of their enemies, apparently shed in fighting against one another (v.23). Thus, expecting no opposition, they approached to take the spoil.
What a surprise for them to find themselves attacked by the armies they thought were dead! Moab fled before Israel and many of their troops were killed. Israel entered the land of Moab and destroyed their cities. They covered every good piece of land with stones, stopped up the springs of water and cut down all the good trees (v.25). How effective this would prove in disturbing the smug self-satisfaction of Moab, having “been at ease from his youth”! Moab would be left with hard work rather than ease.
The king of Moab, being desperate, took 700 swordsmen to break through to the king of Edom, but they were repulsed. Being thus frustrated, the king of Moab took his oldest son and offered him as a burnt offering to his idolatrous god, as though this foolish measure would change the tide of war! But such is the folly of unbelief. It is added, “there was great indignation against Israel” (v.27). Israel had gained the victory and had slaughtered many Moabites, but did this encourage the Moabites to again render tribute to Israel? Nothing is said about this, but if tribute was resumed, it would certainly be resumed grudgingly.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
3:1 Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the {a} eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years.
(a) Read the annotation in 2Ki 1:17.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
God’s victory over the Moabites ch. 3
Even though Jehoram was better spiritually than Ahab (2Ki 3:2), he was still so much of an idolater that Elisha had no use for him (2Ki 3:13-14).
Mesha had rebelled against Israel earlier (2Ki 3:3), but he continued to do so. This uprising led to the alliance and battle the writer described in this chapter. Jehoram evidently sought an alliance with Jehoshaphat because he wanted to cross Judean territory to get to Moab. [Note: Stigers, p. 343.] The southern approach to Moab through Edom apparently did not have as strong defenses as Moab’s northern border (2Ki 3:8). Edom was at this time under Judah’s authority. Jehoram regarded the water shortage as a judgment from Yahweh (2Ki 3:10). Elisha used to serve Elijah by pouring water on his hands as Elijah washed them, a menial task, as well as in other ways (2Ki 3:11; 1Ki 19:21). Music sometimes facilitated prophetic revelations (cf. 1Sa 16:23).
"It is more likely amid these calamitous circumstances Elisha simply wanted soothing music played so that he might be quieted before God and thus to be brought to a mood conducive for God to reveal to him his will." [Note: Leon J. Wood, The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, p. 118.]
Elisha conceded to help because Jehoshaphat had humbled himself by seeking Yahweh’s assistance (2Ki 3:12). God provided water (refreshment) supernaturally to His people, but He brought defeat and lack of fertility and productivity on Moab for opposing Israel. He began the deliverance at the time of the Israelites’ daily sacrifice when they symbolically dedicated themselves anew to God (2Ki 3:20). God’s deliverance was supernatural (2Ki 3:22-23) and showed everyone present that Israel’s victory was not her own doing.
"The dried-up river bed (probably the Wadi Hesa; River Zered) was to have many trenches (Heb. ’trenches trenches’) dug to retain the flash-flood (Arab. sayl) which would result from rain falling out of sight on the distant Moabite hills. This form of irrigation is still common in central and southern Arabia." [Note: Wiseman, p. 201.]
Kir-hereseth (modern Kerak) stood on an easily defended hill. In the ancient Near East nations generally viewed defeat in battle as a sign that they had offended their gods who were punishing them. For this reason Mesha offered the supreme sacrifice, his heir to the throne, to Chemosh, the Moabite god (2Ki 3:27). Mesha’s sacrifice of his son was an integral part of an age-old Canaanite tradition of sacral warfare. It virtually guaranteed, from his point of view, that his god would save the lives of the entire population under siege. [Note: Baruch Margalit, "Why King Mesha of Moab Sacrificed His Oldest Son," Biblical Archaeology Review 12:6 (November-December 1986):62-63. Cf. Montgomery, p. 363.]
This sacrifice expressed Mesha’s great wrath against Israel. The battle meant everything to him. Nevertheless it was not that important to the members of the alliance that opposed him. All they wanted to do was keep Moab from revolting. Therefore the allies departed from Mesha and returned home having won the battle even though they could not take Mesha’s stronghold.
"The object of the campaign had been attained; the power of Moab was broken, the rebellion suppressed, and the country again placed under the scepter of the king of Israel." [Note: F. W. Krummacher, Elisha, p. 45.]
