Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Kings 8:1
Then spoke Elisha unto the woman, whose son he had restored to life, saying, Arise, and go thou and thine household, and sojourn wheresoever thou canst sojourn: for the LORD hath called for a famine; and it shall also come upon the land seven years.
Ch. 2Ki 8:1-6. The land of the Shunammite is restored to her by the king’s order for the sake of Elisha’s miracles (Not in Chronicles)
1. Then spake Elisha ] R.V. Now Elisha had spoken. It is clear from verse 3 that Elisha’s advice was given at least seven years before the event narrated in these verses. Hence the necessity for the change of tense. It is probable that the accounts of Elisha’s work and influence are not related in their chronological order. The famine here spoken of was most likely the same to which allusion is made in 2Ki 4:38, and perhaps the conference of the king with Gehazi mentioned in verse 4 took place before the latter was smitten with leprosy. It is not however absolutely certain that Jehoram might not have an interview with Gehazi, though leprous. Bp Hall says of them: ‘I begin to think some goodness in both these. Had there not been some goodness in Jehoram, he had not taken pleasure to hear, even from a leprous mouth, the miraculous acts and praises of God’s prophet: had there not been some goodness in Gehazi, he had not, after so fearful an infliction of judgement, thus ingenuously recounted the praises of his severe master’.
the woman, whose son he had restored ] i.e. the Shunammite whose story is told in 2Ki 4:8-37.
sojourn wheresoever thou canst sojourn ] Why such advice should be given to a woman, who from the history appears to have been in better circumstances than others, it is not easy to decide. As the husband is nowhere mentioned in this appeal to Jehoram, it may be that he, being already old when the son was restored to life, had in the meantime died. Then she may have fallen into some distress, and have been unable to dwell on the lands which her husband had cultivated.
the Lord hath called for a famine ] Similarly the Lord is said to call for the sword against a land, Jer 25:29; Eze 38:21.
and it shall also come ] Elisha, as the seer, foretells the duration of the dearth, as he had done the termination of the siege, and the consequent abundance in Samaria (2Ki 7:1). In both cases his words are directly referred to Jehovah.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The famine here recorded, and the conversation of the monarch with Gehazi, must have been anterior to the events related in 2 Kings 5 since we may be sure that a king of Israel would not have entered into familiar conversation with a confirmed leper. The writer of Kings probably col ected the miracles of Elisha from various sources, and did not always arrange them chronologically. Here the link of connection is to be found in the nature of the miracle. As Elisha on one occasion prophesied plenty, so on another he had prophesied a famine.
Called for a famine – A frequent expression (compare the marginal references). Gods calling for anything is the same as His producing it (see Eze 36:29; Rom 4:17).
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
2Ki 8:1-6
Then spake Elisha unto the woman.
The potent influence of a good man
I. His counsel is valuable, and gratefully acted upon. Here we see how the kindness shown by the Shunammite receives still further reward. There is nothing so fruitful in blessing as kindness. In the great dilemmas of life we seek counsel, not from the frivolous and wicked, but from the wise and good. A good man has the destiny of many lives in his hands; a word from him has great weight.
II. His beneficent acts are the theme of popular conversation (2Ki 8:4). A good action cannot be hid. Sooner or later it will emerge from the obscurity in which it was first done, and become the talk of a nation, until it reaches even royal ears. All good actions do not attain such distinguished popularity. There were many good things that Elisha said and did of which history takes no notice. A good act may be remembered and applauded for generations, while the name of the actor is unknown.
III. His holy and unselfish life is a testimony for Jehovah in the midst of national apostasy. In the darkest night of national apostasy, Israel was favoured with an Elisha, whose divinely-illumined life threw a bright stream of light across the gloom. How deplorable the condition of that nation from which all moral worth is excluded!
IV. His reputation is the means of promoting the ends of justice (2Ki 8:5-6). There was surely a Divine providence at work that brought the suppliant Shunammite into the presence of the king at the very moment when Gehazi was rehearsing the great works of Elisha. Justice triumphed; her land and all its produce for the seven years were restored to her. It requires power to enforce the claims of justice, and the highest -kind of power is goodness. The arrangements of justice are more likely to be permanent when brought about by the influence of righteous principles, than when compelled by physical force. The presence of a holy character in society is a powerful check upon injustice and wrong. (G. Barlow.)
Beneficence of the Christian life
The other summer, says Dr. Abbott, while sailing along the shores of the Sound, I landed at a little cove; there was a lighthouse tower and a fog-bell, and the keeper showed us the fog-bell, and how the mechanism made it strike every few minutes in the darkness and in the night when the fog hung over the coast; and I said, That is the preacher; there he stands, ringing out the message of warning, ringing out the message of instruction, ringing out the message of cheer; it is a great thing to be a preacher. We went up into the lighthouse tower. Here was a tower that never said anything and never did anything–it just stood still and shone–and I said, That is the Christian. He may not have any word to utter, he may not be a prophet, he may not be a worker, he may achieve nothing, but he stands still and shines, in the darkness and in the storm, always, and every night. The fog-bell strikes only on occasion, but all the time and every night the light flashes out from the lighthouse; all the time and every night this light is flashing out from you if you are Gods children.
Permanent effects of godliness
Sir Wilfred Laurier has recently given a very striking testimony to the powerful influence of the Puritan spirit. He was asked why he was absolutely, in the best sense of the word, an Imperialist. Sir Wilfred replied that when he was a boy he was brought up in the home of a God-fearing Scottish farmer, at whose family worship he was present every morning and night. He was struck by the catholicity of spirit of the farmer, but still more by the fact that the farmer took the affairs of his house, his neighbourhood, and all his country in the presence of the Almighty, and sought His blessing upon all. This experience implanted in Sir Wilfreds heart an abiding conviction that an empire based on such community of spirit was made by God to lead the world. Here is the influence of a humble family worship determining the destinies of an empire. The lowly farmer in Scotland little realised how far-reaching the ministry of his family altar would be. Little did he know that while he was praying and worshipping in apparent obscurity he was moulding the thoughts and feelings of a great statesman, and so shaping the policy of states. What a dignity this gives to the home altar, and what solemnity surrounds the lowly acts of family worship! It can be said of these humble ministries that their lines are gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. (Hartley Aspen.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER VIII
Account of the sojourning of the Shunammite in the land of the
Philistines, during the seven years famine, 1, 2.
She returns, and solicits the king to let her have back her
land; which, with its fruits, he orders to be restored to her,
3-6.
Elisha comes to Damascus, and finds Ben-hadad sick; who sends
his servant Hazael to the prophet to inquire whether he shall
recover, 7-9.
Elisha predicts his death, tells Hazael that he shall be king,
and shows him the atrocities he will commit, 10-14.
Hazael returns, stifles his master with a wet cloth, and reigns
in his stead, 15.
Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, becomes king over Judah; his bad
reign, 16-19.
Edom and Libnah revolt, 20-22.
Jehoram dies, and his son Ahaziah reigns in his stead, 23, 24.
His bad reign, 23-24.
He joins with Joram, son of Ahab, against Hazael; Joram is
wounded by the Syrians, and goes to Jezreel to be healed,
28, 29.
NOTES ON CHAP. VIII
Verse 1. Then spake Elisha] As this is the relation of an event far past, the words should be translated, “But Elisha had spoken unto the woman whose son he had restored unto life; and the woman had arisen, and acted according to the saying of the man of God, and had gone with her family, and had sojourned in the land of the Philistines seven years.” What is mentioned in these two verses happened several years before the time specified in the third verse. See the observations at the end of the preceding chapter. 2Kg 7:17.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Then: this particle of time may be understood either particularly and definitely of the time next following the former history, or more generally and indefinitely (as it is frequently used) of the time in which Elisha and this Shunammitish woman lived. Possibly this might happen before the history of Naaman, 2Ki 5, or at least before the siege of Samaria, 2Ki 6; but this is not certain.
Unto the woman; expressing his gratitude for her former kindnesses, by taking special care for her preservation.
Wheresoever thou canst sojourn; in any convenient place out of the land of Israel.
Hath called for a famine, i.e. hath appointed to bring a famine, or a great scarcity of provisions. This expression intimates that all afflictions are sent by God, and come at his call or command.
Seven years; a double time to the former famine under Elijah, Jam 5:17, which is but just and reasonable, because they were still obstinate and incorrigible under all the severe and succeeding judgments of God, and under the powerful ministry of Elisha, who confirmed his doctrine by glorious miracles. See Lev 26:21,24,28.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. Then spake Elisha unto thewomanrather “had spoken.” The repetition of Elisha’sdirection to the Shunammite is merely given as an introduction to thefollowing narrative; and it probably took place before the eventsrecorded in chapters 5 and 6.
the Lord hath called for afamineAll such calamities are chastisements inflicted by thehand of God; and this famine was to be of double duration to that onewhich happened in the time of Elijah (Jas5:17) a just increase of severity, since the Israelites stillcontinued obdurate and incorrigible under the ministry and miraclesof Elisha (Lev 26:21; Lev 26:24;Lev 26:28).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then spoke Elisha unto the woman (whose son he had restored to life),…. His hostess at Shunem, 2Ki 4:8 the following he said to her, not after the famine in Samaria, but before it, as some circumstances show:
saying, arise, and go thou and thine household, and sojourn wheresoever thou canst sojourn; with the greatest safety to her person and property, and with the least danger to her moral and religious character:
for the Lord hath called for a famine, and it shall also come upon the land seven years: which Jarchi says was the famine that was in the days of Joel; it was, undoubtedly, on account of the idolatry of Israel, and was double the time of that in the days of Elijah.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Elisha’s Influence Helps the Shunammite to the Possession of her House and Field. – 2Ki 8:1, 2Ki 8:2. By the advice of Elisha, the woman whose son the prophet had restored to life (2Ki 4:33) had gone with her family into the land of the Philistines during a seven years’ famine, and had remained there seven years. The two verses are rendered by most commentators in the pluperfect, and that with perfect correctness, for they are circumstantial clauses, and is merely a continuation of , the two together preparing the way for, and introducing the following event. The object is not to relate a prophecy of Elisha of the seven years’ famine, but what afterwards occurred, namely, how king Joram was induced by the account of Elisha’s miraculous works to have the property of the Shunammite restored to her upon her application. The seven years’ famine occurred in the middle of Joram’s reign, and the event related here took place before the curing of Naaman the Syrian (2 Kings 5), as is evident from the fact that Gehazi talked with the king (2Ki 8:4), and therefore had not yet been punished with leprosy. But it cannot have originally stood between 2Ki 4:37 and 2Ki 4:38, as Thenius supposes, because the incidents related in 2Ki 4:38-44 belong to the time of this famine (cf. 2Ki 4:38), and therefore precede the occurrence mentioned here. By the words, “the Lord called the famine, and it came seven years” (sc., lasting that time), the famine is described as a divine judgment for the idolatry of the nation.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| A Famine in Israel; the Shunammite’s Possessions Restored. | B. C. 886. |
1 Then spake Elisha unto the woman, whose son he had restored to life, saying, Arise, and go thou and thine household, and sojourn wheresoever thou canst sojourn: for the LORD hath called for a famine; and it shall also come upon the land seven years. 2 And the woman arose, and did after the saying of the man of God: and she went with her household, and sojourned in the land of the Philistines seven years. 3 And it came to pass at the seven years’ end, that the woman returned out of the land of the Philistines: and she went forth to cry unto the king for her house and for her land. 4 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. 5 And it came to pass, as he was telling the king how he had restored a dead body to life, that, behold, the woman, whose son he had restored to life, cried to the king for her house and for her land. And Gehazi said, My lord, O king, this is the woman, and this is her son, whom Elisha restored to life. 6 And when the king asked the woman, she told him. So the king appointed unto her a certain officer, saying, Restore all that was hers, and all the fruits of the field since the day that she left the land, even until now.
Here we have,
I. The wickedness of Israel punished with a long famine, one of God’s sore judgments often threatened in the law. Canaan, that fruitful land, was turned into barrenness, for the iniquity of those that dwelt therein. The famine in Samaria was soon relieved by the raising of that siege, but neither that judgment nor that mercy had a due influence upon them, and therefore the Lord called for another famine; for when he judgeth he will overcome. If less judgments do not prevail to bring men to repentance, he will send greater and longer; they are at his beck, and will come when he calls for them. He does, by his ministers, call for reformation and obedience, and, if those calls be not regarded, we may expect he will call for some plague or other, for he will be heard. This famine continued seven years, as long again as that in Elijah’s time; for if men will walk contrary to him, he will heat the furnace yet hotter.
II. The kindness of the good Shunammite to the prophet rewarded by the care that was taken of her in that famine; she was not indeed fed by miracle, as the widow of Sarepta was, but, 1. She had notice given her of this famine before it came, that she might provide accordingly, and was directed to remove to some other country; any where but in Israel she would find plenty. It was a great advantage to Egypt in Joseph’s time that they had notice of the famine before it came, so it was to this Shunammite; others would be forced to remove at last, after they had long borne the grievances of the famine, and had wasted their substance, and could not settle elsewhere upon such good terms as she might that went early, before the crowd, and took her stock with her unbroken. It is our happiness to foresee an evil, and our wisdom, when we foresee an evil, and our wisdom, when we foresee it, to hide ourselves. 2. Providence gave her a comfortable settlement in the land of the Philistines, who, though subdued by David, yet were not wholly rooted out. It seems the famine was peculiar to the land of Israel, and other countries that joined close to them had plenty at the same time, which plainly showed the immediate hand of God in it (as in the plagues of Egypt, when they distinguished between the Israelites and the Egyptians) and that the sins of Israel, against whom this judgment was directly levelled, were more provoking to God than the sins of their neighbours, because of their profession of relation to God. You only have I known, therefore will I punish you, Amos iii. 2. Other countries had rain when they had none, were free from locusts and caterpillars when they were eaten up with them; for some think this was the famine spoken of, Joe 1:3; Joe 1:4. It is strange that when there was plenty in the neighbouring countries there were not those that made it their business to import corn into the land of Israel, which might have prevented the inhabitants from removing; but, as they were befooled with their idolatries, so they were infatuated even in the matters of their civil interest.
III. Her petition to the king at her return, favoured by the seasonableness of her application to him. 1. When the famine was over she returned out of the land of the Philistines; that was no proper place for an Israelite to dwell any longer than there was a necessity for so doing, for there she could not keep her new moons and her sabbaths as she used to do in her own country, among the schools of the prophets, ch. iv. 23. 2. At her return she found herself kept out of the possession of her own estate, it being either confiscated to the exchequer, seized by the lord, or usurped in her absence by some of the neighbours; or perhaps the person she had entrusted with the management of it proved false, and would neither resign it to her nor come to an account with her for the profits: so hard is it to find a person that one can put a confidence in in a time of trouble,Pro 25:19; Mic 7:5. 3. She made her application to the king himself for redress; for, it seems (be it observed to his praise), he was easy of access, and did himself take cognizance of the complaint of his injured subjects. Time was when she dwelt so securely among her own people that she had no occasion to be spoken for to the king, or to the captain of the host (ch. iv. 13); but now her own familiar friends, in whom she trusted, proved so unjust and unkind that she was glad to appeal to the king against them. Such uncertainty there is in the creature that that may fail us which we most depend upon and that befriend us which we think we shall never need. 4. She found the king talking with Gehazi about Elisha’s miracles, v. 4. It was his shame that he needed now to be informed concerning them, when he might have acquainted himself with them as they were done from Elisha himself, if he had not been willing to shut his eyes against the convincing evidence of his mission; yet it was his praise that he was now better disposed, and would rather talk with a leper that was capable of giving a good account of them than continue ignorant of them. The law did not forbid all conversation with lepers, but only dwelling with them. There being then no priests in Israel, perhaps the king, or some one appointed by him, had the inspection of lepers, and passed the judgment upon them, which might bring him acquainted with Gehazi. 5. This happy coincidence befriended both Gehazi’s narrative and her petition. Providence is to be acknowledged in ordering the circumstances of events, for sometimes those that are minute in themselves prove of great consequence, as this did, for, (1.) It made the king ready to believe Gehazi’s narrative when it was thus confirmed by the persons most nearly concerned: “This is the woman, and this her son; let them speak for themselves,” v. 5. Thus did God even force him to believe what he might have had some colour to question if he had only had Gehazi’s word for it, because he was branded for a liar, witness his leprosy. (2.) It made him ready to grant her request; for who would not be ready to favour one whom heaven had thus favoured, and to support a life which was given once and again by miracle? In consideration of this the king gave orders that her land should be restored to her and all the profits that were made of it in her absence. If it was to himself that the land and profits had escheated, it was generous and kind to make so full a restitution; he would not (as Pharaoh did in Joseph’s time) enrich the crown by the calamities of his subjects. If it was by some other person that her property was invaded, it was an act of justice in the king, and part of the duty of his place, to give her redress, Psa 82:3; Psa 82:4; Pro 31:9. It is not enough for those in authority that they do no wrong themselves, but they must support the right of those that are wronged.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Second Kings – Chapter 8 AND Second Chronicles – Chapters 21,22
More about the Shunammite Woman 2Ki 8:1-6
This incident seems somewhat out of place here, but of course it is where the Lord wanted it to be. The Shunammite woman is evidently the one mentioned here, although it is not specifically said so. She is the only one the Bible records having a son restored to life by Elisha. She appears to have been a widow at this time, and this is not so surprising, for her husband was elderly when the child was born (2Ki 4:14). The presence of Gehazi here relating to the king the stories of Elisha’s miracles indicates that the incident is placed here out of chronological order, for it must surely have been before his contracting of Naaman’s leprosy (2Ki 5:27). On the other hand it makes even more uncommonly strange that the king, having heard these stories of Elisha, did not immediately think of the prophet when Naaman presented himself to him for cleansing (2Ki 5:7).
The occasion of the incident was the return of the woman and her family (son and servants) from a seven years’ sojourn in Philistia. She had gone there when Elisha warned her of the approaching famine and the need to remove herself to a place where she could find sustenance. She had returned now to Israel and had come to the king seeking recovery of her lands she had left when she went to Philistia.
The Lord had this good woman and her welfare in His care and proved it at this time. It was no astonishing coincidence that Gehazi had just concluded the account of Elisha’s restoration of the boy to life that she appeared at that very moment. It was astonishing to Gehazi and to the king. The servant looked up, and there they stood. Excitedly he announced to the king that this is the woman and this her son of whom he spoke. The king inquired of her and learned it was true. So impressed was the king that he immediately appointed an officer to see that her land was restored and that she be paid the value of its produce during her absence (cf. Lu 6:38).
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
ELISHA IN DAMASCUS
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.
2Ki. 8:1. Then spoke ElishaThe pluperfect tense: Now Elisha had spoken. This section dates prior to chapters 5 and 6, but is given here as an introduction to the narrative which follows.
2Ki. 8:4. And the king talkedWas (that moment) talking. Note the coincidence. While talking; at that very moment beheld the woman! (2Ki. 8:5). God times incidents with precision; things work together, interweave (Rom. 8:28).
2Ki. 8:6. King appointed a certain officer. Its primary meaning is a eunuch; its secondary, a court minister. All the fruits of the field since, &c.The word is better rendered fruits or produce, than rent; yet it has also the meaning, gain, profits (Pro. 3:14).
HOMILETICS OF 2Ki. 8:1-6
THE POTENT INFLUENCE OF A GOOD MAN
I. His counsel is valuable, and gratefully acted upon. The Shunammite had good reason to respect the word of Elisha. She had evidence of the sympathy and power of the prophet in the restoration of her dead son. When, therefore, he warned her of the coming famine, and advised emigration, she and her son promptly obeyed. The result showed the wisdom of the advice, and justified their confidence in the prophet; they were preserved during the years of famine, and received again the property they had relinquished. Here we see how the kindness shown by the Shunammite receives still further reward. There is nothing so fruitful in blessing as kindness. In the great dilemmas of life we seek counsel, not from the frivolous and wicked, but from the wise and good. A good man has the destiny of many lives in his hands; a word from him has great weight. With what profound reverence and loving obedience should we accept the words of Him who bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought! who maketh the devices of the people of none effect, and whose counsel standeth for ever, the thoughts of His heart to all generations (Psa. 33:10-11).
II. His beneficent acts are the theme of popular conversation. The king talked with Gehazi, saying, Tell me, I pray thee, all the great things that Elisha hath done (2Ki. 8:4). A good action cannot be hid. Sooner or later it will emerge from the obscurity in which it was first done, and become the talk of a nation, until it reaches even royal ears. All good actions do not attain such distinguished popularity. There were many good things that Elisha said and did of which history takes no notice. A good act may be remembered and applauded for generations, while the name of the actor is unknown. Who can tell how much bloodshed was spared, in the already too bloody battle of the military at Nanci, during the French revolution of 1790, by the bold, heroic woman who screamed to the wild, unmanageable mutincers not to fire the second cannon, and who made her screams effectual by flinging a pail of water on the dangerous engine. Her name is unknown, but history immortalises the deed. The more a good man is known and appreciated, the greater interest is taken in all the details of his life. Indeed, there is danger in magnifying the most ordinary sayings and doings into undue significance and importance. The nation that can sing of the exploits of its heroes in the brave days of old should also be forward in extolling the noble efforts of good men in modern times. If the age of chivalry is past, the spirit of chivalry lives and burns in the breasts of not a few in our day.
III. His holy and unselfish life is a testimony for Jehovah in the midst of national apostasy. The life of Elisha, if less bold, fierce, and meteorlike in its manifestations than that of Elijah, was more profoundly impressive in its influence for good. The idolatrous Jehoram was smitten with admiration for the gentle-mannered prophet, and must be convinced of the superiority of Elishas God. But the better feelings of the king were transient; he was too closely wedded to his idolatry to thoroughly break away from it, and, with constant calls and warnings to return to his allegiance to Jehovah, he drifted towards the doom in which all his house was to be involved. As every star in the firmament declares the glory of God, as every flower of earth reveals some feature of the Divine beauty, so every holy life testifies of the character of God. Human goodness is but a reflection of the Divine. In the darkest night of national apostasy, Israel was favoured with an Elisha, whose divinely-illumined life threw a bright stream of light across the gloom. How deplorable the condition of that nation from which all moral worth is excluded! The modern doctrine of Nihilism aims at this. A zealous propagandist of this rank materialism lately defined their teaching thus:Take heaven and earth, state and church, kings and God, and spit upon them; thats our doctrine! This is plain enough. And what would they substitute for God, the soul, and moral law? A wild, conscienceless demagogy, without belief or scruple, giving the rein to brute humanity, keeping open house for every appetite and lust. Such would be the condition of the nation bereft of living witnesses for God and truth.
IV. His reputation is the means of promoting the ends of justice (2Ki. 8:5-6). There was surely a Divine providence at work that brought the suppliant Shunammite into the presence of the king at the very moment when Gehazi was rehearsing the great works of Elisha. During her absence of seven years her estate was occupied by others, and ordinarily it would be a most difficult proceeding to dislodge the occupants. She wisely went direct to the highest authority, and while the influence of Elishas reputation was fresh upon the mind of the king, for his sake the prayer of the Shunammite was immediately granted. Justice triumphed; her land and all its produce for the seven years were restored to her. It requires power to enforce the claims of justice, and the highest kind of power is goodness. The arrangements of justice are more likely to be permanent when brought about by the influence of righteous principles, than when compelled by physical force. The presence of a holy character in society is a powerful check upon injustice and wrong.
LESSONS:
1. Goodness is not inherited, but divinely bestowed.
2. A good man is not always himself conscious of the value and extent of his influence.
3. It is an unspeakable blessing to a nation to possess men of eminent goodness.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
2Ki. 8:1-3. Famine, pest, war, and all other forms of calamity, form an army which is subject to the command of God; which comes and goes at His command; which is ready to attack, or ready to retire, as He may order; and which can assail no one without command. They are sometimes commissioned to punish and to be the agents of the Divine justice, sometimes to arouse and to bring back the intoxicated to sobriety, sometimes to embitter the world to sinners and push them to the throne of grace, and sometimes to try the saints and light the purifying fires about them. So no man has to do simply with the sufferings which fall upon him, but, before all, with Him who inflicted themKrummacher.
2Ki. 8:1. Lessons taught by famine. I. That God has entire control over the productive powers of nature.
2. That God may permit famine as a judgment on account of national sins.
3. That a time of famine should induce national humiliation and repentance.
4. That the extremity of human suffering is the opportunity for magnifying the Divine power and goodness.
It is a long famine that shall afflict Israel. He upon whom the spirit of Elijah was doubled, doubled the punishment inflicted by his master. Three years and a-half did Israel gasp under the drought of Elijah; seven years dearth shall it suffer under Elisha. The trials of God are many times more grievous for their sharpness than for their continuance. This scarcity shall not come alone; God shall call for it. Whatever be the second cause, He is the first. How often, how earnestly, are we called to repentance, and stir not! The messengers of God fly forth at the least beck, and fulfil the will of His revenge upon those whose obedience would not fulfil the will of His command.Bp. Hall.
2Ki. 8:2. No nation was more opposite to Israel than the Philistine, none more worthily odious; yet there does the Shunammite seek and find shelter. Even the shade of these trees that are unwholesome may keep us from a storm. Everywhere will God find room for His own. The fields of the Philistines flourish, while the soil of Israel yields nothing but weeds and barrenness. Not that Israel was more sinful, but that the sin of Israel was more intolerable. The offers of grace are so many aggravations of wickedness. No pestilence is so contagious as that which hath taken the purest air.
2Ki. 8:3. She that found harbour among Philistines finds oppression and violence among Israelites; those of her kindred, taking advantage of her absence, had shared her possessions. How often does it fall out that the worst enemies of a man are those of his own house! Both our fears and our hopes do not seldom disappoint us. It is safe trusting to that stay which can never fail us, who can easily provide us both of friendship in Palestine and justice in Israel. We may not judge of religion by particular action; the very Philistine may be merciful when an Israelite is unjust; the person may be faulty when the profession is holy.Bp. Hall.
2Ki. 8:4-6. What is here told us by king Jehoram presents him to us from his better side. His desire to learn all of Elishas acts, still more the way in which he was ready to help the distressed Shunammite to the recovery of her property, testify to a receptivity for elevated impressions and to a disposition to yield to them. By the fact that he recognised all that was extraordinary in the person of the prophet, and yet that he did not desist from his false line of conduct, he showed that, in the main point, the relation of himself and of his people to Jehovah, nothing good could any longer be expected of him. His better feelings were transitory and ineffectual. He continued to be a reed swayed hither and thither by the wind, easily moved, but undecided and unreliable, so that, finally, when all the warnings and exhortations of the prophet had produced no effect, he fell under the just and inevitable judgment of God.Lange.
2Ki. 8:5. How happily does God contrive all events for the good of His own! This suppliant shall fall upon that instant for her suit when the king shall be talking with Gehazi, when Gehazi shall be talking of her to the king: the words of Gehazi, the thoughts of the king, the desires of the Shunammite. shall be all drawn together by the wise providence of God into the centre of one moment, that his oppressed servant might receive a speedy justice. Oh, the infinite wisdom, power, mercy of our God, that insensibly orders all our ways, as to His own holy purposes, so to our best advantage!Bp. Hall.
2Ki. 8:6. The word of God often extorts from an unconverted man a good and noble action, which, however, if it only proceeds from a sudden emotion, and stands alone, resembles a flower which blooms in the morning and in the evening fades and dies True servants of God, like Elisha, are often fountains of great blessing, without their own immediate participation or knowledge.
The widow may thank Elisha for this. His miracle wrought still, and puts this new life in her dead estate: his absence did that for the preservation of life which his presence did for restoring it from death. She who was so ready to expostulate with the man of God upon the loss of her son might, perhaps, have been as ready to impute the loss of her estate to his advice. Now that for his sake she is enriched with her own, how does she bless God for so happy a guest! When we have forgotten our own good turns, God remembers and crowns them. Let us do good to all while we have time, but especially to the household of faith.
The true spirit of obedience. I. Seen in a ready belief in the Divine word. II. Seen in the willingness to abandon home and property at the Divine call. III. Puts the soul and all earthly things under the Divine care. IV. Has restored more than was abandoned.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
C. PREDICTION OF FAMINE IN ISRAEL 8:16
TRANSLATION
(1) Now Elisha had spoken to the woman whose son he had revived, saying, Arise, you and your household go, and sojourn wherever you may sojourn; for the LORD has called for a famine, and it shall also come upon the land seven years. (2) And the woman arose, and did according to the word of the man of God; and she went, she and her household, and sojourned in the land of the Philistines seven years. (3) Then the woman returned from the land of the Philistines, and went out to cry unto the king concerning her house and her land. (4) Now the king was speaking unto Gehazi, the servant of the man of God, saying, Relate to me all the great things which Elisha has done. (5) And it came to pass as he was relating to the king how he had revived the dead, then behold the woman whose son he had revived was crying unto the king concerning her house and her field. And Gehazi said, My lord, O king, this is the woman, and this is her son whom Elisha revived. (6) And the king made inquiry of the woman and she answered him. And the king appointed for her an officer, saying, Restore all which belongs to her, and all the produce of her field from the day she left the land until now.
COMMENTS
That a great famine had come about during the reign of Jehoram of Israel has been attested by 2Ki. 4:38. Prior to the approach of that famine Elisha had warned his wealthy Shunammite friend to leave her home and take up residence wherever she might choose in order that she might escape the pressure of the calamity. God had determined to bring a famine upon the land which would last for seven years (2Ki. 8:1). This faithful woman regarded the prophet as a spokesman for God, and she accepted his instructions as divine commands. The woman and her household migrated to the fertile Philistine plain which, though not totally exempt from famine, did not suffer from such natural calamities nearly as much as did Samaria or Judah. For seven years the Shunammite resided in that foreign land (2Ki. 8:2).
When the famine abated, the woman returned to her native land to discover that some neighbor had seized her unoccupied house and land and now refused to return it to its rightful owner. The woman had no recourse but to appeal to the king that her properties be restored (2Ki. 8:3). The king happened to be talking with Gehazi when the woman came into his presence to plead her case. It would seem that Jehoram had sent for Gehazi to satisfy his curiosity with regard to the miraculous deeds of Elisha (2Ki. 8:4). This king and the prophet himself had never been on particularly friendly terms, hence the best source for accurate information about the deeds of this man of God was his servant. The present episode must be chronologically prior to infliction of leprosy on Gehazi recorded in chapter 5.
It was just as Gehazi related the most stupendous of all Elishas miraclesthe resurrection of the Shunammites son that this woman began to cry for the attention of the king. Divine providence so ordered matters that just when the kings interest in the woman was warmest, the woman appeared to press her claim. Gehazi was pleased to point out his old friend and her son, who by this time must have been a lad often years or more (2Ki. 8:5). The king made inquiry of the woman, not only about the miracle which had been wrought in her house, but also about her property claims. Convinced of the justness of her cause, the king appointed an officer of the court to expedite matters and to see that all the womans property was returned to her. In addition, he awarded her all the profits which the land had produced during the seven years of her absence (2Ki. 8:6).
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
VIII.
(1-6) How the kindness of the Shunammite woman to Elisha was further rewarded through the prophets influence with the king.
(1) Then spake Elisha.Rather, Now Elisha had spoken. The time is not defined by the phrase. It was after the raising of the Shunammites son (2Ki. 8:1), and before the healing of Naaman the Syrian, inasmuch as the king still talks with Gehazi (2Ki. 8:5).
Go thou.The peculiar form of the pronoun points to the identity of the original author of this account with the writer of 2 Kings 4. Moreover, the famine here foretold appears to be that of 2Ki. 4:38, seq., so that the present section must in the original document have preceded 2 Kings 5. Thenius thinks the compiler transferred the present account to this place, because he wished to proceed chronologically, and supposed that the seven years famine came to an end with the raising of the siege of Samaria.
For a famine.To the famine. The sword, the famine, the noisome beasts, and the pestilence were Jehovahs four sore judgments, as we find in Eze. 14:21.
And it shall also come upon.And, moreover, it cometh into.
Seven Years.Perhaps not to be understood literally, any more than Dantes
O caro Duca mio che pi di sette
Volte mhai sicurt. renduta.Inferno 8. 97.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
THE SHUNAMMITE WOMAN AGAIN, 2Ki 8:1-6.
1. The woman, whose son he had restored The wealthy woman of Shunem. See 2Ki 4:8-27. This narrative shows other ways, besides the ones already recorded, in which Elisha proved a blessing to this woman. He advises her to go and sojourn in a foreign land during the coming famine, and after her return the influence of his former miracles for her is instrumental in the recovery of her lost possessions.
The Lord hath called for a famine “Famines do not come by chance, but they are messengers whom the Lord calls, and whom he sends to call his people to repentance.” Wordsworth.
Seven years A famine terrible by reason of its long continuance; just twice the duration of the drought foretold by Elijah in the days of Ahab. 1Ki 17:1. Compare Luk 4:25. This famine was quite probably identical with the dearth mentioned 2Ki 4:38.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Shunammite, Now A Widow, Has Her Land Restored To Her By The King Of Israel ( 2Ki 8:1-6 ).
The prophetic author has two purposes in this incident. Firstly to emphasis the miraculous powers of Elisha, and secondly to bring out that YHWH watches over those who are faithful to Him.
The incident involves the Shunnamite woman mentioned in 2Ki 6:8-33. We are probably to see that her husband has since died, for he is not mentioned in the narrative. Thus the inheritance now belonged to the son. But Elisha foresaw a lengthy (‘seven year’ ) famine which was coming and advised her to take her household and seek refuge outside the land. Obediently she sought refuge in Philistia, and waited for the famine to be over. We have no information on what if any procedures would be followed in a case like this. It is possible that the house and land came under the protection of the crown. But no doubt those who took possession of it would not be desirous of returning it.
So on her return at the end of the period she presumably discovered that her son’s inheritance had been taken over by someone, who had also presumably occupied the house, and her intention was therefore to appeal to the king for her son’s rights to be restored. The author probably intends us to see that it was in the will of YHWH that this happened precisely at that time that the king was asking Gehazi, Elisha’s servant, to recount to him some of Elisha’s miracles, and Gehazi was telling him about the raising from the dead of the Shunnamite’s son. And when Gehazi saw the woman coming for an audience with the king he pointed her out as the Shunnamite whose son Elisha had healed. The king accordingly spoke with the woman and arranged for her house and lands to be restored to her, along with the produce of the land during the famine.
It is important to note that the king obtained his information about the miracles of Elisha directly from an eyewitness, and may well have had them recorded. There is absolutely no reason for doubting Gehazi’s accuracy, or for suggesting that he exaggerated. There is no evidence of it whatsoever. Any such idea is all in the mind of the doubters.
Analysis.
a
b And it came about at the end of the seven years, that the woman returned out of the land of the Philistines, and she went forth to cry to the king for her house and for her land (2Ki 8:3).
c Now the king was talking with Gehazi the servant of the man of God, saying, “Tell me, I pray you, all the great things that Elisha has done” (2Ki 8:4).
b And it came about, as he was telling the king how he had restored to life him who was dead, that, behold, the woman, whose son he had restored to life, cried to the king for her house and for her land (2Ki 8:5 a).
a And Gehazi said, “My lord, O king, this is the woman, and this is her son, whom Elisha restored to life.” And when the king asked the woman, she told him. So the king appointed to her a certain officer, saying, “Restore all that was hers, and all the fruits of the field since the day that she left the land, even until now” (2Ki 8:5-6).
In ‘a’ ‘the woman whose son Elisha had restored to life’ took refuge in Philistia, leaving her land behind, and in the parallel ‘the woman whose son Elisha had restored to life’ received her land and produce back from the king. In ‘b’ the woman went to the king to cry for her house and land, and in the parallel she cried to the king for her house and land. Centrally in ‘c’ Gehazi recounted to the king some of the miracles performed by Elisha.
2Ki 8:1
‘Now Elisha had spoken to the woman, whose son he had restored to life, saying, “Arise, and go, you and your household, and sojourn wherever you can sojourn, for YHWH has called for a famine, and it will also come on the land seven years.” ’
The reason why the Shunnamite woman had left her house and land was because Elisha had advised her to do so in view of a ‘seven year famine’ (a lengthy, drawn out famine) which ‘YHWH was calling for’ on the land, that is, a period when the rains would fail. Any such natural event would have been seen by the prophets as ‘called for by YHWH’, and no particular reason is given for it. We have no means of knowing how it connected with other famines mentioned earlier. Elisha’s advice was that she find a suitable place to ‘sojourn’ (be a short term resident alien). Being wealthy she would be able to afford to stay at a suitable place.
2Ki 8:2
‘And the woman arose, and acted in accordance with the word of the man of God, and she went with her household, and sojourned in the land of the Philistines seven years.’
In accordance with Elisha’s instructions as ‘a man of God’ she took her household and sojourned in the land of the Philistines for the seven year period. The non-mention of her husband may suggest that he was dead.
2Ki 8:3
‘And it came about at the end of the seven years, that the woman returned out of the land of the Philistines, and she went forth to cry to the king for her house and for her land.’
At the end of the lengthy period, no doubt having learned that the famine was over, the woman returned from Philistia, and went to put in her official request for her home and land to be restored to her. Land and property in the countryside belonged to its original Israelite owners in perpetuity. ‘To cry out –’ was probably a legal expression for putting forward an official claim.
2Ki 8:4
‘Now the king was talking with Gehazi the servant of the man of God, saying, “Tell me, I pray you, all the great things that Elisha has done.” ’
Meanwhile, not knowing about this (although we are intended to see that YHWH knew) the king had summoned Gehazi in order to receive an eyewitness account of what miracles Elisha had performed. It may well have been an official summons with the intention of recording them for the future. It indicates clearly that Elisha had an outstanding reputation for the miraculous. We do not know which king this was, but it indicates an official interest in the miracles..
The fact that Gehazi was allowed in the king’s presence indicates that the skin disease from which he suffered was not leprosy. Compare also how Naaman had been able to serve the king of Aram having the same disease. It would, however, prevent Gehazi from entering the court of the Sanctuary.
2Ki 8:5
‘And it came about, as he was telling the king how he had restored to life him who was dead, that, behold, the woman, whose son he had restored to life, cried to the king for her house and for her land. And Gehazi said, “My lord, O king, this is the woman, and this is her son, whom Elisha restored to life.” ’
And even while Gehazi was in the middle of recounting details of how Elisha had raised the son of a Shunnamite from the dead the woman herself approached the king for an audience, in order to put forward her official appeal. It was one of those God-ordained coincidences. And Gehazi pointed out the woman was the one he was speaking about.
2Ki 8:6
‘And when the king asked the woman, she told him. So the king appointed to her a certain officer, saying, “Restore all that was hers, and all the fruits of the field since the day that she left the land, even until now.” ’
The king asked the woman about the matter, and then he called on a ‘high official’ to ensure the restoring to the woman of her house and lands, together with all the produce grown over the seven years, which may well have gone to the crown. Due to the famine it would not be a very large amount, although the fields may have been extensive.
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
SECTION 8. The Wonder-working Ministry Of Elisha ( 2Ki 4:1 to 2Ki 8:15 )
It will be noted that from this point on, until 2Ki 8:15, no king of Israel is mentioned by name, even though, for example, Naaman’s name is given in chapter 5, and Ben-hadad, the king of Aram, is mentioned in 2Ki 6:24; 2Ki 8:7. (The reign of Jehoram then recommences in 2Ki 8:16). It is clear that the prophetic author was concerned at this point that our attention should be taken away from the kings to the wonder-working power of YHWH through His prophet Elisha. The kings (and the chronology) were not considered important. It was the events, and the advancement of God’s kingdom through Elisha that were seen as important in contrast with the failure of the kings.
Overall Analysis.
a
b Elisha raises to life and restores to a Shunammite her only son (2Ki 4:8-37).
c Elisha restores a stew for his followers and feeds a hundred men on twenty small cakes of bread (2Ki 4:38-44).
d The skin of the skin-diseased Naaman of Aram, who comes seeking Elisha in peace, is made pure as a babe’s (2Ki 5:1-27).
e The borrowed axe-head is made to float, a symbol of the need for Israel to have its sharp edge restored by Elisha (2Ki 6:1-7).
d The Aramaeans, who came seeking Elisha in hostility, are blinded (2Ki 6:8-23).
c Elisha restores food to the people at the siege of Samaria, and feeds a large number on Aramaean supplies (2Ki 6:24 to 2Ki 7:20).
b The king restores to the Shunammite her land (2Ki 8:1-6).
a Benhadad of Aram sends to Elisha in his illness and is assured that he will not die of his illness, but Elisha declares that nevertheless he will die, as it turns out, through assassination by Hazael (2Ki 8:7-15).
Note that in ‘a’ Elisha is approached by a prophet’s widow in her need and is provided for, and in the parallel Elisha is approached on behalf of the king of Aram in his need and is reassured, although then being assassinated. Once more we have the contrast between blessing and judgment. In ‘b’ the Shunammite receives her son back to life, and in the parallel she receives her land back. In ‘c’ the stew is restored as edible in the midst of famine and the bread is multiplied to feed the sons of the prophets, and in the parallel food is restored to the besieged in a time of famine, and is multiplied to them. In ‘d’ Naaman an Aramaean comes in peace and is restored to health, and in the parallel Aramaeans come in hostility and are blinded. Centrally in ‘e’ the borrowed axe-head, symbolic of Israel’s cutting edge, is restored to its possessor.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
2Ki 8:1 Then spake Elisha unto the woman, whose son he had restored to life, saying, Arise, and go thou and thine household, and sojourn wheresoever thou canst sojourn: for the LORD hath called for a famine; and it shall also come upon the land seven years.
2Ki 8:1
Gen 41:30, “And there shall arise after them seven years of famine; and all the plenty shall be forgotten in the land of Egypt; and the famine shall consume the land;”
2Ki 8:4 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.
2Ki 8:4
[63] Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sotah, Folio 47a, trans. I. Epstein [on-line]; accessed 11 August 2009; available from http://www.come-and-hear.com/sotah/sotah_47.html; Internet. Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin, Folio 107b, trans. I. Epstein [on-line]; accessed 11 August 2009; available from http://www.come-and-hear.com/sotah/sotah_47.html; Internet.
2Ki 8:7-15 Elisha Anoints Hazael as King over Syria – 2Ki 8:7-15 was a fulfilment of God’s command to Elijah on Mount Horeb, when the Lord told him to “anoint Hazael to be king over Syria” (1Ki 19:15).
1Ki 19:15, “And the LORD said unto him, Go, return on thy way to the wilderness of Damascus: and when thou comest, anoint Hazael to be king over Syria :”
2Ki 8:16-24 The Reign of Jehoram Over Judah (848-841 B.C.) – 2Ki 8:16-24 records the story of the reign of Jehoram over Judah.
2Ki 8:22 Yet Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah unto this day. Then Libnah revolted at the same time.
2Ki 8:22
2Ki 8:25 to 2Ki 9:28 The Reign of Ahaziah Over Judah (841 B.C.) – 2Ki 8:25 to 2Ki 9:28 records the story of the reign of Ahaziah over Judah.
2Ki 8:26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
2Ki 8:26
2Ch 22:2, “ Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign , and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
The Hebrew text of 2Ki 8:26 literally reads, “a son of twenty and two years (was) Ahaziah in his reign, and one year he reigned in Jerusalem…” ( YLT), and the Hebrew text of 2Ch 22:2 literally reads, “a son of forty and two”
Hebrew ( ) “son of twenty and two” (2 Kings 2:26)
Hebrew ( ) “son of forty and two” (2Ch 22:2)
If Jehoram, the father of Ahaziah began to reign when he was thirty-two years old, and reigned eight years (2Ki 8:17), and so died, being forty years old, then it would not be possible for his son Ahaziah to have reached the age of forty-two before his father’s early death. Thus, the age of twenty-two is more likely correct, requiring Jehoram to give birth to Ahaziah, his son, at the age of eighteen-years old.
2Ki 8:17, “Thirty and two years old was he (Jehoram) when he began to reign; and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem.”
2Ch 22:2 ( LXX) agrees with the reading in 2Ki 8:26.
“ Ochozias began to reign when he was twenty years old, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem: and his mother’s name was Gotholia, the daughter of Ambri.” ( Brenton)
The YLT also corrects the date in its translation of 2Ch 22:2, “A son of twenty and two years is Ahaziah in his reigning, and one year he hath reigned in Jerusalem, and the name of his mother is Athaliah daughter of Omri;”
There are several views scholars propose to explain this apparent discrepancy.
1. The Age of Jehoram – The literally meaning of “son of forty and two” could have been referring to the age of Ahaziah’s father, Jehoram. However, his father died at the age of forty, so this reasoning does not add up with the numbers stated in the text. There is not reason to follow this explanation outside of speculation.
2. The Age of Ahaziah’s Mother – Some scholars suggest that the age of forty-two was a reference to the age of his mother, since she appears to have dominated him by leading him in the way of the kings of Israel. Again, there is not reason to follow this explanation outside of speculation.
3. The Age of Omri’s Dynasty of Kings John Lightfoot suggests that the text intends to say that Ahaziah was the son of two and forty years; namely, of the house of Omri, his mother’s grandfather. Thus, this date refers to the forty-second year of the reign of his mother’s dynasty over Israel, and she is mentioned in this same verse. [64] However, if we add up the periods of Omri’s reign (8 years), of Ahab’s reign (22 years), of Ahaziah’s reign (2 years) to the twelfth year of Joram’s reign over Israel, we get 44 years and not 42.