The Moabite Stone, a significant archaeological find, contains Mesha’s own record of this battle and other battles with Israel. On it he claimed to have won with Chemosh’s help. Though he lost the battle he did not lose his life or his capital.
This chapter shows that God was willing to give Israel victory because she allied with Jehoshaphat who humbled himself under God (cf. 2Ki 2:23-25). God in His grace sometimes allows His blessings for obedience to spill over to those who are less worthy (cf. 1Co 7:14).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
THE INVASION OF MOAB
2Ki 3:4-27
“What reinforcement we may gain from hope, If not, what resolution from despair.”
-MILTON, “Paradise Lost, ” 1:190
AHAZIAH, as Elijah had warned him, never recovered from the injuries received in his fall through the lattice, and after his brief and luckless reign died without a child. He was succeeded by his brother Jehoram (“Jehovah is exalted”), who reigned for twelve years.
Jehoram began well. Though it is said that he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, we are told that he was not so guilty as his father or his mother. He did not, of course, abolish the worship of Jehovah under the cherubic symbol of the calves; no king of Israel thought of doing that, and so far as we know neither Elijah, nor Elisha, nor Jonah, nor Micaiah, nor any genuine prophet of Israel before Hosea, ever protested against that worship, which was chiefly disparaged by prophets of Judah like Amos and the nameless seer. But Jehoram at least removed the Matstsebah or stone obelisk which had been reared in Baals honor in front of his temple by Ahab, or by Jezebel in his name. In this direction, however, his reformation must have been exceedingly partial, for until the sweeping measures taken by Jehu the temple and images of Baal still continued to exist in Samaria under his very eyes, and must have been connived at if not approved.
The first great measure which occupied the thoughts of Jehoram was to subdue the kingdom of Moab, which had been restored to independence by the bravery of the great pastoral-king Mesha; or at any rate to avenge the series of humiliating defeats which Mesha had inflicted on his brother Ahaziah. A war of forty years duration had ended in the complete success of Moab. The loss of a tribute of the fleeces of one hundred thousand lambs and one hundred thousand rams was too serious to be lightly faced. Jehoram laid his plans well. First he ordered a muster of all the men of war throughout his kingdom, and then appealed for the cooperation of Jehoshaphat and his vassal-king of Edom. Both kings consented to join him. Jehoshaphat had already been the victim of a powerful and wanton aggression on the part of King Mesha, {2Ch 20:1-30} froth which he had been delivered by the panic of his foes in the Valley of Salt. Though the king of Edom had, on that occasion, been an ally of Mesha, the forces of Edom had fallen the first victims of that internecine panic. Both Judah and Edom, therefore, had grave wrongs to avenge, and eagerly seized the opportunity to humble the growing pride of the people of Chemosh. The attack was wisely arranged. It was determined to advance against Moab from the south, through the territory of Edom, by a rough and mountainous track, and, as far as possible, to take the nation by surprise. The combined host took a seven days circuit round the south of the Dead Sea, hoping to find an abundant supply of water in the stream which flows through the Wady-el-Ahsa, which separates Edom from Moab. But owing to recent droughts the wady was waterless, and the armies, with their horses, suffered all the agonies of thirst. Jehoram gave way to despair, bewailing that Jehovah should have brought together these three kings to deliver them a helpless prey into the hands of Moab. But the pious Jehoshaphat at once thinks of “inquiring of the Lord” by some true prophet, and one of Jehorams courtiers informs him that no less a person than Elisha, the son of Shaphat, who had been the attendant of Elijah, is with the host: We are surprised to find that his presence in the camp had excited so little attention as to be unknown to the king; but Jehoshaphat, on hearing his name, instantly acknowledged his prophetic inspiration. So urgent was the need, and so deep the sense of Elishas greatness, that the three kings in person went on an embassy “to the servant of him who ran before the chariot of Ahab.” Their humble appeal to him produced so little elation in his mind that, addressing Jehoram, who was the most powerful, he exclaimed, with rough indignation: “What have I to do with thee? Get thee to the prophets of thy father,”-nominal prophets of Jehovah who will say to thee