[64] John Lightfoot, The Whole Works of the Rev. John Lightfoot, D.D., vol. 4, ed. John Rogers Pitman (London: J. F. Dove, 1822), 106, 174.
1Ki 16:23, “In the thirty and first year of Asa king of Judah began Omri to reign over Israel, twelve years: six years reigned he in Tirzah.”
1Ki 16:29, “And in the thirty and eighth year of Asa king of Judah began Ahab the son of Omri to reign over Israel: and Ahab the son of Omri reigned over Israel in Samaria twenty and two years.”
1Ki 22:51, “Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned two years over Israel.
Thus, there is not reason to believe this age refers to the reign of a different person or dynasty apart from speculation.
4. Copyist Error – Most scholars seem to agree that this is the error of a copier. It can be agreed that the writing of these two Hebrew numbers, ( ) twenty-two and ( ) forty-two and, are similar, although the spelling of these two numbers, ( ) twenty-two and ( ) forty-two, are not similar. The explanation that this is most likely the error of a copyist seems to be confirmed by the fact that a number of ancient manuscripts have taken the liberty to correct this spelling from forty-two to twenty-two.
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
Elisha’s Powerful Influence at Court
v. 1. Then spake Elisha, v. 2. And the woman, v. 3. And it came to pass at the seven years’ end that the woman returned out of the land of the Philistines; and she went forth to cry unto the king, v. 4. And the king talked with Gehazi, v. 5. And it came to pass, v. 6. And when the king asked the woman, she told him,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
2Ki 8:1-29
THE SEQUEL OF THE STORY OF THE SHUNAMMITE. THE KILLING OF BENHADAD BY HAZAEL; AND THE WICKED REIGNS OF JEHORAM AND AHAZIAH IN JUDAH.
2Ki 8:1-15
Elisha is still the protagonistes of the historical drama. The writer brings together in the present section two more occasions of a public character in which he was concerned, and in which kings also bore a part. One of the occasions is domestic, and shows the interest which Jehoram took in the miracles of the prophet, and in those who were the objects of them (2Ki 8:1-6). The other belongs to Syrian, rather than to Israelite, history, and proves that the influence of Elisha was not confined to Palestine (2Ki 8:7-15).
2Ki 8:1-6
The sequel of the story of the Shunammite.
2Ki 8:1
Then spake Elisha unto the woman, whose son he had restored to life. There is no “then” in the original, of which the simplest rendering would be, “And Elisha spake unto the woman,” etc. The true sense is, perhaps, best brought out by the Revised Version, which gives the following: Now Elisha had spoken unto the woman, etc. The reference is to a time long anterior to the siege of Samaria. Saying, Arise, and go thou and thine household, and sojourn wheresoever thou canst sojourn: for the Lord hath called for a famine. A famine is mentioned in 2Ki 4:38, which must belong to the reign of Jehoram, and which is probably identified with that here spoken of. Elisha, on its approach, recommended the Shunammite, though she was a woman of substance (2Ki 4:8), to quit her home and remove to some other residence, where she mighty, escape the pressure of the calamity He left it to her to choose the place of her temporary abode. The phrase, “God hath called for a famine,” means no more and no less than “God has determined that there shall be a famine.” With God to speak the word is to bring about the event. And it shall also come upon the land seven years. Seven years was the actual duration of the great famine, which Joseph foretold in Egypt (Gen 41:27), and was the ideally perfect period for a severe famine (2Ch 24:13). Many of the best meteorologists are inclined to regard the term of “seven years” as a cyclic period in connection with weather changes.
2Ki 8:2
And the woman arose, and did after the saying of the man of God. It is a satisfaction to find that there was yet faith in Israel. There were still those to whom the prophet was the mouthpiece of God, who waited on his words, and accepted them as Divine commands whereto they were ready to render immediate and entire obedience. It is conjectured by some that the woman had become a widow, and fallen into comparative poverty; but the narrative gives no indication of this. Even opulent persons have to migrate in times of severe dearth. And she went with her household, and sojourned in the land of the philistines. Philistia was a great grain country (Jdg 15:5), and, though not altogether exempt from famine, was less exposed to it than either Judaea or Samaria. The soil was exceedingly fertile, and the vapors from the Mediterranean descended upon it in clews and showers, when their beneficial influence was not felt further inland. The Shunammite may have had other reasons for fixing her residence in the Philistine country; but probably she was chiefly determined in her choice by its proximity and its productiveness. Seven years. As long, i.e; as the famine lasted (see the last clause of 2Ki 8:1).
2Ki 8:3
And it earns to pass at the seven years’ end, that the woman returned out of the land of the Philistines. She stayed no longer than she could help. Her own land, where she could have the ministrations of a “man of God” (2Ki 4:23), was dear to her; and no sooner had the famine abated than she returned to it. And she went forth to cry unto the king for her house and for her land. During her prolonged absence, some grasping neighbor had seized on the unoccupied house and the uncultivated estate adjoining it, and now refused to restore them to the rightful owner. Widows were especially liable to such treatment on the part of greedy oppressors, since they were, comparatively speaking, weak and defenseless (see Isa 10:2; Mat 23:14). Under such circumstances the injured party would naturally, in an Oriental country, make appeal to the king.
2Ki 8:4
And the king talked with Gehazi; rather, now the king was talking with Gehazi, as in the Revised Version. The king, i.e; happened to be talking with Gehazi at the moment when the woman came into his presence and “cried” to him. It has been reasonably concluded from this, that chronological order is not observed in the portion of the narrative which treats of Elisha and his doings, since a king of Israel would scarcely be in familiar conversation with a leper (Keil). It may be added that Gehazi can scarcely have continued to be the servant of Elisha, as he evidently now was, after his leprosy. He must have dwelt “without the gate.” The servant of the man of God. That a king should converse with a servant is, no doubt, somewhat unusual; but, as Bahr notes, there is nothing in the circumstance that need astonish us. It is natural enough that, having been himself a witness of so many of the prophet’s marvelous acts done in public, Jehoram should become curious concerning those other marvelous acts which he had performed in private, among his personal friends and associates, with respect to which many turnouts must have got abroad; and should wish to obtain an account of them from a source on which he could rely. If he had this desire, he could scarcely apply to the prophet himself, with whom he was at no time on familiar terms, and who would shrink from enlarging on his own miraculous powers. “To whom, then, could he apply with more propriety for this information than to the prophet’s familiar servant”an eye-witness of most of them, and one who would have no reason for reticence? Oriental ideas would not be shocked by the king’s sending for any subject from whom he desired information, and questioning him. Saying, Tell me, I pray thee, all the great things that Elisha hath done. Miracles are often called “great things” () in the Old Testament, but generally in connection with God as the doer of them (see Job 5:9; Job 9:10; Job 37:5; Psa 71:19; Psa 106:21, etc.).
2Ki 8:5
And it came to pass, as he was telling the king how hei.e. Elishahad restored a dead Body to life. This was undoubtedly the greatest of all Elisha’s miracles, and Gehazi naturally enlarged upon it. As an eye-witness (2Ki 4:29-36), he could give all the details. That, behold, the woman, whose son he had restored to life, cried to the king for her house and for her land. The coincidence can scarcely have been accidental. Divine providence so ordered matters that, just when the king’s interest in the woman was most warm, she should appear before him to urge her claim. At another time, Jehoram would, it is probable, have been but slightly moved by her complaint. Under the peculiar circumstances, he was deeply moved, and at once granted the woman the redress for which she asked. And Gehazi said, Wry lord, O king, this is the woman, and this is her son, whom Elisha restored to life. The Shunammite was accompanied by her son, now a boy of at least tea or eleven years oldthe actual object of Elisha’s miracle. The king’s interest in the woman would be still more roused by this circumstance.
2Ki 8:6
And when the king asked the woman, she told him; rather, and the king made inquiry of the woman, and she answered him. The extent of the inquiries is not indicated. They may have included questions concerning the miracle, as well as questions concerning the woman’s claim to the land and house, and the evidence which she could produce of proprietorship. So the king appointed unto her a certain officerliterally, a certain eunuch, or chamberlainan officer of the court, who was in his confidence, and would give effect to his directions saying, Restore all that was hers, and all the fruits of the field since the day that she left the land, even until now. The order was, that not only was the Shunammite to receive back her house and estate, but that she was also to have “the mesne profits” i.e. the full value of all that the land had produced beyond the expense of cultivation during the seven yearn of her absence. English law lays down the same rule in cases of unlawful possession for which there is no valid excuse.
2Ki 8:7-15
Elisha‘s visit to Damascus, and its consequences. It has been usual to connect this visit of Elisha’s to Damascus with the commission given to Elijah many years previously, to anoint Hazael to be king over Syria (1Ki 19:16). But it is certainly worthy of remark that neither is Elijah authorized to devolve his corn-mission on another, nor is he said to have done so, nor is there any statement in the present narrative or elsewhere that Elisha anointed Hazael. It is therefore quite possible that Elisha’s journey was wholly unconnected with the command given to Elijah. It may, as Ewald imagines, have been the consequence of disorders and dangers in Samaria, growing out of the divergence of views between Jehoram and the queen-mother Jezebel, who still retained considerable influence over the government; and Elisha may have taken his journey, not so much for the sake of a visit, as of a prolonged sojourn. That he attracted the attention both of Benhadad and of his successor Hazael is not surprising.
2Ki 8:7
And Elisha came to Damascus. It was a bold step, whatever the circumstances that led to it. Not very long previously the Syrian king had made extraordinary efforts to capture Elisha, intending either to kin him or to keep him confined as a prisoner (2Ki 6:18-19). Elisha had subsequently helped to baffle his plans of conquest, and might be thought to have caused the disgraceful retreat of the Syrian army from the walls of Samaria, which he had certainly prophesied (2Ki 7:1). But Elisha was not afraid. He was probably commissioned to take his journey, whether its purpose was the anointing of Hazael or no. And Benhadad the King of Syria was sick. Ewald supposes that this “sickness” was the result of the disgrace and discredit into which he had fallen since his ignominious retreat, without assignable reason, from before the walls of Samaria; but Ben-hadad must have been of an age When the infirmities of nature press in upon a man, and when illness has to be expected. He was a contemporary of Ahab (1Ki 20:1), who had now been dead ten or twelve years. And it was told him, saying, The man of God is come hither. Elisha seems to have attempted no concealment of his presence. No sooner was he arrived than his coming was reported to Benhadad. The Syrians had by this time learnt to give him the name by which he was commonly known (2Ki 4:7, 2Ki 4:21, 2Ki 4:40; 2Ki 5:20; 2Ki 6:6, 2Ki 6:10; 2Ki 7:2, 2Ki 7:18) in Israel.
2Ki 8:8
And the king said unto Hazael. It is implied that Hazael was in attendance on Benhadad in his sick-room, either permanently as a chamberlain, or occasionally as a minister. According to Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 9.4. 6), he was “the most faithful of the king’s domestics” ( ). We cannot presume from 2Ki 8:12 that he had as yet distinguished himself as a warrior. Take a present in thine hand, and go, meet the man of God. It was usual, both among the heathen and among the Israelites, for those who consulted a prophet to bring him a present (see 1Sa 9:7; 1Ki 14:3). Hence, mainly, the great wealth of the Delphic and other oracles. Naaman (2Ki 5:5) had brought with him a rich present when he went to consult Elisha in Samaria. And inquire of the Lord by him, saying, Shall I recover of this disease! The miracles of Elisha had had at any rate this effectthey had convinced the Syrians that Jehovah was a great and powerful God, and made them regard Elisha himself as a true prophet. Their faith in their own superstitions must have been at least partially shaken by these convictions. It was by these and similar weakenings of established errors that the world was gradually educated, and the way prepared for the introduction of Christianity. There was very early among the Syrians a flourishing Christian Church.
2Ki 8:9
So Hazael went to meet himi.e. Elishaand took a present with him; literally, in his hand; but we must not pros this expression “In his hand” means “under his control.” The present was far too large to be carried by an individual. It consisted even of every good thing of Damascus; i.e. of gold and silver and costly raiment, of the luscious wine of Helbon, which was the drink of the Persian kings (Strab; 15.3. 22), of the soft white wool of the Antilibanus (Eze 27:18), of damask coverings of couches (Amo 3:12), perhaps of Damascus blades, and of various manufactured articles, the products of Tyro, Egypt, Nineveh, and Babylon, which her extensive land trade was always bringing to the Syrian capital. Forty camels’ burden. Not as much as forty camels could carry, but a gift of such a size that it was actually placed on the backs of forty camels, which paraded the town, and conveyed in a long procession to the prophet’s house the king’s magnificent offering. Orientals are guilty of extreme ostentation with respect to the presents that they make. As Chardin says, “Fifty persons often carry what a single one could have very well borne”. The practice is illustrated by the bas-reliefs of Nineveh and Persepolis, which furnish proofs of its antiquity. One present-bearer carries a few pomegranates; another, a bunch of grapes; a third, a string of locusts; a fourth, two small ointment-pots; a fifth, a branch of an olive tree, and the like (Layard, ‘Monuments of Nineveh,’ second series, pls. 8, 9, etc.). It is not unlikely that a single camel could have carried the whole. And earns and stood before him, and said, Thy son Benhadad King of Syria hath sent me to thee, sayingBenhadad seeks to propitiate Elisha by calling himself his son, thus indicating the respect he feels for himShall I recover of this disease? Nothing was more common in the ancient world than the consultation of an oracle or a prophet in cases of disease or other bodily affliction. Two questions were commonly asked, “Shall I recover?” and “How may I recover?” So Pheron of Egypt is said to have consulted an oracle with respect to his blindness (Herod; 2.111), and Battus of Cyrene to have done the same with respect to his stammering (ibid; 4.155). It was seldom that a clear and direct answer was given.
2Ki 8:10
And Elisha said unto him; Go, say unto him; Thou mayest certainly recover. The existing Masoretic text ( ) is untranslatable, since emar-lo cannot mean, “say not,” on account of the order of the words; and lo cannot he joined with khayiah thikhyah, first on account of the makkeph whick attaches it to emar, and secondly because the emphatic infinitive is in itself affirmative, and does not admit of a negative prefix. The emendation in the Hebrew margin ( for ), accepted by all the versions, and by almost all commentators, is thus certain. Our translators are therefore, so far, in the right; but they were not entitled to tone down the strong affirmative, khayih thikhyah, “living thou shalt live,” or “thou shalt surely live,” into the weak potential, “thou mayest certainly recover.” What Elisha says to Hazael is, “Go, say unto him, Thou shalt surely live;” i.e. “Go, say unto him, what thou hast already made up thy mind to say, what a courtier is sure to say, Thou shalt recover.” Howbeit the Lord hath showed me that he shall surely die. If Hazael had reported the whole answer to Benhadad, he would have told no lie, and thus Elisha is not responsible for his lie.
2Ki 8:11
And he settled his countenance steadfastlyliterally, and he settled his countenance and set it; i.e. Elisha fixed on Hazael a long and meaning lookuntil hei.e. Hazaelwas ashamed; i.e. until Hazael felt embarrassed, and his eyes fell It may be gathered that the ambitious courtier had already formed a murderous design against his master, and understood by the peculiar gaze which the prophet fixed upon him that his design was penetrated. And the man of God wept. There flashed on the prophet’s mind all the long series of calamities which Israel would suffer at the hands of Syria during Hazael’s reign, and he could not but weep at the thought of them (see the next verse).
2Ki 8:12
And Hazael said, Why weepeth my lord? While inwardly contemplating an act of audacious wickedness in defiance of the prophet’s implied rebuke, Hazael preserves towards him outwardly an attitude of extreme deference and respect. “My lord” was the phrase with which slaves addressed their masters, and subjects their monarchs (see 2Ki 5:3; 2Ki 6:12, etc.). And he answered, Because I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel: their strongholds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their women with child. The prophet does not intend to tax Hazael with any special cruelty, tie only means to say, “Thou wilt wage long and bloody wars with Israel, in which will occur all those customary horrors that make war so terriblethe burning of cities, the slaughter of the flower of the youth, the violent death of children, and even the massacre of women in a state of pregnancy. These horrors belonged, more or less, to all Oriental wars, and are touched on in Psa 137:9; 2Ki 15:16; Isa 13:16, Isa 13:18; Hos 10:14; Nah 3:10; Amo 1:13, etc. The wars of Hazael with the Israelites are mentioned in 2Ki 10:32, 2Ki 10:33; 2Ki 13:3-7; and Amo 1:3, Amo 1:4.
2Ki 8:13
And Hazael said, But what, is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing? This rendering is generally allowed to Be incorrect. The true sense, which is well represented in the Septuagint ( ;), is”But what is thy servant, this dog, that he should do so great a thing?” Hazael does not accuse Elisha of making him out a dog in the future, but calls himself a dog in the present. “Dog” is a word of extreme contempt”the most contemptuous epithet of abuse” (Winer), as appears, among other places, from 1Sa 24:14 and 2Sa 16:9. Hazael means to sayHow is it possible that he, occupying, as he does, so poor and humble a position as that of a mere courtier or domestic (, Josephus), should ever wage war with Israel, and do the “great things” which Elisha has predicted of him? And Elisha answered, The Lord hath showed me that thou shalt be king over Syria. Elisha explains how it would be possible. Hazael would not continue in his poor and humble condition. Jehovah has revealed it to him that the mere courtier will shortly mount the Syrian throne.
2Ki 8:14
So he departed from Elisha, and came to his master; who said to him, What said Elisha to thee? And he answered, He told me that thou shouldest surely recover. This, as already observed, was giving half Elisha’s answer, and suppressing the other half. The suppressio veri is a suggestio falsi; and the suppression was Hazael’s act, not Elisha’s. Had Hazael repeated the whole of Elisha’s answer, “Say unto him, Thou shalt surely recover; howbeit the Lord hath showed me that he shall surely die;”Benhadad might have been puzzled, but he would not have been deceived.
2Ki 8:15
And it came to pass on the morrow, that he took a thick cloth. Macber is a cloth of a coarse texturea mat, or piece of carpeting. It has here the article prefixed to it (ham-macber), which implies that there was but one in the sick-room. We may conjecture that it was a mat used as a sort of pillow, and interposed between the head-rest (so common in Egypt and Assyria) and the head (compare the c’bir of 1Sa 19:13). And dipped it in water. The water would fill up the interstices through which air might otherwise have been drawn, and hasten the suffocation. A death of the same kind is recorded in the Persian history entitled ‘Kholasat el Akhbar,’ which contains the following passage: “The malik ordered that they should place a carpet on Abdallah’s mouth, so that his life was cut off.” And spread it on his face, so that he died. It has been supposed by some commentators, as Luther, Schultz, Geddes, Boothroyd, that Benhadad put the wet macber on his own face for refreshment, and accidentally suffocated himself; but this is very unlikely, and it is certainly not the natural sense of the words. As “Hazael” is the subject of “departed” and “came” and “answered” in 2Ki 8:14, so it is the natural subject of “took” and “dipped” and “spread” in 2Ki 8:15. 2Ki 8:11 also would be unintelligible if Hazael entertained no murderous intentions. Why Ewald introduces a “bath-servant,” unmentioned in the text, to murder Benhadad for no assignable reason, it is difficult to conjecture. And Hazael reigned in his stead. The direct succession of Hazael to Benhadad is confirmed by the inscription on the Black Obelisk, where he appears as King of Damascus (line 97) a few years only after Benhadad (Bin-idri) had been mentioned as king.
2Ki 8:16-24
THE WICKED REIGN OF JEHORAM IN JUDAH. At this point the writer, who has been concerned with the history of the kingdom of Israel hitherto in the present book, takes up the story of the kingdom of Judah from 1Ki 22:50, and proceeds to give a very brief account of the reign of Jehoshaphat’s eldest son, Jehoram, or (by contraction) Joram. His narrative has to be supplemented from 2Ch 21:1-20; which contains many facts not mentioned by the writer of Kings.
2Ki 8:16
And in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab King of Israel, Jehoshaphat being then King of Judah; literally, and of Jehoshaphat King of Judah. The words are wanting in three Hebrew manuscripts, in some editions of the Septuagint, in the Peshito Syriac, in the Parisian Heptaplar Syriac, in the Arabic Version, and in many copies of the Vulgate. They cannot possibly have the sense assigned to them in our version, and are most probably a gloss which has crept into the text from the margin. Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat King of Judah began to reign. Jehoram’s reign was sometimes counted from the seventeenth year of his father, when he was given the royal title, sometimes from his father’s twenty-third year, when he was associated, and sometimes from his father’s death in his twenty-fifth year, when he became sole king (see the comment on 2Ki 1:17 and 2Ki 3:1).
2Ki 8:17
Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign; and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem. The eight years seem to be counted from his association in the kingdom by his father in his twenty-third year. He reigned as sole king only six years.
2Ki 8:18
And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as did the house of Ahab; i.e. he introduced into Judah the Baal and Astarte worship, which Ahab had introduced into Israel from Phoenicia. The “house of Ahab” maintained and spread the Baal-worship, wherever it had influence. Ahaziah, the son of Ahab, championed it in Israel (1Ki 22:53); Jehoram, his brother, allowed its continuance (2Ki 10:18-28); Jehoram of Judah was induced by his wife, Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab, to countenance it in Judaea; Athaliah, when she usurped the throne upon the death of her son Ahaziah, made it the state religion in that country. “Evil communications corrupt good manners.” The alliance of the two separated kingdoms, concluded between Jehoshaphat and Ahab (1Ki 22:2-4), had no tangible result beyond the introduction into Judah of the licentious and debasing superstition which had previously overspread the sister country. For the daughter of Ahab was his wife. In 2Ki 8:26 Athaliah, the wife of Jehoram, is called “the daughter of Omri;” but by “daughter” in that place must be meant “descendant” or “granddaughter.” Athaliah has been well called “a second Jezebel.” And he did evil in the sight of the Lord. The wicked actions of Jehoram are recorded at some length in Chronicles (2Ch 21:2-4,2Ch 21:11-13). Shortly after his accession he put to death his six brothersAzariah, Jehiel, Zechariah, Ahaziah (?), Michael, and Shephatiahin order to “strengthen himself.” At the same time, he caused many of the “princes of Israel” to be executed. Soon afterwards he “made high places in the mountains of Judah, and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication” (i.e. to become idolaters), “and compelled Judah thereto.” That the idolatry, which he introduced, was the Baal-worship is clear, both from the present passage and from 2Ch 21:13.
2Ki 8:19
Yet the Lord would not destroy Judah for David his servant’s sake. The natural punishment of apostasy was rejection by God, and on rejection would, as a matter of course, follow destruction and ruin. God had declared by Moses, “If thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and statutes, which I command thee this day; all these curses shall come upon thee The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me. The Lord shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until he have consumed thee from off the land, whither thou goest to possess it. The Lord shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee till thou perish. And thy heaven which is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is underneath thee shall be iron . The Lord shall cause thee to be smitten of thine enemies; thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them: and thou shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth . Thou shall become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations whither the Lord shall lead thee” (Deu 28:15-37). The apostasy of Jeheram, and of the nation under him, was calculated to bring about the immediate fulfillment of all these threats, and would have done so but for a restraining cause. God had made promises to David, and to his seed after him (2Sa 7:13-16; Psa 89:29-37, etc.), which would be unfulfilled if Judah’s candlestick were at once removed. He had declared, “If thy children forsake my Law, and walk not in my statutes I will visit their offences with the rod, and their sin with scourges. Nevertheless my loving-kindness will I not utterly take away, nor suffer my truth to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips; I have sworn once by my holiness that I will not fail David.” If he had now swept away the Jewish kingdom, he would have dealt more hardly with these who clave to David than with those that broke off from him. He would not have shown the “faithfulness” or the “mercy” which he had promised, tie would have forgotten “the loving-kindnesses which he aware unto David in his truth” (Psa 89:49). Therefore he would nothe could notas yet “destroy Judah,” with which, in point of fact, he bore for above three centuries longer, until at last the cup of their iniquities was full, and “there was no remedy.” As he promised him to give him always a light, and to his children. There is no “and” in the original. TranslateAs he promised him to give him always a light in respect of his children, and compare, for the promise of “a light” (1Ki 11:36; 1Ki 15:4; and Psa 132:17).
2Ki 8:20
In his days Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah. Edom had been conquered by Joab in the time of David, and had been treated with great severity, all the males, or at any rate all those of full age, having been put to death (1Ki 11:15, 1Ki 11:16). On the death of David, Edom seems to have revolted under a prince named Hadad, and to have re-established its independence. It had been again sub-jeered by the time of Jehoshaphat, who appointed a governor over it (1Ki 22:47), and treated it as a portion of his own territories (2Ki 3:8). Now the yoke was finally thrown off, as had been prophesied (Gen 27:40). Edom became once more a separate kingdom, and was especially hostile to Judah. In the reign of Ahaz the Edomites “smote Judah” and carried away many captives (2Ch 28:17). When the Chaldaeans attacked and besieged Jerusalem, they cried, “Down with it, down with it, even to the ground!” (Psa 137:7). They looked on with joy at the capture of the holy city (Oba 1:12), and “stood in the crossway, to cut off such as escaped” (Oba 1:14). After the return from the Captivity, they were still Judah’s enemies, and am especially denounced as such by the Prophet Malachi (Mal 1:3-5). In the Maccabee wars, we find them always on the Syrian side (1 Mac. 4:29, 61; 5:3; 6:31; 2 Macc. 10:15, etc.), doing their best to rivet the hateful yoke of the heathen on their suffering brethren. As Idumaeans, the Herodian family must have been specially hateful to the Jews. And made a king over themselves. The king mentioned in 2Ki 3:9, 2Ki 3:26 was probably a mere vassal king under Jehoshaphat.
2Ki 8:21
So Joram went over to Zair. Naturally, Joram did not allow Edom to become independent without an attempt to reduce it. He invaded the country in full force, taking up a position at a place called Zair, which is not otherwise known. Zair () can scarcely be Zoar (), which, wherever it was, was certainly not in Edom; and it is hardly likely to be a corruption of “Seir” (), since the utterly unknown would scarcely be put by a copyist in the place of the well-known . Moreover, if Mount Seir were intended, it would probably have had the prefix , as in 1Ch 4:42; 2Ch 20:10, 2Ch 20:22, 2Ch 20:23; Eze 35:2, Eze 35:3, Eze 35:7, Eze 35:15. “Seir” alone is poetical rather than historical, especially in the language of the later books of the Old Testament. And all the chariots with him; or, all his chariots (Revised Version). The article has the force of the possessive pronoun. And he rose by night, and smote the Edomites which compassed him about. Josephus understands the writer to mean that Joram made his invasion by night, and smote the Edomites on all sides (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 9.5. 1); but it seems better to suppose, with most modern commentators, that the meaning is the following: Soon after Joram invaded the country, he found himself surrounded and blocked in by the Edomite troops, and could only save himself by a night attack, which was so far successful that he broke through the enemy’s lines and escaped; his army, however, was so alarmed at the danger it had run, that it at once dispersed and returned home. And the captains of the chariots; i.e. the captains of the Edomite chariots. They too were “smitten,” having probably taken the chief part in trying to prevent the escape. And the people fled into their tents; i.e. dispersed to their homes. Compare the cry of Jeroboam (1Ki 12:16), “To your tents, O Israel!”
2Ki 8:22
Yet Edom revolted; rather, and Edom revolted; or, so Edom revolted. Joram’s attempt having failed, the independence of the country was established. From under the hand of Judah unto this day. The successes of Amaziah and Azariah against Edom (2Ki 14:7, 2Ki 14:22) did not amount to reconquests. Edom continued a separate country, not subject to Judaea, and frequently at war with it, until the time of John Hyrcanus, by whom it was subjugated. “Unto this day” means, at the most, until the time when the Books of Kings took their present shape, which was before the return from the Captivity. Then Libnah revolted at the same time. Libnah was situated on the borders of Philistia, in the Shefelah, or low country, but towards its eastern edge. Its exact position is uncertain; but it is now generally thought to be identical with the modern Tel-es-Safi, between Gath and Ekron, about long. 34 50′ E; Int. 31 38′ N. It had been an independent city, with a king of its own, in the early Canaanite time (Jos 10:30; Jos 12:15), but had been assigned to Judah (Jos 15:42), and had hitherto remained, so far as appears, contented with its position. Its people can scarcely have had any sympathy with the Edomites, and its revolt at this time can have had no close connection with the Edomite rebellion. Libnah’s sympathies would be with Philistia, and the occasion of the revolt may have been the invasion of Judaea by the Philistines in the reign of Jehoram, of which the author of Chronicles speaks (2Ch 21:16), and in which Jehoram’s sons were carried off.
2Ki 8:23
And the rest of the sets of Joram, and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? Some of these acts are recorded in our present Second Book of Chronicles; e.g. his execution of his brothers and of many nobles (2Ch 21:4); his erection of high places (2Ch 21:11); his persecution of the followers of Jehovah (2Ch 21:11); his reception of a writing from Elisha, which, however, had no effect upon his conduct (2Ch 21:12-15); his war with the Philistines (2Ch 21:16) and with the Arabs (2Ch 21:16); his loss of all his sons but one during his lifetime; his long illness, and his painful death (2Ch 21:18, 2Ch 21:19). But the ‘Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah’ was a work on a larger scale than the extant Book of Chronicles, and probably went into much greater detail.
2Ki 8:24
And Joram slept with his fathers. Joram died after an illness, that lasted two years, of an incurable disease of his bowels. “No burning” was made for him, and there was no regret at his death. And was buried with his fathers in the city of David; i.e. in the portion of Jerusalem which David built; but, according to Josephus (‘Ant. Jud.,’ 9.5. 3) and the author of Chronicles (2Ch 21:20), not in the sepulchers of the kings. And Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead. Ahaziah is called “Jehoahaz” in 2Ch 21:17, by an inversion of the two elements of his name, and “Azariah” in 2Ch 22:6, apparently by a slip of the pen.
2Ki 8:25-29
THE WICKED REIGN OF AHAZIAH IN JUDAH. The writer continues the history of Judah through another reigna very short one-almost to its close. He describes the wickedness of Ahaziah, for the most part, in general terms, attributes it to his connection with the “house of Ahab,” and notes his alliance with Joram of Israel against the Syrians, and his visit to his brother monarch at Samaria, which led on to his death.
2Ki 8:25
In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab King of Israel. In 2Ki 9:29 the year of Ahaziah’s accession is said to have been Joram’s eleventh year. It is conjectured that he began to reign as viceroy to his father during his severe illness in Joram’s eleventh year, and became sole king at his father’s death in the year following. Did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram King of Judah begin to reign; i.e. begin to be full king.
2Ki 8:26
Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. The writer of Chronicles says, “two and forty” (2Ch 22:2), which is absolutely impossible, since his father was but forty when he died. Even “two and twenty” is a more advanced age than we should have expected, since Ahaziah was the youngest of Jehoram’s sons (2Ch 21:17); he must therefore have been born in his father’s nineteenth year. Yet he had several elder brothers (2Ch 21:17; 2Ch 22:1)! To explain this, we have to remember
(1) the early age at which marriage is contracted in the East (twelve years); and
(2) the fact that each prince had, besides his wife, several concubines. That Joram had several appears from 2Ch 21:17. And he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s Ares was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri King of Israel. There is something very remarkable in the dignity and precedence attached to Omri. He was, no doubt, regarded of a sort of second founder of the kingdom of Israel, having been the first monarch to establish anything like a stable dynasty. His “statutes” were looked upon as the fundamental laws of the kingdom, and were “kept” down to the time of its destruction (Mic 6:16). Foreigners knew Samaria as Beth. Khumri, or “the house of Omri.” He is the only Israelite king mentioned by name on the Moabite Stone (line 5), and the earliest mentioned in the inscriptions of Assyria. Even Jehu, who put an end to his dynasty, was regarded by the Assyrians as his descendant, and known under the designation of” Yahua, the son of Khnmri” (Black Obelisk, epig. 2.). Athallah, the daughter of Ahab, is called “the daughter of Omri,” not only in the present passage, but also in 2Ch 22:2.
2Ki 8:27
And he walked in the way of the house of Ahab. Compare what is said of Ahaziah of Israel in 1Ki 22:52, 1Ki 22:53, and of Jehoram of Judah in the present chapter (1Ki 22:18). What is specially intended is that Ahaziah kept up the Baal-worship introduced by his father into Judah. And did evil in the sight of the Lord, as did the house of Ahab: for he was the son-in-law of the house of Ahab; literally, for he was related by marriage to the house of Ahab. is any relation by marriage, not “son-in-law” in particular (see Exo 3:1, and the comment on the place).
2Ki 8:28
And he went with Joram the son of Ahab to the war against Hazael King of Syria in Ramoth-Gilead. Some translate, and Joram himself went; but this is a very rare use of , and one which would be unnatural in this placefor why “Joram himself,” when “Joram” alone would have been quite sufficient?and still more unnatural in 2Ch 22:5, where the same phrase occurs. It is best, therefore, to follow our translators, who are in accord both with the Septuagint and with the Vulgate. Ahaziah followed the example of his grandfather Jehoshaphat, who had accompanied Ahab to Ramoth-Gilead (1Ki 22:29), to fight against the Syrians in the time of Benhadad. That the city was still disputed shows the importance which it possessed in the eyes of both parties. And the Syrians wounded Joram. It appears that Hazael, soon after his accession, with the ardor of a young prince anxious to distinguish himself, made an expedition against Ramoth-Gilead, which had been recovered by the Israelites between the death of Ahab and the time of which the historian is now treating. Joram went to the relief of the town with a large force, and, being received within the walls, maintained a gallant defense (2Ki 9:14), in the course of which he was wounded severely, though not fatally. Thereupon he and his brother king quitted the town and returned to their respective capitals, leaving a strong garrison in Ramoth-Gilead under Jehu and some other captains. Joram needed rest and careful nursing on account of his wounds, and Ahaziah would naturally withdraw with him; since he could not serve under a mere general.
2Ki 8:29
And King Joram went back to be healed in Jezreel. Jezreel was more accessible from Ramoth-Gilead than Samaria. It lay in the plain, and could be reached without traveling over any rough or mountainous country. It was also the usual place to which the court retired for rest and refreshment-the Versailles or Windsor of Samaria, as it has been called. Of the wounds which the Syrians had given him at Ramah, when he fought against Hazael wing of Syria. “Ramah” is another name for “Ramoth-Gilead” or “Ramoth in Gilead,” which is the full name of the place. The word means “high,” “elevated,” and is cognate to Aram. And Ahaziah the son of Jehoram King of Judah went down to see Joram the son of Ahab in Jezreel. Ahaziah would probably take the route by way of Jericho, the Jordan valley, and the Wata el Jalud, and would consequently begin his journey by the rapid descent from Jerusalem to Jericho. Because he was sick; i.e. unwell, wounded.
HOMILETICS
2Ki 8:1-6
All things work together for good to them that love God.
The piety of the Shunammite had been sufficiently shown in the previous record left us of her (2Ki 4:8-37). The sequel of her story indicates how, in a wonderful way, events and circumstances seemingly fortuitous and unconnected work together for the advantage and happiness of one who lives virtuously, and seeks in all things to serve God and advance the cause of religion. “The series of incidents,” it has been well said, “forms a marvelous web of Divine dispensations” (Bahr).
I. THE FAME. This lies at the root of the whole. If God had not ordained a famine upon the land”called for it,” and brought it aboutnone of the other incidents would have been possible. The woman would not have lost her property, would have had no occasion to “cry” to the king, and would have come into no personal contact either with him or with Gehazi.
II. THE PROPHET‘S WARNING. The prophet, when so terrible a calamity as a seven years’ famine impended over the land, might well have given all his thoughts to the general sufferings of the people, and have forgotten individuals. But God’s providence determines otherwise. Elisha bethinks himself of the Shunammite, albeit she is but a unit in the vast mass of suffering humanity, and warns her of the coming evil, bidding her quit the land and sojourn elsewhere. This advice, which she follows, is the second link in the chain.
III. THE COINCIDENCE OF THE KING‘S DESIRE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT ELISHA WITH THE RETURN OF THE WOMAN TO HER OWN LAND. It was, humanly speaking, a pure accident that the curiosity of the king with respect to Elisha happened to be aroused just as the famine was over, and the woman, having returned from Philistia into the land of Israel, found her estate occupied by another. It was another accident that she bethought herself of appealing to the king, instead of having recourse to any other remedy.
IV. THE COINCIDENCE OF GEHAZI BEING SPEAKING OF HER CASE EXACTLY AS SHE MADE HER APPEARANCE. Gehazi had scores of miracles to relate, and might have been discoursing of any one of them; but events were so ordered that it was of her child’s resurrection that he was telling the king, and not of any other miracle, when she came into the royal presence. This coincidence it was which so interested the king in her, that he at once gave the order for restoring her estate to her.
We may learn from the entire narrative,
(1) that our lives are divinely ordered;
(2) that nothing happens to us by mere chance;
(3) that events which seem to us, at the time when they happen, of the least possible importance, may be necessary links in the chain which Divine providence is forging for the ordering of our lives, and for the working out through them of the Divine purposes.
2Ki 8:7-9
The power of calamity to bend the spirit of the proud.
Benhadad had hitherto been an enemy of Jehovah and his prophets. He had sought Elisha’s life (2Ki 6:13-20), and, when baffled in his design to seize his person, had made a bold attempt to crush and destroy the whole Israelite nation. But now God had laid his hand upon him; he was prostrated on a sick-bed; and lo! all was altered. The mighty monarch, so lately glorying in his strength, and, in his own opinion, infinitely above any soi-disant prophet, is brought down so low that, on hearing of Elisha’s having come voluntarily to his capital, instead of seizing him, he sends him a humble embassy. Hazael, a high officer of the court, is bidden to “take a present in his hand, and go meet the man of God, and inquire of Jehovah by himWill the king recover from his disease?” The present is a rich one, made by Oriental ostentation to appear even grander than it is in reality. Forty camels bear their burden to the prophet’s door, and bring him “every good thing of Damascus,” without let or stint. The great king calls himself Elisha’s son”Thy son Benhadad has sent me to thee” (2Ki 8:9). Never was there a more complete reversal of human conditions. The hunted enemy is now felt to be the best friend; is courted, flattered, propitiated both by act and word. The proud king grovels in the dust, is content to be the prophet’s son and servant, does him obeisance morally, and hangs upon his words as those of one with whom are the issues of life and death! And so it is with the proud and mighty generally.
(1) A Pharaoh despises Jehovah, and asks, “Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice and let Israel go? I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go” (Exo 5:2); but in a little time the same Pharaoh has to rise up in the dead of the night, and to call for Jehovah’s servants, Moses and Aaron, and to entreat them to go forth from among his people, both they and the children of Israel, and go, serve Jehovah, as they had said; also to take their flocks and their herds, as they had said, and to be gone; and to “bless him also“ (Exo 12:31, Exo 12:32).
(2) An Ahab lets loose the dogs of persecution against the people of God, destroys the prophets of Jehovah, and sells himself to work evil in the sight of the Lord; but, when boldly rebuked and threatened with calamity, all his pride forsakes him, and he rends his clothes, and puts sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasts, and lies in sackcloth, and goes softly (1Ki 21:27).
(3) A Manasseh turns from God to worship Baal, and does after all the abominations of the heathen, and builds again the high places, and rears up altars for Baal, and uses witchcraft, and sets up a carved image in the house of God, and sheds innocent blood very much till he fills Jerusalem from one end to another (2Ki 21:16), and does worse than the heathen whom the Lord destroyed before the children of Israel, even causing Isaiah (according to the tradition) to be sawn asunder; but calamity smites him, the captains of the host of the King of Assyria take him, and put hooks in his mouth, and chains upon his limbs, and carry him captive to Babylon to the King of Assyriathen all his pride falls away from him like a cast-off garment, and in his affliction he beseeches the Lord his God, and humbles himself greatly before the God of his fathers, and prays to him, and makes supplication, and is forgiven, and thenceforth serves Jehovah (2Ch 33:11-16). The pastor who has under his charge proud, tyrannical, oppressive persons, who scorn rebuke, and think to ride roughshod over their fellow-men, may wait with a good hope for the hour of sickness or calamity, which sooner or later, unless in the case of sudden death, comes to all. He will find the Benhadad of the sick-room a very different person from the Benhadad of the camp, or of the court, or of the mart, and one much more open to admonition. Hardness, stubbornness, self-reliance, can scarcely survive, when the weakness of decay and the helplessness of acute sickness have supervened. He need not despair, however cruel, oppressive, and injurious to others the man’s earlier life may have been. If a Benhadad could humble himself, if an Ahab could repent and “go softly,” if a Manasseh could turn to God and obtain pardon, there must be a possibility of repentance even for the most hardened sinners.
2Ki 8:10-15
Hazael and Elisha.
The contrast is striking between the two characters here brought for the first and last time into contact. In Hazael we have
I. THE CRAFTY SCHEMER, cunning and treacherous, who sees in his master’s calamity his own opportunity; who feels no gratitude for past favors, no pity for present weakness and suffering, no compunction at playing a double part; who has no horror of crime, no dread of the enduring infamy which attaches to the assassin and the traitor. Hazael is wise in a certain sensehe is clever, audacious, skilful in devising means to ends, secret, determined, unscrupulous. He contrives a mode of death which will leave no trace of violence, and may appear accidental, if suspicion arises that it has not happened in the ordinary course of nature.
II. THE MAN OF BLOOD. Hazael is altogether cruel and unsparing. He reaches the throne through blood. As king, he deluges Israel in blood, “cutting the nation short, and smiting them in all their coasts” (2Ki 10:32); “destroying them, and making them like the dust by threshing” (2Ki 13:7). We must view him as a born soldier, never so happy as when engaged in a campaign, now resisting the attacks of Assyria on his northern border, now attacking the Philistines (2Ki 12:17), almost constantly warring with his immediate neighbors the kings of Israel, once even threatening Judah, and “setting his face to go up to Jerusalem” (2Ki 12:17) in the hope of taking it.
III. THE SUCCESSFUL WARRIOR. Hazael succeeded in repulsing the Assyrians, and maintaining his independence, notwithstanding all their efforts to conquer him. He reduced Israel to a species of semi-subjection (2Ki 13:7). He compelled even Judaea to purchase peace at his hands (2Ki 12:18). He was, on the whole, the most warlike of all the early kings of Syria; and, though he suffered one great defeat at the hands of the Assyrian king, Shalmaneser II; yet he issued from the struggle unsubdued, and left his dominions intact to his son and successor, Benhadad III.
In Elisha, on the other hand, we have
I. THE WISE, CLEAR–SIGHTED, SINGLE–MINDED, HONEST ADVISER. Elisha has no cunning, no art, no special cleverness. But he can read character; he can see through Hazael’s designs. Whether king, or noble, or common person applies to him for advice, he uses the same simplicity, counsels each as seems to him for the best, and seeks to gain nothing for himself by the advice which he gives them. His plainness offends Naaman (2Ki 5:12); his firmness enrages Jehoram (2Ki 6:31); his penetration disconcerts Hazael (2Ki 8:11); but he cares nothing how men may receive his words. It is a Divine message that he delivers, and deliver the message he must and will, in simple plain language, whether men will hear or whether they will forbear.
II. THE MAN OF PEACE. Elisha’s character is eminently peaceful and conciliatory. He weeps at the thought of those horrors which war causes almost of necessity (2Ki 8:11). Once only do his counsels lead on to an engagement (2Ki 3:16-24); mostly he contrives that perils shall be averted without the shedding of blood (2Ki 6:18-22; 2Ki 7:6-15). He will not allow the prisoners that he has made to be put to death, or in any way ill treated (2Ki 6:22, 2Ki 6:23). He seeks to check Hazael’s murderous propensities by a look which he cannot misunderstand (2Ki 8:11).
III. THE PROPHET AND TEACHER. The office of the prophet was to rebuke sin, as Elisha did (2Ki 3:13, 2Ki 3:14), to sustain faith, to train up fresh prophets, to teach the faithful (2Ki 4:23), to announce God’s will to king and people, and to execute commissions with which God specially entrusted him. Elisha never failed in the performance of any of these duties. Cast upon a dark time, when a debasing superstition, imported from a foreign country, had full possession of the court and had laid a strong hold upon the country, he faithfully upheld Jehovah and Jehovah’s laws before backsliding kings and “a disobedient and gainsaying people.” To Elisha principally it was owing that true religion still maintained itself in the land against the persecutions of Jezebel and her sons, and that, when the dynasty of Omri came to an end, there was still a faithful remnant left, which had not bowed the knee to Baal, but had clung to Jehovah under all manner of difficulties. If Elisha left no great prophet to succeed him, it was probably because great men are not made to order, and God’s providence did not see fit to continue the succession of first-rate prophetical teachers, which had been raised up to meet the extreme danger of the introduction and maintenance of a false state religion by apostate kings. When two such characters are brought into contact, the natural result is mutual repulsion. Hazael is ashamed that Elisha should read him so well; and Elisha weeps when he thinks of the woes that Hazael will inflict upon Israel Outward respect is maintained; But the two must have felt, when they parted, that they were adversaries for life, bent on opposite courses, with opposed principles, aims, motives; not only the servants of different gods, but antagonistic in their whole conception of life and its objects, sure to clash if ever they should meet again, and, even if they should not meet, sure to be ever working for different ends, and engaged in thwarting one the other.