smooth things and prophesy deceits, as four hundred of them did to Ahab” and to the Baal-prophets of thy mother.” Instead of resenting this scant respect Jehoram, in utmost distress, deprecated the prophets anger, and appealed to his pity for the peril of the three armies. But Elisha is not mollified. He tells Jehoram that but for the presence of Jehoshaphat he would not so much as look at him: so completely was the destiny of the people mixed up with the character of their kings! Out of respect for Jehoshaphat Elisha will do what he can. But all his soul is in a tumult of emotion. For the moment he can do nothing. He needs to be calmed from his agitation by the spell of music, and bids them send a minstrel to him. The harper came, and as Elisha listened his soul was composed, and “the hand of the Lord came upon him” to illuminate and inspire his thoughts. The result was that he bade them dig trenches in the dry wady, and promised that, though they should see neither wind nor rain, the valley should be filled with water to quench the thirst of the fainting armies, their horses and their cattle. After this God would also deliver the Moabites into their hand; and they were bidden to smite the cities, fell the trees, stop the wells, and mar the smiling pasture lands, which constituted the wealth of Moab, with stones. That the hosts of Judah and Israel and jealous Edom should be prone to afflict this awfully devastating vengeance on a power by which they had been so severely defeated on past occasions, and on which they had so many wrongs and blood-feuds to avenge, was natural; but it is surprising to find a prophet of the Lord giving the commission to ruin the gifts of God and spoil the innocent labors of man, and thus to inflict misery on generations yet unborn. The behest is directly contrary to rules of international war which have prevailed even between non-Christian nations, among whom the stopping or poisoning of wells and the cutting down of fruit trees, has been expressly forbidden. It is also against the rules of war laid down in Deuteronomy. {Deu 20:19-20} Such, however, was the command attributed to Elisha; and, as we shall see, it was fulfilled, and seems to have led to disastrous consequences.
Cheered by the promise of Divine aid which the prophet had given them, the host retired to rest. The next morning at day-dawn, when the minchah of fine flour, oil, and frankincense was offered, {Lev 2:1. Comp. 1Ki 18:36} water, which, according to the tradition of Josephus, had fallen at three days distance on the hills of Edom, came flowing from the south and filled the wady with its refreshing streams.
The incident itself is highly instructive. It throws light both upon the general accuracy of the ancient narrative, and on the fact that events to which a directly supernatural coloring is given are in many instances not so much supernatural as providential. The deliverance of Israel was due, not to a portent wrought by Elisha, but to the pure wisdom which he derived from the inspiration of God. When the counsels of princes were of none effect, and for lack of the spirit of counsel the people were perishing, his mind alone, illuminated by a wisdom from on high, saw what was the right step to take. He bade the soldiers dig trenches in the dry torrent bed, -which was the very step most likely to ensure their deliverance from the torment of thirst, and which would be done under similar circumstances to this day. They saw neither wind nor rain; but there had been a storm among the farther hills, and the swollen watercourses discharged their overflow into the trenches of the wady which were ready prepared for them, and offered the path of least resistance.
Moab, meanwhile, had heard of the advance of the three kings through the territories of Edom. The whole military population had mustered in arms, and stood on the frontier, on the other side of the dry wady, to oppose the invasion. For they knew this would be a struggle of life and death, and that if defeated they would have no mercy to expect. When the sun rose, and its first rays burned on the wady, which had been dry on the previous evening, the water which, unknown to the Moabites, had filled the trenches in the night looked red as blood. Doubtless it may have been stained, as Ewald says, by the red soil which gave its name to the red land of the “red king, Edom”; but as it gleamed under the dawn the Moabites thought that those seemingly crimson pools had been filled with the blood of their enemies, who had fallen by each others swords. Their own recent experience when Jehoshaphat met them in the Valley of Salt showed them how easy it was for temporary allies to be seized by panic, and to fight among themselves.