2Ki 8:16-27
The power of bad women for evil.
All the evil wrought, all the irreligion, all the licentiousness and depravity, and almost all the misery suffered during the reigns of Ahab, Ahaziah, and Jehoram in Israel, and of Jehoram and Ahaziah in Judah, were caused by the machinations and influence of two wicked womenJezebel and her daughter Athaliah. Jezebel, a proud imperious woman, born in the purple, a “king’s daughter;” and extraordinarily strong-minded and unscrupulous, obtained a complete ascendancy over the weak and unstable Ahab, and must be viewed as the instigator of all his wicked actions. With Ahab’s connivance, she “slew the prophets of the Lord,” persecuted the faithful, set up the worship of Baal and Ashtoreth in Samaria, introduced into Israel the unchaste rites of the Dea Syra and of Adonis, threatened the life of Elijah and drove him into banishment, contrived the judicial murder of Naboth, and imparted to Ahab’s reign that character of licentiousness and bloody cruelty which gives it its sad pre-eminence above all others in the black list of Israel’s monarchs. Nor did Jezebel’s evil influence stop her. She outlived her husband by some thirteen years, and during that period was the evil genius of her two sons, Ahaziah and Jehoram. Ahaziah she completely perverted (2Ki 22:1-20 :52, 53). Over Jehoram she had less influence; but to her we must ascribe it that during his reign the Baal-worship continued in the capital (2Ki 10:25-27) and in the country districts (2Ki 10:21), though he himself took no part in it (2Ki 3:2). Athaliah, though without the strength of mind and will which characterized her mother, resembled her, as a faint replica resembles a strongly painted portrait. Married to Jehoram of Israel, a weak prince, she had little difficulty in establishing her ascendancy over him, and becoming his chief adviser and counselor (2Ki 8:18). It was under her direction that Jehoram “made high places in the mountains of Judah, and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication, and compelled Judah thereto” (2Ch 21:11), or, in other words, established the Baal-worship in Judah and Jerusalem, and forced the inhabitants to embrace it. Over Ahaziah, her son, who was but two and twenty at his accession, her influence was naturally greater. He seems to have been a mere puppet in her hands (2Ch 22:3-5). With a boldness worthy of her mother, Athaliah, on the death of her son Ahaziah, murdered all his half-brothers, and seized the sovereign power, which she held for six yearsa unique feature in the history of the Jews. The Baal-worship was now made to supersede the worship of Jehovah in the temple on Mount Zion, and Mattan, the chief of Baal, was installed in the place previously occupied by the Aaronic high priest (2Ch 23:17). Jehovah-worship was forbidden, persecuted, and probably ceased, except in secret; and the kingdom of Judah was, so far as appearances went, apostate. Such were the evils wrought by these two ambitious and wicked women. The history of the world, though it can furnish no exact parallels, has many cases more or less similar. Semiramis may be a myth, but Queen Hatasu in Egypt, Queens Atossa and Parysatis in Persia, Olympia in Greece, Messalina and Poppaea Sabina in Rome, Catharine de Medici, and Catherine Empress of Russia, in modern Europe, were women equally imperious, equally determined, and the prolific causes of equal mischief. It would seem that, in the female nature, where the natural impulses are so largely towards good, if these are perverted and Satan allowed the mastery, there is no longer any let or restraint; the passions become ungovernable, the will as iron, the heart hard and unrelenting; evil has unresisted sway, and the result is something even more fearful and terrible than the wickedness of the worst man. Corruptio optimi pessima. Woman’s function in the world is to be soft and tender, to smooth down man’s roughnesses, to pacify and soothe and mitigate; if she abnegates these functions, and assumes the man’s duties of ruling and repressing and bending to her will the stubborn necks of others, she runs counter to her proper nature, and becomes a monstrosity. There is no saying to what lengths of profligacy, cruelty, and other wickedness she may not go. She is worse than a wild beast, and may do infinitely more evil. She may utterly corrupt a society, or she may deluge with blood a continent. She may ruin the country to which she belongs and bring its fairest provinces to desolation. She may stir up hatreds, set class against class, and cause a civil war that shall cost the lives of hundreds of thousands. The only security against all this mischief is for woman not to desert her sphere, but to remain within it, working for God, and doing the good which she was designed to do.
HOMILIES BY C.H. IRWIN
2Ki 8:1-6
The Shunammite’s land restored.
The Bible has a good deal to say about the land question. There is one memorable passage in Isaiah (v. 8): “Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place, that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth l” There is another memorable passage in the Epistle of St, James: “Behold, the hire of the laborers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord God of Sabaoth.” If such denunciations of oppression and wrong had been remembered, we should have had less of socialistic combinations and less of agrarian crime. In this passage we have
I. A COMMAND OBEYED. Elisha’s command seemed a hard one. This woman of Shunem was to arise with her household, and leave her home and farm for seven years. He told her, indeed, that there was to be a famine in the land. But she might have wanted more proof. She might have said, “Well, I shall wait till I see some signs of the famine. It is a great hardship to have to get up in this way and leave my home, without any immediate reason. What if Elisha’s fears should turn out to be untrue? May not the famine be as bad anywhere else?” So men often reason when God gives them some command or points out to them the way of salvation. Lot lingered, when urged to depart out of Sodom, though the very angels of God had come to warn him of his doom. So men linger still, when urged to flee from the wrath to come. They linger, though every day is bringing them nearer to eternity. They linger, though they know not the day nor the hour when the Son of man may come. Whether it be the path of salvation or the path of Christian service which God calls us to tread, let us not linger, let us not hesitate to obey, but, like this woman of Shunem, let us do at once what God commands.
II. LOSS INCURRED. This woman actually did suffer by her prompt obedience. She escaped the famine, indeed, but she lost her land. On this subject Dr. Thomson says, in ‘The Land and the Book,’ “It is still common for even petty sheikhs to confiscate the property of any person who is exiled for a time, or who moves away temporarily from his district. Especially is this true of widows and orphans, and the Shunammite was now a widow. And small is the chance to such of having their property restored, unless they can secure the mediation of some one more influential than themselves. The conversation between the king and Gehazi about his master is also in perfect keeping with the habits of Eastern princes; and the appearance of the widow and her son so opportunely would have precisely the same effect now that it had then. Not only the land, but all the fruits of it would be restored. There is an air of genuine verisimilitude in such simple narratives which it is quite impossible for persons not intimately familiar with Oriental manners to appreciate, but which stamps the incidents with undoubted certainty.” We may incur loss from a worldly point of view by obeying a command of God. But which do we preferworldly gain or a conscience at peace with God? Which less is greaterthe loss of a few pounds, or the loss of our heavenly Father’s smile? Even if we do lose by itit is best to do the will of God, to follow in the footsteps of Jesus.
III. QUESTIONS ASKED. We are not told what led to this remarkable conversation which Jehoram had with Gehazi. Perhaps the time of famine had humbled him. Perhaps he was becoming penitent for his threat of taking Elisha’s life. Perhaps it was mere idle curiosity. But at any rate, here is the King of Israel inquiring of Gehazi, “Tell me, I pray thee, all the great things that Elisha hath done.” Gehazi, at this time, loved to think and speak of Elisha. He had been a good master to him. His deeds were worth recording. And so Gehazi proceeds to tell the story of Elisha’s mighty deeds.
1. We ought to be ready to answer questions about our Master. They may proceed from curiosity, from wrong motives, Never mind. Our answer, given in a Christian spirit, may be the means of disarming ridicule. It may be an opportunity for us to tell the old, old story of the cross.
2. We ought not to be ashamed of our Master. He is “the chiefest among ten thousand and altogether lovely.” His Name is above every name. The Name, the life, the works, the words, of Jesus ought to be a favorite theme with us.
IV. RESTITUTION MADE. When God’s time comes, how very easily he can fulfill his purposes! Gehazi had just reached that part of his story where Elisha restored the Shunammite’s son to life, when, to his astonishment and delight, the Shunammite herself appeared on the scene. She came with her petition to the king that he would cause her house and land to be restored. Gehazi, not, perhaps, very regardful of courtesy or etiquette, calls out in the fullness of his joy, “My lord, O king, this is the woman, and this is her son, whom Elisha restored to life.” The king, whose feelings had already been touched by the pathetic narrative of the little lad carried home from the harvest-field to die, touched also by the entreaty of the woman for the restoration of her lost property, and perhaps recognizing the hand of Providence in the remarkable events of that day, gives orders that not only her land, but the fruits of it from the day she left, should be restored to her. That was wholesale restoration and restitution. Who shall say it was unjust? What a disgorging there would be, if all who have taken money or land from others by unlawful means, all who have extorted unjust rents, were compelled to restore their ill-gotten gains! The Shunammite had not suffered, after all, by her obedience. “No one hath forsaken houses, or lands, or father, or mother, or friends but he shall receive an hundredfold more in this life, and in the world to come life everlasting.”C.H.I.
2Ki 8:7-15
Elisha, Hazael, and Benhadad.
The present interview between Elisha and Hazael arose out of Benhadad’s illness. Benhadad heard that Elisha had come to Damascus, and he sent Hazael to inquire of the Lord by him if he would recover of his disease. It is wonderful how ready men are to forsake God when they are well, and, to seek his help when they are in sickness or trouble. When he was well, the King of Syria” bowed himself in the house of Rimmon,” but now, in his time of weakness and anxiety about his life, he sends to inquire of the God of Israel. Elisha’s answer to Benhadad’s question was evidently an enigma. “Go, say unto him, Thou mayest certainly recover: howbeit the Lord hath showed me that he shall surely die.” Elisha looked steadfastly into Hazael’s face. Did Hazael understand the enigma or not? Why, then, are such signs of confusion in his face? Why does his eye fail to meet the prophet’s gaze? Why does his cheek grow pale? Why that uneasy twitching of the mouth? Yes. Elisha’s suspicionsand perhaps also the hints which God had given himare confirmed. It was true that Benhadad might recover. His illness was not mortal. And yet his death was certain, and Hazael’s conscience told him that he was already a murderer in his heart. As Elisha thinks of all the trouble and suffering that shall come upon Israel through Hazael’s instrumentality, he can no longer restrain his feelings, lie bursts into tears. When Hazael asks him why he weeps, it is then that the prophet tells him all the cruelties which he will perpetrate upon God’s people. This tale of horrors called forth the question from Hazael, “What is thy servant, this dog, that he should do this great thing?” It was only then that Elisha showed him that he knew that murder was already in his mind. He quietly says, “Behold, the Lord hath showed me that thou shalt be king over Syria.” Hazael then went back to Benhadad, and gave him an answer very different from that which Elisha had really given to him. Instead of giving him the whole message, he gives him merely a part, tells him that he shall recover, omits that it has been revealed to the prophet that he shall surely die. The morrow came; and on the morrow Hazael was a murderer. Despite all his protestations of weakness and inability to do “great things,” hethe king’s trusted servantbetrays his master’s confidence and takes away his life. Taking a thick cloth and dipping it in water, he spread it upon the king’s face, either when he was asleep, or under pretext of cooling and refreshing him, so that the breathing was stopped and the king died. Terrible succession of falsehood, treachery, and murder. We learn from this incident
I. THE POSSIBILITIES OF EVIL IN THE HUMAN HEART. Many persons deny the depravity of human nature. They deny the story of the Fall. They object to such ideas, and regard them as theological dogmas, and the mere creations of narrow, hard, illiberal minds. But these truths of the fall of man and the depravity of human nature are something more than theological dogmas. They are facts of experiencepainful, indeed, and humiliating to human pride, but facts nevertheless. And here it may be stated that to believe in the fall of man and the depravity of human nature is quite consistent with the deepest human sympathy and love. To believe in the possibilities of evil that there are in the human heart is quite consistent with believing in its great possibilities of good. The Bible, which teaches man’s fall, teaches also that man was made in the image of God, and that it is possible yet for that lost and faded image to be restored. The Bible, which tells man that he is a sinner, helpless, condemned, perishing, tells him also that, in the infinite mercy of that God against whom he has sinned, a way of salvation has been provided; that the Savior is the Son of God himself; that we may have “redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins;” and that “whosoever believeth on him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” It is for our own good that we should know what possibilities of evil there are in the unregenerate heart. What use is it to say, “Peace! Peace!” when there is no peace? What avails it for the watchman to cry,” Ali’s well!” if the enemy are not only at the gates, but actually within the city? He who would help men to do the right and overcome the wrong must faithfully point out to them the possibilities of evil that are within their own heart. Who that knows human nature, that knows the facts of history, can doubt that such possibilities exist? Look at Hazael, hitherto the faithful, trusted servant, stooping over the bedside of his master, and calmly and deliberately taking away his life. He had the ambition to be King of Syria, and he wades to the throne through his master’s blood. Who that knows what crimes men will commit when under the influence of covetousness, intemperance, hatred, or some other passionmen who otherwise would have shrunk from the very mention of such actscan doubt the possibilities of evil within the human heart? There are possibilities of evil even in good men. The old nature is not taken away. “When I would do good,” said St. Paul, “evil is present with me, so that how to perform that which is good I find not.” “For I see a law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin.” What, then, is the difference between a Christian and an unregenerate man? There are possibilities of evil in them both, but the Christian strives against the evil, whereas the unregenerate man yields to sin and loves it. The Christian may fall, but if so, he is filled with penitence. The Christian will have his faults, but, if so, he acknowledges them and seeks help to forsake them. “Faults!” says Thomas Carlyle, in his lectures on ‘Hero-Worship,’ “the greatest of faults is to be conscious of none.” Yes; there are possibilities of evil, there are actualities of evil, in the best of men. Christ might still say to an assembly of even his own disciples, “Let him that is without sin cast the first stone at a fallen sister or an erring brother.”
II. THE DANGER OF IGNORING THESE POSSIBILITIES. Hazael did not become a murderer all at once. The old Latin saying is, Nemo repente fit turpissimus“No one becomes suddenly very wicked.” It is true. Perhaps a few years before this if any one had told Hazael that he would be a murderer, he would have been highly indignant. Even now he asks, “What is thy servant, this dog, that he should do this great thing?” It is uncertain whether this exclamation of Hazael refers only to Elisha’s prophecy about the cruelties he would perpetrate on Israel, or whether it refers also to the suggestion of Elisha that he was to be the murderer of Benhadad. If it refers to the murder of the king, then the exclamation would express surprise at the idea of his venturing to lift his hand against his master. If it only refers to the subsequent cruelties which he was to commit, it shows in any case that Hazael did not know of what he was capable. Shakespeare’s representation of Brutus when meditating the murder of Julius Caesar, to which he had been incited by other conspirators, throws light upon Hazael’s feelings. “Since Cassius first did whet me against Caesar I have not slept. Between the acting of a dreadful thing and the first motion, all the interim is Like a phantasma, or a hideous dream: The genius and the mortal instruments Are then in council; and the state of a man, Like to a little kingdom, suffers then The nature of an insurrection.” It is, indeed, a dangerous thing to tamper with temptation. There is that affinity between the evil which is in our own heart and the temptations which are without, that there is between the gunpowder and the spark. It is wisdom to keep the sparks away. It is wisdom to keep away from the temptation. “Vice is a monster of so hideous mien, As, to be hated, needs but to be seen; Yet, seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace.” It is “fools” who make a mock at sin. It is a foolish thing to make light of the guilt of sin in God’s sight. It is a foolish thing to make light of the power of sin in our own hearts. “Lead us not into temptation.”
III. THERE IS ONLY ONE SAFEGUARD AGAINST THESE EVIL TENDENCIES IN OUR OWN HEARTS: THAT SAFEGUARD IS THE GRACE OF GOD. Of the power of that grace Hazael knew nothing. Temptation upon temptation came crowding into his mind. The first was the great ambition to be king. He has yielded to that long since. It has taken complete possession of his mind. Then there came the temptation to carry a false message to his master, who had reposed such confidence in him. He yielded to that. Then there came the temptation to take away his master‘s life. It was a strong one, no doubt. There was but that weak, helpless king, upon a bed of sickness, between him and the throne. One little act, which no one would suspect, and the object of his ambition would be attained. But if he had resisted the other temptations, this one might never have assailed him at all, or, if it had, he would easily have resisted it. The reason of his fall was the want of a ancient force within. We need something more than human to conquer the Satanic power of sin.
“What but thy grace can foil the tempter’s power?”
Hazael had no restraining power to check his own evil tendencies, no resisting power to stop the temptation at the door, ere it entered and took possession of his heart. He seems to have had a feeling of shame, as when he became confused before Elisha’s steady glance. But shame, by itself, with no other superior influence to sustain it, is easily vanquished. Lust, covetousness, ambition, intemperance,every one of these is able to put shame to flight. The immoral manhe has long since trampled on shame. The miser, the covetous manhe will stop at nothing that will increase his possessions. The ambitious manhe will not allow shame to hinder him in the desire for power and place. The drunkardshame has long since ceased in his besotted mind; no blush is seen upon his bloated face. No; if we are to resist evil, if we are to conquer sin, it must be in some power stronger than poor human nature can supply. Hazael did not know that power. He trusted in his own sense of shame, in his own sense of what was right, and that failed him. He who had said, “What is thy servant, this dog, that he should do this great thing?” on the morrow took his master’s life. Contrast Hazael’s exclamation with Joseph’s when he was tempted: “How can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” Ah! there was something there to which Hazael was a stranger. There was the personal presence of a personal God; there was the fear of offending that holy God; there was the fear of grieving that loving heavenly Father who had watched over Joseph when his brethren had forsaken him, and who had provided for all his wants. Hazael’s feeling is more like that of Peter, “Though all men forsake thee, yet will not I”the expression of wounded pride, of boastful serf-security. Yet Peter fell into the very sin of which he had expressed such horror only a few hours before. It is not such self-confidence, but a humble feeling of our own weakness and an attitude of entire dependence upon God, that will really Keep the door barred against temptation.
One or two practical applications.
1. Be on your guard against the beginnings of evil. If you yield to one temptation, no matter how small and insignificant it may be, others are sure to follow in its wake.
2. Be charitable toward the faults and failings of others. When we know what possibilities of evil there are in our own hearts, how can we have the presumption to sit in judgment upon others? If others have fallen and we are secure, perhaps it was because we were not exposed to the same temptations. We are to consider ourselves, lest we also be tempted.
3. If you have not yet experienced the forgiveness that is in Christ Jesus and the power of Divine grace, seek them now! Let it be your earnest prayer, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.” If you would be safe. from the possibilities of evil that are in your own heart, and from the temptations of a godless world, then your prayer should be now and always, “Lead me to the Rock that is higher than I.”C.H.I.
HOMILIES BY D. THOMAS
2Ki 8:1-6
Topics for reflection.
“Then spake Elisha unto the woman, whose son he had restored to life,” etc. In these verses we have an illustration of the reward of kindness, the ignorance of royalty, and the influence of godliness.
I. THE REWARD OF KINDNESS. “Then spake Elisha unto the woman, whose son he had restored to life, saying, Arise, and go thou and thine household, and sojourn wheresoever thou canst sojourn: for the Lord hath called for a famine; and it shall also come upon the land seven years. And the woman arose, and did after the saying of the man of God: and she went with her household, and sojourned in the laud of the Philistines seven years,” Through Elisha this Shunammite woman obtained three great favors:
(1) the restoration of her son (2Ki 4:1-44.);
(2) direction for herself and family to leave their old home during the seven years’ famine; and then, when she returned from the laud of the Philistines, where she had sojourned seven years;
(3) the restoration of her old home, which had either fallen into the hands of covetous persons, or been confiscated to the crown (2Ki 8:6). These are confessedly signal favors; but why were they rendered? Undoubtedly on account of the kindness which this woman had manifested to Elisha, as recorded in the fourth chapter (2Ki 8:8-10). She had shown him great hospitality, built a chamber for him in her own house, furnished it, and boarded and lodged him for a considerable time. Here, then, is the reward of kindness. Observe:
1. Kindness should always awaken gratitude. The very constitution of the human soul and the moral laws of God as revealed in Christ show this. Yet, alas! so far away has the human soul gone from its pristine state that real gratitude for favors is somewhat rare. So much so, indeed, that it often turns out that the person on whom you bestow the greatest favors turns out to be your opponent and foe. Seneca has truly said that “were ingratitude actionable, there would not be in the whole world courts enough to try the causes in.” So common is it that it is almost a maxim that, if you would alienate a man from you, you should bestow on him favors. Shakespeare has compared it to the cuckoo
“The hedge-sparrow fed the cuckoo so long
That it had its head bit off by its young.”
2. Gratitude will always requite favors. The man who receives favors without some practical acknowledgment is an ingrate. “A man,” says L’Estrange, “may as well refuse to deliver up a sum of money that is left him in trust, without a suits as not to return a good office without asking.”
“He that has nature in him must be grateful;
‘Tis the Creator’s primary great law,
That links the chain of beings to each other,
Joining the greater to the lesser nature,
Trying the weak and strong, the poor and powerful,
Subduing men to brutes, and even brutes to men.”
(Madan.)
II. THE IGNORANCE OF ROYALTY. When the Shunammite woman had returned from the land of the Philistines, she made application to the king for the restoration “of her house and for her land,” whereupon “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.” Now, mark the ignorance of this King of Israel. He was so ignorant of Elishathe man who had been working such wonders in his country, delivering such sublime truths, and rendering such high service to the state, that he here inquires of the prophet’s servant concerning him. “It was to his shame,” says Matthew Henry, “that he needed now to be informed of Elisha’s works, when he might have acquainted himself with them as they were being done by Elisha himself.” Shame! that kings should be ignorant of the morally best and greatest men in their kingdom! Yet they have always been so, especially if the men, as in Elisha’s case, lived in poverty. They know all about the moral pigmies that live in splendid palaces, bear high-sounding titles, are lords of castles, and owners of broad acres. Such, they not only know, but will honor with their visits, consort with them, shoot with them, etc. But to go into the obscure home of a truly great man who blesses the country with his soul-quickening thoughts, and holds fellowship with Heaven, they would no more think of doing, than of traveling to the moon. Will it be always thus? Heaven forbid!
III. THE INFLUENCE OF GODLINESS. When the king heard from Gehazi what Elisha had done, “his majesty” (as we say) granted the woman her request. “And when the king asked the woman, she told him. So the king appointed unto her a certain officer, saying, Restore all that was hers, and all the fruits of the field since the day that she left the land, even until now.” It was the involuntary influence of Elisha that disposed the monarch to do all this. Who shall tell the good that even the involuntary influence of a godly man communicates to his age? The voluntary influence of a man’s lifethat is, the influence he exerts by intention and conscious effortsis truly insignificant compared with that stream of unconscious influence that goes forth from him, not only at all times through his life, but even after he has quitted this mundane sphere. “Though dead, he yet speaketh.” “As a little silvery ripple,” says Elihu Burritt, “set in motion by the falling pebble, expands from its inch of radius to the whole compass of the pool, so there is not a childnot an infant Mosesplaced however softly in his bulrush ark upon the sea of time, whose existence does not stir a ripple gyrating outwards and on, until it shall have moved across and spanned the whole ocean of God’s eternity, stirring even the river of life and the fountain at which his angels drink.”D.T.
2Ki 8:7-16
Striking characters.
“And Elisha came to Damascus,” etc. We have here
I. A DYING KING. “Benhadad the King of Syria was sick.” Benhadad, for his age and country, was a great king, rich and mighty, but now he is on his dying-bed. Kings die as well as others. Observe:
1. This dying king was very anxious. What was he anxious about? Not about any great spiritual interest concerning himself or others, but concerning his own physical condition. “Shall I recover of this disease?” This was the question he wanted Elisha to answer. Not, you may be sure, in the negative. Knowing some of the wonders that Elisha had performed, he in all likelihood imagined he would exert his miraculous power on his behalf, and restore him to life. All men more or less fear death, kings perhaps more than others. If ungodly, they have more to lose and nothing to gain.
2. His anxiety prompted him to do strange things.
(1) It was strange for him to ask a favor from the man whom he had so long regarded as his enemy. We read (2Ki 6:14, 2Ki 6:15) that this Benhadad had sent to Dothan “horses, and chariots, and a great host: and they came by night, and compassed the city about,” in order to capture this lonely prophet. What a change is this! Dying hours reverse our judgments, revolutionize our feelings, bring the lofty down.
(2) It was strange for him to ask a favor of a man whose religion he hated. Benhadad was an idolater; Elisha was a monotheist, a worshipper of the one true God. Now, in dying, all the king’s idolatrous thoughts have taken wing, and the one God appears as the great reality, and to the servant of that one God he sends, urging a favor.
(3) It was strange for him to make costly presents to a poor lonely man. “The king said unto Hazael, Take a present in thine hand, and go, meet the man of God, and inquire of the Lord by him, saying, Shall I recover of this disease? So Hazael went to meet him, and took a present with him, even of every good thing of Damascus, forty camels’ burden, and came and stood before him,” etc. What is the wealth, the grandeur, the crown, the scepter, of the mightiest monarch to him when he feels himself dying? He will barter all away for a few short hours of life.
II. A PATRIOTIC PROPHET. “The man of God wept.” Elisha, forecasting the king’s death, and knowing the wickedness of this Hazael who was to succeed to the throne, smitten with patriotic tenderness, looked so “steadfastly’ into the eye of Hazael that he blushed with shame, and the prophet broke into tears: “The man of God wept.” But why did he weep? “Why weepeth my lord?” said Hazael. “And he answered, Because I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel: their strongholds wilt thou set on fire,” etc. This was the overwhelming misery that the prophet foresaw would befall Israel, when this wretched courtier, his interrogator, would take the throne. As Christ foresaw the coming doom of Jerusalem, and wept over it, so Elisha saw the horrors approaching Israel, and broke into tears. The loving sympathies of a godly man are not confined to men or places, but spread over the ages, and flow down to bless posterity.D.T.
2Ki 8:17-24
Lessons from the life of Jehoram.
“Thirty and two years old was he [Jehoram] when he began to reign,” etc. This is a short fragment of a king’s historythe history of Jehoram. Brief as it is, it contains many practical truths.
I. THAT PIETY IS NOT NECESSARILY HEREDITARY. Parents, as a rule, transmit their physical and intellectual qualities to their children, but not their moral characters. Jehoram was a bad man and a wicked king, but he was the son of Jehoshaphat, who was a man of distinguished piety, and reigned wisely and beneficently over Israel for twenty-five years. Of him it was said that “the more his riches and honor increased the more his heart was lifted up in the ways of the Lord” (2Ch 17:5, 2Ch 17:6). He caused the altars and places of idolatry to be destroyed, and the knowledge of the Lord to be diffused throughout the kingdom, and the places of ecclesiastical and judicial authority to be well rifled (2Ch 17:9). But how different was his son! One of the first acts of his government was to put to death his six brothers, and several of the leading men of the empire. It is here said that “he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as din the house of Ahab: He regulated his conduct by the infamous “house of Ahab,” and not by the religions house of his father. He was in truth a murderer, an idolater, and a persecutor. But whilst piety is not necessarily hereditarynot necessarily, because children are moral agentswhat then? Are parents to do nothing to impart all that is good in their character to their children? Undoubtedly, no! They are commanded to “train up a child in the way it should go” when it is young. And where their power is rightly employed, there is, if not invariable, yet general, success. Where the children of godly parents turn out to be profligate and corrupt, as a rule some defect may be found in the parental conduct. How often eminent ministers of the gospel, and in the main good men, are guilty of neglecting, to a greater or less extent, the parental oversight and religions training of their children. Even in the life of Jehoshaphat we detect at least two parental defects.
1. In permitting his son to form unholy alliances. This good man, Jehoshaphat, formed a league with Ahab against Syria, contrary to the counsel of Micaiah (2Ch 18:1-34.). For this the Prophet Jehu censured him severely. In consequence of this alliance his son married the daughter of this infamous Ahab, and the matrimonial connection with such a woman, idolatrous, corrupt, and the daughter of Jezebel, had, no doubt, a powerful influence in deteriorating his moral character.
2. In granting his son too great an indulgence. He raised him to the throne during his own lifetime. He took him into royal partnership too soon, and thus supplied him with abundant means to foster his vanity and ambition. Ah, me! how many parents ruin their children forever by over indulgence!
II. THAT IMMORAL KINGS ARE NATIONAL CURSES. What evils this man brought upon his country. It is said that “in his days Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah, and made a king over themselves. So Joram went over to Zair, and all the chariots with him: and he rose by night, and smote the Edomites which compassed him about, and the captains of the chariots: and the people fled into their tents,” etc. Through him the kingdom of Judah lost Edom, which “revolted” and became the determined enemy of Judah ever afterwards (Psa 137:7), Libnah, too, “revolted at the same time,” This was a city in the south-western part of Judah assigned to the priests, and a city of refuge. But these revolts are but specimens of the tremendous evils that this immoral man Brought upon the kingdom. It has always been so. Wicked kings, in all ages, have been the greatest curses that have afflicted the human race. God said to Israel of old, “I gave thee a king in mine anger” (Hos 13:11). And the gift, on the whole, it must be confessed, has been a curse to mankind; and that because few men who have attained the position have been divinely royal in intellect, in heart, in thoughts, in aims, in sympathies. What does Heaven say of wicked kings? “As a roaring lion, and a raging bear; so is a wicked ruler over the poor people.” When will the world have true kings?such a king as is described in the Book of Proverbs, as one “that sitteth in the throne of judgment,” and who “scattereth away all evil with his eyes”? He is one who sees justice done. He does not rule for the interest of a class, but for the good of all. His laws are equitable. Partialities and predilections which govern plebeian souls have no sway over him,
“He’s a king,
A true right king, that dare do aught save wrong,
Fears nothing mortal but to be unjust;
Who is not blown up with the flattering puffs
Of spongy sycophants; who stands unmoved,
Despite the jostling of opinion.”
III. THAT DEATH IS NO RESPECTER OF PERSONS.
I. Death does not respect a man‘s position, however high. “And Jehoram slept with his fathers, and was buried.” Jehoram was a king, yet death struck him down, and he was buried with his fathers. Palaces are as accessible to death as paupers’ huts. Attempted resistance in the former, however skillfully organized, would be as futile as in the latter. Death cares nothing for kings; crowns, diadems, scepters, courtiers, and pompous pageantries are only as dust in his icy glance.
2. Death does not respect a man‘s character, however vile. Jehoram was a bad man, and utterly unfit to die; but death waits not for moral preparation. When we remember what evils wicked men, especially wicked kings, work in the world, death must be regarded as a beneficent messenger. The psalmist saw mercy in the destruction of despots. He “overthrew Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea: for his mercy endureth forever.” “To him which smote great kings, and slew famous kings: for his mercy endureth forever” (Psa 136:1-26.). There is mercy for the race in their destruction. When such demons in human flesh are cut down, the world breathes more freely, a load is rolled from its heart, obstacles are swept from its path of progress. When the Pharaohs are overwhelmed, the human Israel can march on to promised lands.
CONCLUSION. Parents, cultivate personal religion, and endeavor with all earnestness to transmit it to your children. Kings, seek to understand and to embody the ideal of true kingship, be royal in moral character. All, stand in readiness for the approach of death.D.T.
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
2Ki 8:1-6
The Shunammite and her lands.
This narrative is the sequel to the history of the Shunammite in 2Ki 4:1-44. It furnishes another instance of how God cares for and rewards his people.
I. ELISHA‘S WARNING. In chronological order this narrative seems to precede the cure of Naaman, while Gehazi was still the servant of the prophet. A famine of long duration was about to descend on the land, and Elisha gave timely warning to the Shunammite to take refuge somewhere else.
1. The good are often sharers in the calamities of the wicked. This famine was no doubt sent on Israel as a punishment for sin. God’s prophet foretold it, as Elijah had foretold the drought in the days of Ahah (1Ki 17:1). Famines and similar calamities do not come uncalled for. They are instruments used by God in his moral government (Eze 14:21; Amo 4:1-13.). And in the distresses brought upon the world by sin God’s people are often sharers. The innocent are involved in the sufferings of the guilty (Eze 21:3, Eze 21:4). This lady of Shunem, now probably a widow, is compelled, by the approach of famine, to abandon home and lands and rural comfort for a sojourn among idolaters.
2. The good, notwithstanding, are marvelously protected amidst the calamities of the wicked. It was God’s mercy to this Shunammite, who in former days had befriended his prophet, which now led to her being warned beforehand. God’s rewards for kindness shown to his servants are not soon exhausted. It was sad to be involved in the famine, but it would have been sadder had she not received this warning to withdraw in good time. Thus God, by a special providence, cares for and watches over the interests of his people. He guides their steps, and is a Shield to them from trouble.
3. The good are provided for amidst the calamities of the wicked. The Shunammite was directed to sojourn with her household wherever she could find a refuge. She believed the word of the man of God, obeyed it, and went to sojourn in the land of the Philistines. There she abode for the seven years that the famine lasted, and during that period was sufficiently provided for. It was an act of faith on the part of the Shunammite to take this step, for she had nothing to go upon in regard to this famine but the prophet’s bare word. That, however, was held sufficient, and she left all to do as he had bidden her. God’s people are always safe in acting on his commands. When Elijah was sent to hide by the brook Cherith, the ravens were “commanded” to feed him; and when he was told to go from there to Zarephath, a widow woman was similarly c, commanded” to sustain him (1Ki 17:4, 1Ki 17:8). As God provided for Jacob and his household in Egypt in a time of famine, so he prepares a provision for all his people who humbly trust him. “They that seek the Lord shall not want any good thing” (Psa 34:10).
II. THE SHUNAMMITE‘S RETURN. At length, through the ceasing of the famine, the way was open for the Shunammite to come back. Her return was:
1. After long exile. Seven years had she been absent from the land of Jehovah. During that period she had lived amidst Philistine surroundings. Her spirit must often have been grieved at the idolatrous and heathenish sights she witnessed; for what moral communion could she have with the worshippers of Dagon? Nor could she now, as of old, saddle her ass, and repair to the prophet on sabbaths and new moons for consolation and instruction. Exile of this sort would be painful to her spirit, as it was to that of the psalmist (Psa 42:4, Psa 42:6). God in his providence often thus deprives his people for a time of the privilege of ordinances, perhaps through sickness, perhaps through removal to new scenes, perhaps through the interposition of direct obstacles. There was in the Shunammite’s case a famine of the Word as well as of bread. These things try faith, and operate to the quickening of spiritual desire.
2. To meet a new trial. The Shunammite came back to her home, to find that, in her long absence, her house and lands had been alienated from her. Probably, as deserted by their owner, they had become the property of the crown (2Ki 4:6). Or some neighboring proprietor may have possessed himself of the abandoned fields. In any case, it was a sore discovery for the Shunammite to make, on her return, that she could no longer obtain her own. The trial of coming back seemed almost greater than that of going away. Might not the same providence that had cared for her in Philistia have watched over her possessions at home? It was God who had called her thence: might he not have secured that, when she returned, she would get her own? The issue of this trial should encourage believers not too readily to distrust the Almighty. It came to be seen that God had been caring for her in her absencehad, so to speak, been putting out her lands at interest for her, so that, when they were restored, she “received her own with usury” (Mat 25:27).
III. THE SHUNAMMITE‘S APPEAL. The most striking part of the story is yet to come. Having no other remedy, the Shunammite appealed to the king, as first magistrate, to restore to her her lands. “She went forth to cry unto the king for her house and for her land.” We note concerning her appeal:
1. Its justice. The Shunammite had a good and just cause. Kings and magistrates are set to administer justice. Yet it is possible that, but for the circumstances next narrated, the impoverished lady might have cried long enough before her possessions were restored to her. It is difficult to get the holders of unlawfully acquired propertyespecially in landto yield up again their title to it. The cry of the poor does not always penetrate, as it should do, to the ear of justice.
2. Its providential opportuneness. It is God’s prerogative to maintain the cause of the oppressed (Psa 9:4, Psa 9:9, Psa 9:10), and he was preparing the way for this cause being heard. The circumstances are remarkable, showing how entirely all events are in the hand of God, how what we call accidental conjunctures are really providences, and how, without overriding human freedom, all things, even the most ordinary, are working together for good to those who love him.
(1) It happened that, just as the Shunammite approached, her son being with her, to present her prayer, the king and Gehazi, Elisha’s servant, were talking together of the wonderful works of the prophet. “Tell me, I pray thee,” said the king, “all the great things that Elisha hath done.” Jehoram, though a wicked man (2Ki 9:22), had yet, as we have formerly seen, a certain susceptibility to good in him. His was a divided nature. He had a reverence and respect for Elisha; he knew the right; he took pleasure in hearing of Elisha’8 wonderful deeds. Yet he never took God’s Law truly into his heart. How many are like him (Eze 33:30-33)!
(2) In particular, Gehazi was relating to the king how Elisha had restored the dead son of the Shunammite to life. How singular, we say, that this should have been the subject of conversation at that very moment! But it was God who ordered that this should come about. We find a very similar instance in the case of King Ahasuerus in the Book of Esther. He could not sleep, and ordered the chronicles of his kingdom to be read before him. It was the night when Haman’s plot was ripe for the destruction of Mordecai, but the passage read was that which told how Mordecai had made known a conspiracy against the king’s life. This saved him, and led to Haman’s own destruction (Est 6:1-14.). The wheels within wheels in God’s providence are truly marvelous. He lifts up one and casts down another by the simplest possible means.
(3) As Gehazi was speaking, the Shunammite and her son stood before them, and cried to the king. No doubt in great surprise, Gehazi said, “My lord, O king, this is the woman, and this is her son, whom Elisha restored to life.” The ear of the king was now effectually gained.
3. Its success. The woman, being asked to state her plea, did so, and her request was at once granted. Not only were her house and land restored to her, but recompense was made for all the fruits of the field since the day she had left it. Thus she received back in abundance all she possessed. She not only got justice, but generosity. How good it is to be a friend of God! “If God be for us, who can be against us?” (Rom 8:31). With him for our Advocate, what need we fear? Having given this woman the greater gift, in reward for her kindness to his prophet, he does not withhold from her any lesser gift. So may the believer reason, if God “spared not his own Son,” etc. (Rom 8:32).J.O.
2Ki 8:7-15
Elisha and Hazad.
Elisha had come to Damascus, probably sent thither by God to carry out in spirit the commission given long before to Elijah (1Ki 19:15).
I. BENHADAD‘S MESSAGE.
1. Its occasion. “Benhadad the King of Syria was sick.” Royal rank affords no protection against the invasions of disease. Nor is the thought of death less alarming to the monarch than to the peasant. Benhadad’s heart trembled as he reflected on the possible issues of his trouble, and he gladly availed himself of the opportunity of Elisha’s presence in Damascus to send a messenger to him. His conduct is in striking contrast with Ahaziah’s (2Ki 1:1-18.). That Israelitish king, forsaking the God of Israel, sent to inquire at an idol shrine at Ekron. Benhadad, though a Syrian and a worshipper of Rimmon, turns in his sickness from Rimmon to Jehovah.
2. The messenger. The person sent was Hazael, one of Benhadad’s great courtiers. Hazael was a very different kind of a man from Naaman. He was a bold, bad, ambitious intriguer, who was already cherishing deep thoughts of crime against his master. Yet Benhadad seems to have trusted him. How unreliable are the friendships of the wicked! Men flatter with their tongue, but in their hearts are malice, falsehood, and selfish, ambitious designs (Psa 5:9).
3. The message. Hazael came to Elisha with great pomp. He brought a present borne on forty camels. If lavish wealth could buy a favorable answer from Jehovah, surely now it would be obtained. But God is no respecter of persons; still less does he bestow favor for bribes. We may be sure that, as in a former case (2Ki 5:16), Elisha touched nothing of all this wealth that was brought to him. Accompanying the present was a message from the king: “Thy son Benhadad hath sent me to thee, saying, Shall I recover from this disease?” For those to whom this world is all, such a question is of very terrible moment, Well may they cling to life who have nothing beyond to hope for.
II. THE INTERVIEW WITH HAZAEL.
1. Elisha’s exposure of Hazael‘s motives. As Hazael stood before Elisha, the prophet’s clear vision read to the depths of his soul. Hazael was evidently speculating on the possibilities of his master’s death, and had private designs upon the throne. When once the idea of making himself king had occurred to him, he was not the man to let the ambitious project readily drop again. The thought of removing the king by violence had no doubt flashed upon him, but he waited to learn whether the sickness would prove fatal before he framed a settled purpose. Elisha showed by his answer that he read the whole character of the man. “Go, say unto him, Thou shalt certainly recover”that was the truth as regards the sickness; then he added, “Howbeit the Lord hath showed me that he shall surely die.” Hazael’s guilty thoughts would furnish the explanation. We do well to remember that there is nothing we can conceal from the Searcher of hearts. “All things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do” (Heb 4:13). Our thoughts, even in their most inchoate condition, are known to him. He understandeth our thoughts “afar off” (Psa 139:2).
2. Elisha‘s prophecy of Hazael‘s barbarities. Did Elisha approve of Hazael’s designs, and mean to give them Divine sanction? We are able to answer this by noting his subsequent conduct.
(1) He settled his face steadfastly, and looked with a fixed gaze at Hazael till the latter was ashamed. Then Elisha wept. Elisha stood before Hazael as a kind of outward conscience. He revealed Hazael to himself, but at the same time condemned the thoughts which he saw in his mind. It was a holy, earnest gaze which Elisha turned on Hazaela look of reproval, of sorrow, of holy pain; and Hazael felt that it was so when he blushed under it.
(2) When Hazael asked concerning his weeping, Elisha became more explicit, and told him of the awful barbarities he would inflict on Israel. The picture was so dreadful that even Hazael, with apparent sincerity, asked, “Who is thy servant, this dog, that he should do this great thing?” Hazael, like many others, was not aware of the possibilities of his own heart, A certain measure of crime he knew himself to be capable of, but he thought that other iniquities were beyond him. Once on the downward grade, how, ever, there is no point at which a sinner can be sure of stopping. One crime leads with a fatal facility to a worse. The heart grows hardened, and things are done which, at an earlier stage, might have been thought impossible. It is told of Robespierre that, in the beginning of his career, he was almost driven distracted by the thought of having sentenced a man to death. The greatest criminals were once innocent children, and at one period of their lives would have shuddered at the deeds they afterwards calmly perpetrated. The only safe course is to resist the beginnings of evil.
3. Elisha‘s announcement of Hazael‘s greatness. Elisha’s final announcement to Hazael was, “The Lord hath showed me that thou shalt be king over Syria.” The prophet announces the fact, which indeed fulfilled a Divine purpose regarding Hazael (1Ki 19:15), but announces it without approval of the particular means by which that purpose would be realized. Jacob would have received the blessing in God’s time and way, though his mother Rebekah had not counseled deceit as a means of obtaining it; and the kingdom would have come to Hazael, also in God’s good time and way, though he had kept his hands free from crime.
III. A PALACE MURDER. If Elisha’s words did not arrest the guilty purpose which was shaping itself in Hazael’s mind, they could only have the contrary effect of inflaming his ambition. Like Macbeth with the witches’ salutation ringing in his ears, he felt himself a child of destiny, and took speedy means to fulfill his destiny.
1. He deceived the king. He repeated, in the letter of them, Elisha’s words, “Thou shalt surely recover;” but said nothing of the context, which gave the words so terrible a significance. The king was assured that his disease was not mortal, which was true; but he was left in the dark as to the declaration that he should nevertheless surely die.
2. He slew the king. Next day, probably while Benhadad slept, Hazael took a thick quilt, and, dipping it in water, spread it over the king’s face, and suffocated him. He thus fulfilled the prediction that he should be King of Syria. He “had his reward.” But was it worth the crime? What could compensate for a soul stained with the sin of treachery and murder? Of Banquo it was prophesied that he would be lesser than Macbeth, yet greater; not so happy, yet happier. Would the same not have been true of Hazael had he been content to remain Benhadad’s faithful officer, instead of climbing to the throne in this hateful fashion? What, after all, is there so much to envy in the state of kings, that a soul’s peace should be bartered to acquire it? Surrounded by false friends; served by courtiers ready at any moment to turn against him if it serves their interests better; envied even by those who flatter him; exposed to the peril of assassination,the monarch is almost more to be pitied than the humblest of his subjects. Hazael had but exchanged his own pillow for a more thorny one. “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.”J.O.
2Ki 8:16-29
Two kings of Judah.
(On the chronology, see Exposition.) The reigns of Jehoram and Ahaziah are black spots in the history of Judah.
I. JEHORAM, SON OF JEHOSHAPHAT. We may notice concerning this ruler:
1. He had a pious father. We may quote Thomas Fuller’s quaint comments on this part of the Savior’s genealogy: “Lord, I find the genealogy of my Savior strangely checkered with four remarkable changes in four immediate generations.
(1) ‘Rehoboam begat Abiam;’ that is, a bad father begat a bad son.
(2) ‘Abiam begat Asa;’ that is, a bad father a good son.
(3) ‘Asa begat Jehoshaphat;’ that is, a good father a good son.
(4) ‘Jehoshaphat begat Joram;’ that is, a good father a bad son.
I see, Lord, from hence, that my father’s piety cannot be entailed; that is bad news for me. But I see also that actual impiety is not always hereditary; that is good news for my son.”