The army of their invaders was composed of heterogeneous and mutually conflicting elements. Between Israel and Judah there had been nearly a century of war, and only a brief reunion; and Edom, recently the willing and natural ally of Moab, was not likely to fight very zealously for Judah, which had reduced her to vassalage. So the Moabites said to one another, as they pointed to the unexpected apparition of those red pools: “This is blood. The kings are surely destroyed, and they have smitten each man his fellow. Moab to the spoil!” They rushed down tumultuously on the camp of Israel, and found the soldiers of Jehoram ready to receive them. Taken by surprise, for they had expected no resistance, they were hurled back in utter confusion and with immense slaughter. The three kings pushed their advantage to the utmost. They went forward into the land, driving and smiting the Moabites before them, and ruthlessly carrying out the command attributed to Elisha. They beat down the cities-most of which in a land of flocks and herds were little more than pastoral villages; they rendered the green fields useless with stones; they filled up all the wells with earth; they felled every fruit-bearing tree of any value. At last only one stronghold, Kirharaseth, the chief fenced town of Moab, held out against them. Even this fortress was sore bested. The slingers, for which Israel, and specially the tribe of Benjamin, was so famous, advanced to drive its defenders from the battlements. King Mesha fought with undaunted heroism. He decided to take the seven hundred warriors who were left to him, and cut his way through the besieging host to the king of Edom. He thought that even now he might persuade the Edomites to abandon this new and unnatural alliance, and turn the battle against their common enemies. But the numbers against him were too strong, and he found the plan impossible. Then he formed a dreadful resolution, dictated to him by the extremity of his despair. His inscription at Karcha shows that he was a profound and even fanatical believer in Chemosh, his god. Chemosh could still deliver him. If Chemosh was, as Mesha says in his inscription, “angry with his land”-if, even for a time, he allowed his faithful people and his devoted king to be afflicted-it could not be for any lack of power on his part, but only because they had in some way offended him, so that he was wroth, or because he had gone on a journey, or was asleep, or deaf. {1Ki 18:27. Comp. Psa 35:23; Psa 44:23; Psa 83:1, etc.} How could he be appeased? Only by the offering of the most precious of all the kings possessions; only by the self-devotion of the crown-prince, on whom were centered all the nations hopes. Mesha would force Chemosh to help him for very shame. He would offer to Chemosh a human sacrifice, the sacrifice of his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead. Doubtless the young prince gave himself up as a willing offering, for that was essential to the holocaust being valid and acceptable.
So upon the wall of Kirharaseth, in the sight of all the Moabites, and of the three invading armies, the brave and desperate hero of a hundred fights, who had inflicted so many reverses upon these enemies, and received so many at their hands, but who, having liberated his country, now saw all the efforts of his life ruined at one blow-took his eldest son, kindled the sacrificial fire, and then and there solemnly offered that horrible burnt-offering.
And it proved effectual, though far otherwise than Mesha had expected. He was delivered; and, doubtless, if ever he reared, at Kirharaseth or elsewhere, another memorial stone, he would have attributed his deliverance to his national god. But here, in the annals of Elisha, the result is hurried over, and a veil is, so to speak, dropped upon the dreadful scene with the one ambiguous expression, “And there was great wrath against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.”
The phrase awakens but does not satisfy our curiosity. We are not certain of the translation or of the meaning. It may be, as in the margin of the Revised Version, “there came great wrath upon Israel.” But wrath from whom? and on what account? The word “wrath” all but invariably denotes divine wrath; but we cannot imagine (as some critics do) that any Israelite of the schools of the prophets would sanction the notion that the chosen people were allowed to suffer from the kindled wrath of Chemosh. Can we then suppose that the desperate act of King Mesha was a proof that Israel, who was no doubt the most interested and the most remorseless of the invaders, had pressed the Moabites too hard, and carried his vengeance much too far? That is by no means impossible. The prophet Amos denounces upon Moab in after years the doom that fire should devour the palaces of Kirioth, and that Moab should perish with shoutings, and all his royal line be cut off, for the far less offence of having burned into lime the bones of the king of Edom. {Amo 2:1-3} The command of Elisha did not exempt the Israelites from their share of moral responsibility. Jehu was commissioned to be an executioner of vengeance upon the house of Ahab. Yet Jehu is expressly condemned by the prophet Hosea for the tiger-like ferocity and horrible thoroughness with which he had carried out his destined work. Only one other explanation is possible. If “wrath” here has the unusual sense of human indignation, the clause can only imply that the armies of Judah and Edom were roused to anger by the unpitying spirit which Israel had displayed. The horrible tragedy enacted upon the wall of Kirharaseth awoke their consciences to the sense of human compassion. These, after all, were fellow-men-fellow-men of kindred blood to their own-whom they had driven to straits so frightful as to cause a king to burn his own heir alive as a mute appeal to his god in the hour of overwhelming ruin. They had done enough:
“Sunt laerimae rerum et mentem mortalia tangunt.”
They hastily broke up the league, dissolved the alliance, returned horror-stricken to their own land. They left Moab indeed in possession of his last fortress, but they had reduced his territory to a wilderness before they retired and called it peace.