2. He made an evil marriage. “The daughter of Ahab”Athaliah”was his wife.” In sanctioning this union of his son with the house of Ahab Jehoshaphat grievously erred. Jehoshaphat’s whole policy of keeping up friendly relations with Ahab was a mistake, destined to bear bitter fruit in his family and his kingdom. No considerations of political expediency should have tempted him to allow a marriage of the heir of his throne with a daughter of the infamous Jezebel. Rulers have even yet Pecuniary, social, or family considerations are allowed to determine a step which ought never to be taken except on grounds of real affection and moral and spiritual affinity. Athaliah’s entrance into the royal household of Judah had a disastrous effect on its future. She was a true child of the Israelitlsh Jezebel, and reproduced her character in all its essential features. Bold, bad, energetic, unscrupulous, ambitious, her influence over her husband was wholly for evil. And he seems to have yielded himself entirely up to it.
3. He walked in evil ways. “He walked in the way of the kings of Israel” etc. The connection of this with his marriage is indicated in the words, “For the daughter of Ahab was his wife.” To that malign influence is probably to be attributed the great crime with which his reign beganthe slaughter of his six brethren, with many of the princes (2Ch 21:2-4). The other evils of his reign are indicated by the Chroniclestempting and compelling the people to idolatry, etc. (2Ch 21:11, 2Ch 21:13).
4. He was mercifully dealt with for the sake of David. Grieved though God was with his conduct, he would not destroy Judah, having pledged himself to David to perpetuate his line. The descendants of holy men and women do not know how much of God’s mercy and forbearance they often owe to, their ancestral connection. God spares them for their fathers’ sakes (Rom 11:28).
5. Yet his sins brought heavy disasters on the kingdom. God did not destroy Judah, but he punished it. As the wickedness of the Israelitish kings was punished by the revolt of Moab (2Ki 1:1), so the sins of Jehoram were visited by a series of calamities which fell upon the nation. The revolt of Edom, of Libnah, invasions of the Philistines, Arabians, etc; broke in upon and desolated the land (2Ch 21:16, 2Ch 21:17). Only when rulers and people were fearing the Lord could it be said, “Also in Judah things went well” (2Ch 12:12). Things cannot go well when men’s hearts are bent on wickedness. God is against us, and troubles rise thick on every side. The revolt of Edom is the only calamity referred to in detail in the text. Jehoram seems to have attempted to suppress the rebellion, but, being encompassed by the enemy, had great difficulty in cutting his way through, and escaping. The loss of Edom was a permanent one.
6. He came to a miserable end. He went down to his death visibly under a cloud of Divine wrath, and amidst the contempt, if not the execrations, of his people. God smote him, the Chronicler tells us, with a painful and incurable disease, and he died, despised and unlamented (2Ch 21:18, 2Ch 21:19). He was buried in Jerusalem, but not in the tomb of the kings. Presumptuous transgressors are rightly visited with judgments of exceptional severity (cf. Act 12:23). It is the memory of the just that is blessed, but the name of the wicked shall rot (Pro 10:7).
II. AHAZIAH SON OF JEHOBAM.
1. A short but evil reign. Ahaziah, who reigned but one year, was the youngest son of Jehoram, the elder having been slain in the wars with the Arabians (2Ch 22:1). His reign was evil, like his father’s. In this case it is said expressly that Athaliah and others of her kindred were his counselors to do evil (2Ch 22:3, 2Ch 22:4). A mother’s influence is even more potent than a father’s. But when both parents go partners in open wickedness, it is no wonder if a son follows their example.
2. A fateful visit. Ahaziah and Jehoram of Israel were speedily to meet their end together. The Chronicler says “the destruction of Ahaziah was of God by coming to see Joram” (2Ch 22:7). Jehoram had been wounded in a campaign against Hazael at Ramoth-Gilead, and was now at Jezreel to be healed of his wounds. Thither Ahaziah repaired to visit him, and there both kings were slain by Jehu. The visible providence of God is again seen in this visit. His hook is in the nose of the sinner; he leads him wherever he will (2Ki 19:28).J.O.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
2Ki 8:1. Then spake Elisha, &c. Elisha had said, &c. So 2Ki 8:2. And the woman had arisen, and done, &c. Houbigant: who conjectures from the 4th verse, that this event happened before Gehazi was stricken with leprosy.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
D.The Influence of Elisha with the King, and his Residence at Samaria
2Ki 8:1-15
1Then spake [Now] Elisha [had spoken] unto the woman, whose son he had restored to life, saying, Arise, and go thou and thine household, and sojourn wheresoever thou canst sojourn: for the Lord hath called for [up] a famine; and it shall also come upon the land seven years. 2And the woman arose, and did after the saying of the man of God: and she went with her household, and sojourned in the land of the Philistines seven years. 3And it came to pass at the seven years end, that the woman returned out of the land of the Philistines: and she went forth to cry unto the king for her house and for her land. 4And the king talked [was just then talking] with Gehazi the servant of the man of God, saying, Tell me, I pray thee, all the great things that Elisha hath done. 5And it came to pass, as he was telling the king how he had restored a dead body to life, that, behold, the woman, whose son he had restored to life, cried to the king for her house and for her land. And Gehazi said, My lord, O king, this is the woman, and this is her son whom Elisha restored to life. 6And when the king asked the woman, she told him. So the king appointed unto her a certain officer, saying, Restore all that was hers, and all the fruits of the field since the day that she left1 the land, even until now.
7And Elisha came to Damascus: and Benhadad the king of Syria was sick; and it was told him, saying, The man of God is come hither. 8And the king said unto Hazael, Take a present in thine hand, and go, meet the man of God, and inquire of the Lord by him, saying, Shall I recover of this disease? 9So Hazael went to meet him, and took a present with him, even of [andomit even of] every good thing of Damascus, forty camels burden, and came and stood before him, and said, Thy son, Benhadad king of Syria hath sent me to thee, saying, Shall I recover of this disease? 10And Elisha said unto him, Go, say unto [tell] him [then], Thou mayst [shalt2] certainly recover [live]: howbeit the Lord hath 11shewed, me that he shall surely die. And he [Elisha] settled his countenance [, and gazed] steadfastly [at him], until he was ashamed [became confused]: and the man of God wept. 12And Hazael said, Why weepeth my lord? And he answered, Because I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel: their strong holds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children [in pieces], and rip up their women with child. 13And Hazael said, But what, is thy servant a dog, [What is then3 thy servant, the dog,] that he should do this great thing? And Elisha answered, The Lord hath showed me that thou shalt be [let me see thee] king over Syria. 14So he departed from Elisha, and came to his master; who said to him, What said Elisha to thee? And he answered, He told me [:] that [omit that] Thou shouldest [shalt] surely recover [live]. 15And it came to pass on the morrow, that he [Hazael] took a thick cloth [the blanket], and dipped it in [the] water, and spread it on his face, so that he died: and Hazael reigned in his stead.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
2Ki 8:1. Then spake Elisha, &c., or, as it should read, Elisha had spoken; for what is told in 2Ki 8:2 took place long before the incident which is narrated in the 3d and following verses, and forms only the necessary introduction. The famine of four years duration is doubtless the same which is mentioned 2Ki 4:38. The years in which it falls among the twelve of Jehoram, it is impossible to fix. The advice which the prophet gave the woman to go into a foreign land, must have been founded upon peculiar grounds, since she did not belong to the poorer classes (2Ki 8:6 and 2Ki 4:8 sq.). Perhaps she had become a widow, as some suppose, and had lost, in her husband, her chief reliance in a time of distress. She chose the land of the Philistines as her residence, probably because it was near, and because the plains on the sea-coast did not suffer so much from scarcity as the mountainous country of Israel (Thenius). On her return, the woman found her property in the hands of strangers. We may suppose that it had been taken possession of, either by the royal treasury, as property which the owner had abandoned (Grotius, Clericus, and others), or by individuals, who had illegally established themselves in the possession of it, and who were not willing now to surrender it. She appeals, therefore, to the chief judge, the king.
2Ki 8:4. And the king talked with Gehazi, &c. Piscator, Sebast. Smith, Keil, and others, have felt compelled to assign this incident to a time previous to the healing of Naaman, because it is said (2Ki 5:27) that Gehazi and all his posterity were, from that time on, to be lepers, but here we find the king conversing with him. In general, there is no objection to this, for it is very doubtful if the narrative of the acts of Elisha presents them to us in their chronological order (see above. p. 45). The principal ground for this opinion, viz., Gehazis leprosy, has not compulsory force, for, although lepers were obliged to remain outside the city (2Ki 7:3, and the places there cited), yet it was not forbidden to talk with them (Mat 8:2; Luk 17:12). Naaman, the leper, was admitted to the palace of the king (2Ki 8:6), and, at a later time, such persons were not excluded even from attendance in the synagogues (Winer, R.-W.-B. i. s. 117). Gerlach thinks that the king could the more probably meet with Gehazi, for the very reason that the latter had not been for a long time in Elishas service. Jarchi and some of the other rabbis declare that the four lepers (2Ki 7:3) were Gehazi and his sons, but this is a purely arbitrary and unfounded notion. They were led to it probably by the desire of bringing the present incident into some connection with the preceding. Menzel also brings the story, 2Ki 8:1-6, into connection with that in chap. 7. by saying: Great fear of the prophet took possession of the king from that time on (i.e., from the death of the scoffer2Ki 7:20which Elisha had predicted). However, if this had been the ground of his interview with Gehazi, the story would certainly have had a different introduction from that in 2Ki 8:1-3. It is no cause for wonder that the king did not ask Elisha himself in regard to his acts, but obtained a recital of them from Gehazi. As he had been himself a witness of so many of the prophets acts, he was now curious to hear, from a reliable source, about those acts which Elisha had done quietly, in the narrow circle of his intimate associates, and in regard to which so many unreliable reports circulated among the people. To whom could he apply with more propriety for this information than to one who had formerly been the prophets familiar servant? Among these acts the restoration of the Shunammites son to life was the most important. By , 2Ki 8:6, we must understand a high officer of the court, not necessarily a eunuch (cf. 1Ki 22:9). can hardly mean the rent; it is rather the produce in kind, which must have been restored to her out of the royal stores.
2Ki 8:7. And Elisha came to Damascus, &c.: not into the city of Damascus, as is often assumed, for Hazael came out with camels to meet him (2Ki 8:9), so that the most it can mean is that he came into the neighborhood of the city. Perhaps the name Damascus stands for the whole province, as Samaria did. Keil, who follows the old expositors, thinks that Elisha clearly went thither with the intention of executing the commission which had been laid upon Elisha at Horeb (1Ki 19:15) to appoint Hazael to be king of Syria, but so important an object to the journey must have been specified in some way. To pass over the objection that that commission was given to Elijah and not to Elisha, and that there is nowhere any mention of its having been transferred to the latter, we observe that the prophet does not say here (2Ki 8:12): Jehovah has commanded me to anoint, or appoint, thee, Hazael, king of Syria, but: He has made me see that thou wilt be king of Syria, and that thou wilt do much evil to Israel. According to Ewald, Elisha went into voluntary exile for a time, on account of a disagreement between himself and Jehoram, who still tolerated idolatry, but the text does not say anything of this, and we are not compelled to assume anything of the kind. The prophet was already known and highly esteemed in Syria, as we see from the entire narrative, especially from 2Ki 8:7-8. He might very well, therefore, even without any especial ground, extend the journeys, which he made in the pursuit of his prophetical calling (2Ki 4:9), as far as Damascus. We may, nevertheless, suppose that it was done by the instigation of the Spirit (Thenius). The revelation, of which he speaks in 2Ki 8:10; 2Ki 8:13, he certainly did not receive until after his arrival in Syria. It was not the occasion of his journey thither.
2Ki 8:8. And the king said unto Hazael, &c. Josephus calls Hazael : perhaps he was also commander-in-chief of the army (2Ki 8:12). There is a tacit request in the question of Benhadad that the prophet would obtain his restoration to health, from Jehovah, by prayer. He who wished to consult a man of God did not come with empty hands (1Sa 9:7; 1Ki 14:3). The before , 2Ki 8:9, is hardly explanatory: and in truth (Keil); it is rather the simple conjunctive (Thenius). The messenger had a gift in his hand, and besides there were all kinds of other valuable articles and products from Damascus, which were carried by forty camels. A camel-load is reckoned at from 500 to 800 pounds, but it would be wrong to reckon the weight of these gifts accordingly at 20,000 to 32,000 pounds (Dereser). The incident is rather to be estimated by the oriental custom of giving the separate parts of a gift to as many servants, or loading them upon as many animals as possible, so as to make the grandest possible display of it. Harmar, Beobb., ii. s. 29. Rosenmller, Morgenland, iii. s. 17. (Keil). Fifty persons often carry what a single one could very well carry (Chardin, Voyage, iii. p. 217). Nevertheless, the gifts were very important, and we see from their value in how great esteem Elisha stood among the Syrians. If he refused to accept any gift whatsoever at the healing of Naaman (2Ki 5:16), far less is it likely that he accepted these grand gifts in this case, where he had to bewail the misfortunes of his country (2Ki 8:11-12).
2Ki 8:10. And Elisha said unto him, &c. The keri gives instead of after , and the Massoretes reckon this among the fifteen places in the Old Testament where is a pronoun, and not the negative particle. All the old translations, and some manuscripts also, present the keri. No one of the modern expositors but Keil has adopted , non; he accepts that reading as the more difficult. He rejects the makkeph between and , joins with the following word , and translates: Thou shalt not live, and (for) Jehovah hath shown me that he will die. But never means for, as it would here, if this interpretation were correct. It rather means here but, as it so often does, so that the sentence which begins with it forms a contrast to the one which precedes. This tells strongly against the chetib . A further consideration is that the infinitive before the verb ( ) always serves to strengthen the verbal idea (Gesen., Gramm., 131, 2, a), and that, in this construction, the negative stands before the finite verb and not before the infinitive, cf. Jdg 15:13 (Ew., Lehrb., 312, b). cannot, therefore, be connected with . Still less can it be taken as a negative with , for Hazael says, 2Ki 8:14 : He (the prophet) told me: Thou shalt surely recover. This, therefore, was the answer of Elisha, which Hazael (suppressing the other words of the prophet) brought to the king; an answer such as the latter was eager to receive. If there is any case where the keri is to be preferred to the chetib, this is one. Nearly all the expositors, accordingly, agree in reading , but their interpretations differ. Some translate, apparently with literalness: Tell him:Thou shalt recover;but God hath shown me that he shall die, and they suppose, accordingly, that Elisha consciously commissioned Hazael with a falsehood, either because he did not wish to terrify or sadden the king, that is, out of compassion (Theodoret, Josephus), or, because it was generally held to be allowable to deceive foreign enemies and idolaters (Grotius). Neither the one nor the other, however, is consistent with the dignity and character of the prophet, who here speaks in the name of Jehovah. It is impossible that the narrator, who only aims to advance the glory of the prophet, in all his stories about him, should have connected with his words a sense which would have made Elisha a liar. Other expositors, therefore, explain it thus: Of thy illness thou shalt not die, it is not unto death; but that he then added, for Hazael: the king will lose his life in another way (i.e., violently). Clericus (following Kimchi), J. D. Michaelis, Hess, Maurer, Von Gerlach, and others, agree in this interpretation. The form in the first member of the sentence, to which in the second member corresponds, is a bar to this interpretation. The infinitive strengthens the verbal idea in both cases. It cannot serve with to tone down the verb (as far as this illness is concerned, thou mayest preserve thy life), and with to strengthen it. We must, therefore, translate: Thou shalt surely live, and: He shall surely die. Then the words can have no other sense than that which Vitringa has established in his thorough discussion of the verse (Observatt. Sac., i. 3, 16, pages 716728): Vade et dic modo ( ) ipsi: Vivendo vives; Deus tamen mihi ostendit, illum certe moriturum esse. So, likewise, Thenius: Just tell him (as thou, in thy capacity of courtier, and according to thy character, wilt surely do): Thou shalt surely recover; yet Jehovah hath revealed to me that he shall surely die (cf. Roos, Fuszstapfen des Glaubens Abrahams, s. 831). [This exposition of the grammatical sense of the words is undoubtedly correct, but there is room for some scruple about the interpretation. Elisha seems to encourage the courtier to flatter the king with a delusive hope. This could at best be only a sneer, or irony. A clue to a better interpretation is given above. Note that the question is: Shall I recover of this disease? The answer seems to be measured accurately, and strictly to fit this question: Go, say to him: Thou shalt surely live. That is the answer to the question asked, and the infinitive has its full force. Thus the prophet promises a recovery from the illness. At the same time he sees farther, and sees that though the illness is not fatal, other dangers threaten Benhadad. He need not declare this, and in his categorical answer to the king he does not, but in an aside he does: Nevertheless, Jehovah hath shown me that he shall surely die, i.e., not of the disease, but by violence.W. G. S.] Elisha, by his prophetical insight, had seen through the treacherous Hazael, just as he once saw through the plans of Benhadad (2Ki 6:12), and he now showed him that he knew the secret purpose which he cherished in his heart. He gave him to understand this, not only by his words, but also by the circumstance which is added in 2Ki 8:11 : And he fixed his countenance steadfastly until he (Elisha) shamed him (Hazael), i.e., he fixed his eyes steadily and sharply upon him, so that the piercing look produced embarrassment and made Hazaels countenance fall. This detail is consistent with the above interpretation of 2Ki 8:10 and with no other. [Jehovah hath shown me that he shall surely die, says the prophet, and fixes his eyes upon the ambitious and treacherous courtier, who has already conceived the idea of murdering his master, until the guilty conscience of the latter makes him shrink from the scrutiny.W. G. S.] The Sept. give a purely arbitrary rendering of 2Ki 8:11, thus: , . The only possible subject of is Elisha, and the text says nothing about the presentation of the gifts. does not mean either: remarkably long (Ewald), nor: In a (taking the words strictly) shameless manner (Thenius), cf. on 2Ki 2:17. The man of God did not weep for Benhadad, nor for Hazael, but for his own countrymen, on account of the judgments which should be inflicted upon them by the hand of Hazael, as he himself declares in 2Ki 8:12.
2Ki 8:12. And Hazael said, Why weepeth my lord? The particular statements in Elishas reply must not be taken too strictly in their literal meaning. He only means to say: Thou wilt commit in Israel all the cruelties which are wont to be practised in the bitterest wars (see Hos 10:14; Hos 13:16; Isa 13:15 sq.; Nah 3:10 sq.; Psa 137:9; Amo 1:13 sq.). How this was fulfilled we see in chap 2Ki 10:32 sq.; 2Ki 13:3-4; 2Ki 13:7; 2Ki 13:22. In the 13th verse, where the proud Hazael, high in office, and already plotting to reach the throne, calls himself thy servant, the dog, he commits an extravagance which, in itself, shows us that he was not in earnest, and that his humility was hypocritical and false. Dog is the most contemptuous epithet of abuse, 1Sa 24:14; 2Sa 16:9 (Winer, R.-W.-B., i. s. 517). Elisha now declares openly to the hypocrite that which, in 2Ki 8:10-11, by word and look, he had only hinted at: Jehovah hath shown thee to me as king of Syria, i.e., I know what thou aimest at, and also what thou wilt become. The words by no means involve a solemn prophetical institution or consecration (anointing) to be king, such as, for instance, occurs in 2Ki 9:3; 2Ki 9:6, but they are a simple prediction (which, at the same time, probes Hazaels conscience) of that which should come to pass. He means to say: As God has revealed to me Benhadads death, so has he also revealed to me thy elevation to the throne. Hazael, therefore, startled by the revelation of his secret plans, makes no reply to the earnest words of the prophet, but turns away.
2Ki 8:14. So he departed from Elisha, &c. Hazael makes the very reply to his master which the prophet had predicted that he would (2Ki 8:10). and we see from the words still more clearly, that we must read for in 2Ki 8:10. In the 15th verse cannot have any other subject than the three verbs which precede, ,, and . It is not, therefore, Benhadad (Luther, Schulz, and others), but Hazael. Moreover, it is inconsistent with the entire context that Benhadad himself, in order to refresh himself, should have laid a cloth, dipped in water, upon his face, and then should have died from the effects of the repressed perspiration. means, primarily, something woven, a woven fabric, but it is not a fly-guard (Michaelis, Hess, and others), nor a bath-blanket or quilt (Ewald); but a woven, and hence thick and heavy, coverlet (Sept. ); the bed-coverlet. This, when dipped in water, became so heavy that, when spread over his face, it prevented his breathing, and so either produced suffocation, as most understand it, or brought on apoplexy, as Thenius suggests. Clericus correctly states the reason why Hazael chose just this form of murder: ut hominem facilius Suffocaret, ne vi interemtus videret. He would have the less opposition to fear, in mounting the throne, as he intended, if Benhadad appeared to have died a natural death. We have not, therefore, to think of strangulation, which Josephus states was here employed ( ). Philippson remarks that, in cases of violent fever, it is the custom in the Orient, according to Bruce, to pour cold water over the bed, and that this bold treatment was perhaps tried in the case of Benhadad, but with unfortunate results. This, however, is not at all probable. We may feel confident that no one will ever succeed in clearing Hazael from the crime of regicide, however much some have tried it. Ewald (Geschichte des Volkes Israel, iii. s. 522 [3e Ausg. s. 561]), narrates the occurrence thus: As the king was about to take his bath (?), his servant (?), we cannot now tell more precisely from what particular motive, dipped the bathing-blanket (?) in the warm (?) water, and drew it, before the king could call for help, so tightly together (?) over his head, that he was smothered. Every one sees that the text says nothing of all that. [It is unnatural, of course, to introduce a new subject for . Also, it is not likely that the king committed suicide the day after he had shown so much anxiety about his life. Hazael alone remains, and so we translate. But Ewald refers the case to the usage in which an indefinite subject, one (Germ. man), must be supplied, 294, b. He furthermore points to the article in , which refers to some well-known object, he thinks to a bath-blanket. This, then, would identify the subject as the servant who was assisting him in the bath. Again, Ewald observes that if Hazael were the subject he would not be mentioned again immediately afterwards (Geschichte, ed. iii. vol. III. s. 562 n. 2). These considerations are not, perhaps, strong enough to support the inferences which he draws from them, but they certainly are not contemptible.W. G. S.]
HISTORICAL AND ETHICAL
1. This passage is not by any means arbitrarily inserted here in the course of the history of the kings. It stands in close and intelligent connection with what precedes and what follows. The first incident (2Ki 8:1-6) is not intended simply to prove how God, by overruling slight circumstances, often brings about great blessings (Kster); neither can it properly be entitled: The Seven-year Famine, or The Restoration of the Shunammites Property. It is rather intended to show the high estimation in which the king held the prophet. The king had been a witness of very many acts of Elisha, which forced from him a recognition of the prophets worth. In order to arrive at a still more complete estimate of him, he desires to learn from a reliable source all the great and extraordinary works which Elisha had accomplished, and of which he had already perhaps heard something by public rumor. He therefore applies to Gehazi for this information. While Gehazi was telling the story of the Shunammite, she herself came in and was able to ratify what he narrated. The king was so much carried away by the story, and by this marvellous meeting with the woman herself, that he, for the sake of the prophet, restored to her the property she had lost, and even added more than she ever could have expected. This story, therefore, shows us the effect which the acts of Elisha had had upon the king, and is perfectly in place here. Moreover, it forms the connection with what follows. In spite of all his recognition of Elisha as a prophet, still Jehoram cleaved unto the sins of Jeroboam and departed not therefrom (2Ki 3:3). He still tolerated the disgraceful idolatrous worship in Israel, so that, before his end, Jehu could retort upon him: What peace, so long as the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel and her witchcrafts are so many? (2Ki 9:22). Therefore it was that the storm-clouds of divine judgment, which were to bring ruin to him, and to the entire house of Ahab, were already collecting. This judgment came from two directions, as the oracle 1Ki 19:15 sq. (see Exeg. notes thereon) had already predicted that it would come, both from without and from within; foreign invasion from Syria by Hazael, and domestic rebellion by Jehu. The second narrative above concerns Hazael; chap. 9. treats of Jehu. The main point in the second narrative (2Ki 8:7-15) is the announcement of the divine judgment which is to fall upon Israel by the hand of Hazael (2Ki 8:11-13). All the rest, both what precedes and what follows, is only introduction to this, or development of it. As Gods prophet in Israel (2Ki 5:8), Elisha had the painful task, which he performed with tears, of designating in advance the usurper Hazael as the one through whom the divine judgment should be inflicted, in order that Israel might thereafter know all the more surely that Jehovah had prepared this chastisement, and that it was His hand which laid this scourge upon apostates (Krummacher). [As the whole series of incidents, of which this is one, is told in order to show the greatness of the prophet, so it seems more consistent to see the aim of this one in the intention to show that Elisha foreknew and foretold Hazaels crime and usurpation, and the misery which he inflicted upon Israel.W. G. S.]
2. The first narrative (2Ki 8:1-6) contains, besides the chief point, which has already been specified, a series of incidents which form a marvellous web of divine dispensations. The restoration of the Shunammites property, with which it ends, is connected by a chain of intervening incidents with the famine predicted by the prophet, with which it begins. The restoration of the property presupposes its loss; this the temporary absence from the country; that took place by the advice of the prophet, and this advice was founded upon the scarcity which God had inflicted as a punishment, and which He had revealed beforehand to the prophet. It was especially the marvellous, divinely ordered, meeting of the Shunammite and Gehazi in the presence of the king, which influenced the latter to his unexpected decision. This meeting was, for the king, a seal to the story of Gehazi, and for the Shunammite a seal upon her faith and trust in the prophet. Once she declined any intercession of the prophet with the king on her behalf (chap, 2Ki 4:13); now she found that she received help, for the prophets sake, even without his immediate interference. Krummacher: God does not always help by startling miracles, although His hands are not tied from even these. More frequently His deliverances are disguised in the more or less transparent veil of ordinary occurrences, nay, even of accidents. This and that takes place, which at the time we hardly consider worthy of notice; but let us wait until these slight providential incidents are all collected together, and the last thread is woven into the artistic web.
3. What is here told us about king Jehoram presents him to us from his better side. His desire to learn all of Elishas acts, still more the way in which he was ready at once to help the distressed Shunammite to the recovery of her property, testify to a receptivity for elevated impressions, and to a disposition to yield to them. By the fact that he recognized all that was extraordinary in the person of the prophet, and yet that he did not desist from his false line of conduct, he showed that, in the main point, the relation of himself and of his people to Jehovah, nothing good could any longer be expected of him. His better feelings were transitory and, on a broad and general survey, in effectual. He continued to be a reed, swayed hither and thither by the wind, easily moved, but undecided and unreliable, so that finally, when all the warnings and exhortations of the prophet had produced no effect, he fell under the just and inevitable judgment of God.
4. The second narrative (2Ki 8:7-15) relates, it is true, the fulfilment of the oracle in 1Ki 19:15, but it shows, at the same time, that that oracle cannot be understood in its literal sense (see the Exeg. notes on that passage), for it is historically established here that Hazael, who now appears for the first time in the history, was not anointed king of Syria by either Elijah or Elisha, though he does appear as the divinely-appointed executor of the judgments which God had decreed against Israel. Jehovah shows him as such to the prophet, and the latter, far from seeking him in Damascus and anointing him, or even saluting him, as king, gives the usurper, who comes to meet him with presents and hypocritical humility, to understand, both by his manner and his words, that he sees his treacherous plans, and he tells him, with tears, what God had revealed, that he should be the great enemy and oppressor of Israel. Thereupon Hazael departs, startled and embarrassed, without a word. This is the clear story of the incident as this narration presents it to us. There is no room, therefore, for any supposition that Hazael was anointed by the prophet. On the other hand, it is an entire mistake, on the part of some of the modern historians, to see in the conduct of Elisha only the enmity of the prophets of Jehovah towards Jehoram and his dynasty, and to make Elisha a liar and a traitor, as Duncker (Geschichte des Alterthums, i. s. 413) does, when he says: At a later time [after the siege of Samaria by Benhadad, chap. 6.] Elisha spent some time among the enemies of his country, in Damascus. Here Benhadad was slain by one of his servants, Hazael, at the instigation of Elisha. Hazael then mounted the throne of Damascus and renewed the war against Israel, not without encouragement from Elisha. In like manner Weber (Gesch. des Volkes Israels, 236) remarks: This opportunity [the illness of Benhadad] appears to have been taken advantage of by the prophet to bring about a palace revolution, as a result of which the king of Damascus was murdered on his sick-bed, by means of a fly-net (?). Such misrepresentation of history can only be explained by the neglect or ignorance of the Hebrew text. When will people cease to make modern revolutionary agitators of the ancient prophets? According to Kster (Die Proph., s. 94) the sense of the entire story is this: A prophet may not allow himself to be restrained from proclaiming the word of Jehovah, by the possibility of evil or crime which may result from it. This thought, which is, at best, a very common-place one, and which might have been presented more strikingly and precisely in a hundred other ways, is entirely foreign to the story before us.
5. The prophet Elisha appears, in this second narrative, in a very brilliant light. As he had forced recognition of his own worth from the king of Israel, so he had attained to high esteem with the king of Syria. The rude, proud, and unsubmissive Benhadad, the arch-enemy of Israel, whose undertakings Elisha had often frustrated, who had once sent an armed detachment to capture him, shows him, as soon as he hears of his presence in his country, the highest honors. He sends out his highest officer with grand gifts to meet him, calls himself humbly his son, and sends a request to him that he will pray to God on his behalf. This in itself overthrows the notion that Elishas celebrated skill in medicine (Weber) led the king to this step. We are not told what produced this entire change in Benhadads disposition; but it is, at any rate, a strong proof of the mighty influence which Elisha must have exerted, both by word and deed, that he was held in so high esteem even in Syria, and that Benhadad himself bent before him. This reception, which he met with in a foreign land, was also a warning sign for Israel. He stands before us, high in worth and dignity in this occurrence also, both as man of God and prophet. He does not feel himself flattered by the high honors which are conferred upon him. They influence him as little as the rich gifts, which he does not even accept. At the sight of the man who, according to the purpose of God, was to be the scourge of his people, he is carried away by such grief that he, as our Lord once did, at the sight of Jerusalem moving on to its destruction, burst into tears for the people who did not consider those things which belonged to their peace. How any one can form the suspicion, under such circumstances, that Elisha stood in secret collusion with Hazael, to whose conscience he addresses such sharp reproofs, or can say: Hazael at once commenced a war upon Israel, instigated by Elisha (Weber), it is hard to understand.
6. This narrative leaves no room for doubt as to Hazaels character, and especially is that labor thrown away which is spent upon the attempt to acquit him of the murder of Benhadad, or to represent his guilt at least as uncertain, for , which follows the words: He (Hazael) spread it on his face, means, so that he died, as in 1Sa 25:38; 1Ki 2:46; 2Ki 12:21. At heart proud, haughty, and imperious, he affects humility and submissiveness; towards his master, who had entrusted him with the most important commission, he is false and treacherous. He shrinks from no means to attain his object. He lies and deceives, but, at the same time, he is cunning and crafty, and knows how to conceal his traitorous purposes. When, alarmed and exposed by the words of the prophet, he can no longer keep them secret, he marches on to the crime, although he seeks to execute it in such a way that he may not appear to be guilty. With all this he combines energy, courage, cruelty, and a blind hatred against Israel, as the sequel shows. On account of these qualities, he was well fitted to be, in the hand of God, a rod of anger and a staff of indignation (Isa 10:5). The Lord makes the vessels of wrath serviceable for the purpose of His government (Krummacher), and here we have again, as often in the history of redemption, an example of wickedness punished by wickedness, and of godless men made, without their will or knowledge, instruments of holiness and justice (see above, 1 Kings 22. Hist. 6).
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
2Ki 8:1-6. King Jehoram and the Shunammite. (a) The marvellous meeting of the two (the inscrutable and yet wise and gracious orderings of God, Isa 28:29; Isa 55:8-9); (b) the restoration of the property believed to be lost (a proof of the truth of Pro 21:1; and Psa 146:7; Psa 146:9; therefore, Psa 37:5).
2Ki 8:1-3. Krummacher: Famine, pest, war, and all other forms of calamity, form an army which is subject to the command of God, which comes and goes at His command, which is ready to attack or ready to retire as He may order, and which can assail no one without command. They are sometimes commissioned to punish, and to be the agents of the divine justice, sometimes to arouse and to bring back the intoxicated to sobriety, sometimes to embitter the world to sinners, and push them to the throne of grace, and sometimes to try the saints, and light the purifying fires about them. So no man has to do simply with the sufferings which fall upon him, but, before all, with Him who inflicted them.Seiler: It is not a rare thing for God to lead even a large number of persons at the same time away from a certain place, where some calamity would have befallen them with others. Do not abandon thy fatherland without being certain of the call of God: Arise! Go, &c, as Abraham was (Gen 12:1). Faith clings to the words in Psa 37:18-19. It is the holy duty and the noblest task of human government to help the oppressed, to secure justice for orphans, and to help the cause of the widow (Isa 1:17; Psa 82:3).
2Ki 8:4-6. The Kings Consultation with Gehazi. (a) The motive of it; (b) the effect of it.
2Ki 8:4. Osiander: That is the way with many great men; they like to hear of the deeds and discourses of pious teachers, and even admire them, but will not be improved by them (Mar 6:20; Act 24:24 sq.; Act 25:22; Act 26:28).Krummacher: People are not wanting even now-a-days who, although they are strangers to the life which has its source in God, nevertheless have a feeling of interest and enthusiasm for the miraculous contents of the text. They read such portions of Scripture with delight. Even a certain warmth of feeling is not wanting. What, however, is totally wanting, is the broken and contrite spirit, the character of a poor and helpless sinner.
2Ki 8:5. That the word which has been heard may not fall by the wayside, but take root in the heart, God, in His mercy, often causes special occurrences to take place immediately afterwards which bear testimony to the truth of the word.
2Ki 8:6. For the sake of the prophet the Shunammite was helped out of her misfortune, and reinstated in the possession of her property. The Lord never forgets the kindnesses which are shown to a prophet in the name of a prophet (Mat 10:41); He repays them not once but many times (2Ki 4:8-10). The word of God often extorts from an unconverted man a good and noble action, which, however, if it only proceeds from a sudden emotion, and stands alone, resembles a flower, which blooms in the morning, and in the evening fades and dies. True servants of God, like Elisha, are often fountains of great blessing, without their own immediate participation or knowledge.
2Ki 8:7-15. Elisha in Syria, (a) Benhadads mission to him; (b) the meeting with Hazael; (c) the announcement of the judgments upon Israel.
2Ki 8:7-8. Benhadad upon the Sick-bed. (a) The rebellious, haughty, and mighty king, the arch-enemy of Israel, who had never troubled himself about the living God, lies in wretchedness; he has lost courage, and now he seeks the prophet whom he once wished to capture, just as a servant seeks his master. The Lord can, with his hammer, which breaketh in pieces even the flinty rock, also make tender the hearts of men (Isa 26:16). Those who are the most self-willed in prosperity are often the most despairing in misfortune. Not until the end approaches do they seek God; but He cannot help in death those who in life have never thought of Him. (b) He does not send to ask the prophet: What shall I, poor sinner, do that I may find grace and be saved? but only whether he shall recover his health. (Starke: The children of this world are only anxious for bodily welfare; about eternal welfare they are indifferent.) It should be our first care in severe illness to set our house in order, and to surrender ourselves to the will of God, so that we may truthfully say with the apostle: For whether we live, &c. (Rom 14:8). The time and the hour of death are concealed from men, and it is vain to inquire about them.
2Ki 8:7. The man of God is come! That was the cry in the heathen city of Damascus, and the news penetrated even to the king, who rejoiced to hear it. This did not occur to Elisha in any city of Israel, Luk 4:24 sq. (Joh 1:11; Act 18:6). Blessed is the city and the country where there is rejoicing that a man of God is come!
2Ki 8:9-11. So much the times may change! He who once was despised, hated, and persecuted, is now met with royal honors and rich presents; but the one makes him uncertain and wavering just as little as the other. The testimonials of honor, and the praise of the great and mighty, the rich and those of high station, are often a much more severe temptation to waver for the messengers of the word of God, than persecution and shame. To be a true man of God is not consistent with vanity and self-satisfaction. The faithful messenger delivers his message without respect of persons, in season and out of season (2Ti 4:2). He who seeks for the honor which cometh only from God (Joh 5:44), will not let himself be blinded by honor before men (Act 14:14; Sir 20:31).
2Ki 8:10. However well a man may know how to conceal his secret thoughts and wicked plans, there is One who sees them, even long before they are put in operation; from whom the darkness hideth not, and for whom the night shineth as the day (Psa 139:2-12). He will sooner or later bring to light what is hidden in darkness, and reveal the secret counsel of the heart (1Co 4:5).
2Ki 8:11. He who has a good conscience is never disturbed or embarrassed if any one looks him directly in the eye; but a bad conscience cannot endure an open, firm look, and trembles with terror at every rustling leaf.
2Ki 8:11-12. Elisha weeps. These were not tears of sentiment, but of the deepest pain, worthy of a man of God, who knows of no greater evil than the apostasy of his people from the living God, the determined contempt for the divine word, and the rejection of the divine grace. Where are the men who now-a-days weep such tears? They were also tears of the most faithful love, which is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, vaunteth not itself, and is not puffed up. So our Lard wept once over Jerusalem (Luk 19:41), and St. Paul over Israel (Rom 9:1-3).
2Ki 8:13. Subserviency before men is always joined with falseness and hypocrisy. Therefore trust no one who is more than humble and modest. Hazael called himself a dog, while he plotted in his heart to become king of a great people.Cramer: It is the way with all hypocrites that they bend and cringe, and humble themselves, and conceal their tricks, until they perceive their opportunity, and have found the key of the situation (2Sa 15:6).Krummacher: There is scarcely anything more discordant and disgusting than the dialect of self-abasement, when it bears upon its face the stamp of affectation and falsehood.
2Ki 8:14-15. It is the curse which rests upon him who has sold himself to sin, that all which ought to awaken his conscience, and terrify and shock him out of his security, only makes him more obstinate, and pushes him on to carry out his evil designs (cf. Joh 13:21-30).
2Ki 8:15. The Lord abhorreth the bloody and deceitful man (Psa 5:7). He who, by treason and murder, ascends a throne, is no king by the grace of God, but only a rod of wrath in the hands of God, which is broken in pieces when it has served its purpose.
Footnotes:
[1]2Ki 8:6.[The Masoretes write in as suffix without mappik, of which other examples occur (cf. 1 Kings 14; Isa 23:17). It might be punctuated as a perfect . Ew. 247, d. and nt. 2.Bttcher ( 418, c) accounts for the omission of mappik by the accumulation of guttural and hissing letters: , ,.
[2]2Ki 8:10.[I. e., give him that delusive hope, since he longs for it, and you, as a courtier, desire to gratify him. This is adopting the keri . See Exeget.
[3]2Ki 8:13.[ has the force of then. What then is thy servant, the dog, that, &c. The English translators rendered the sentence as if it were the same use of language as in 1Sa 17:43; 2Sa 3:8, but it is quite the contrary. Hazael calls himself a dog and asks how he can do great deeds. Goliath and Abner resent being treated as if they were contemptible, which they do not admit. , even when it refers to persons, asks, not who? but what? i.e., what kind of one? (Bttcher. 899. .)W. G. S.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
The history of the Shunammite, which was in part given before, is prosecuted yet further in this chapter. Her land is restored to her. Here is also a short relation concerning Hazael, the Syrian. This chapter also contains an account of Jehoram’s wicked reign, and of Ahaziah his successor in the kingdom.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
It should seem that this famine soon succeeded the siege of the enemy, which the foregoing chapter relates. A fruitful land the Lord makes barren for the wickedness of them that dwell therein. Psa 107:34 . That this famine was peculiar to Israel, seems evident from the prophet’s commanding the Shunammite to seek for sustenance elsewhere. But Reader! how delightful is it to see the Lord providing for his secret ones when he brings his judgments upon others. Never doth the Lord more strikingly manifest himself than when he hides them.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2Ki 8:1-15
1. Then spake [now Elisha had spoken] Elisha unto the woman, whose son he had restored to life, saying, Arise, and go thou and thine household, and sojourn wheresoever thou canst sojourn: for the Lord hath called for a [to the] famine; and it shall also come upon [and, moreover, it cometh into] the land seven years [not to be understood literally].
2. And the woman arose, and did after the saying of the man of God: and she went with her household, and sojourned in the land of the Philistines seven years.
3. And it came to pass at the seven years’ end, that the woman returned out of the land of the Philistines: and she went forth to cry unto the king for her house and for her land [literally, with regard to her house, etc].
4. And the king talked with [was speaking unto] Gehazi [he was not yet a leper ( 2Ki 8:27 )] the servant of the man of God, saying, Tell me, I pray thee, all the great things that Elisha hath done.
5. And it came to pass, as he was telling the king how he had restored a dead body [the dead] to life, that, behold, the woman, whose son he had restored to life, cried [was crying] to the king for her house and for her land. And Gehazi said, My lord, O king, this is the woman, and this is her son, whom Elisha restored to life.
6. And when the king asked the woman, she told him [related to him, i.e., the story]. So the king appointed unto her a certain officer, saying, Restore all that was her’s, and all the fruits [revenues, produce in kind] of the field since the day that she left the land, even until now.
7. And Elisha came to Damascus; and Benhadad the king of Syria was sick; and it was told him, saying, The man of God is come hither.
8. And the king said unto Hazael, Take a present in thine hand [comp. Num 22:7 ; 1Sa 9:7 ; 2Ki 5:5 ; 1Ki 14:3 ], and go, meet the man of God, and enquire of the Lord by him [literally, from with him], saying, Shall I recover of this disease [comp. 1Ki 1:2 ]?
9. So Hazael went to meet him, and took a present [in his hand] with him [in money (comp. 2Ki 8:5 )], even of every [kind of] good thing of Damascus, forty camels’ burden, and came and stood before him, and said, Thy son Benhadad [comp. 1Ki 13:14 , 1Ki 5:13 , 1Ki 4:12 , 1Ki 6:21 . “Father” was a respectful mode of addressing the prophet] king of Syria hath sent me to thee, saying, Shall I recover of this disease?
10. And Elisha said unto him, Go say unto him, Thou mayest certainly recover [thou wilt certainly live]: howbeit the Lord hath shewed me that he shall surely die;
11. And he settled his countenance steadfastly [literally, and he (Elisha) made his face stand, and set (it upon Hazael)], until he was ashamed [disconcerted]: and the man of God wept.
12. And Hazael said, Why weepeth my lord? And he answered, Because I know the evil thou wilt do unto the children of Israel [fulfilled in chap. 2Ki 10:32-33 , 2Ki 13:3 , 2Ki 13:4 . The cruelties here enumerated were common in the warfare of that age (comp. Amo 1:3-4 , Amo 1:13 ; Hos 10:14 , Hos 13:16 ; chap. 2Ki 15:16 )]: their strongholds wilt thou set on fire [literally, send into the fire (Jdg 1:8 .)] and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash [in pieces] their children, and rip up their women with child.
13. And Hazael said, But what, is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing? [(thou canst not mean it;) for what is the dog thy servant that he should do, etc. The exaggerated humility of his language betrays the hypocrite]. And Elisha answered, The Lord hath shewed me that thou shalt be king over Syria.
14. So he departed from Elisha, and came to his master; who said to him, What said Elisha to thee? And he answered, He told me that thou shouldest surely recover [thou wilt certainly live].
15. And it came to pass on the morrow, that he [Hazael] took a thick cloth [quilt or coverlet] and dipped it in water, and spread it on his face, so that he died [Josephus says Hazael strangled his master with a mosquito net]: and Hazael reigned in his stead.
Elisha and Hazael
A difficulty will be found as to the king’s conversation with Gehazi, who has just been driven out, according to the narrative, from the presence of the prophet “a leper as white as snow.” We follow the criticism, however, which does not regard the narrative as in strict chronological order. We have here a gathering up of invaluable historical memoranda, each one of which may be fully relied upon as to accuracy, but we are not to understand that the events occurred in immediately successive days. It is in this way that we overcome the difficulty of the conversation which is reported in the fourth verse.
“The Lord hath called for a famine.” (2Ki 8:1 .) What is the meaning of that expression? Simply, the Lord hath produced it ordered it; it is part of his providence. “God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” A wonderful thing is this we find in the whole Bible God calling for circumstances as if they were creatures which could hear him, and respond to his call; as if famine and plenty, pestilence and scourge of every name, were so many personalities, all standing back in the clouds: and God said, Famine, forward! and immediately the famine came and took away the bread of the people; but then next door to famine stands plenty, and God says to abundance, Forward! and the earth laughs in harvest; the table is abundantly spread, and every living thing is satisfied. Take Ezekiel ( Eze 36:29 ), as presenting the pleasant side of this call by the voice divine: “I call for the corn, and will increase it, and lay no famine upon you.” Hear how the divine voice rolls through all this sphere of revelation. If we proceed to Rom 4:17 , we find in the last clause of the verse words often overlooked: “God… calleth those things which be not as though they were.” God is always creating, calling something out of nothing, amazing the ages by new flashes of glory, unexpected disclosures of grace. Calling for a famine is a frequent expression. We find it, for example, in the Psalms, “Moreover he called for a famine upon the land: he brake the whole staff of bread” ( Psa 105:16 ); and we find it in so out-of-the-way corner as the prophecy of Haggai, “And I called for a drought upon the land, and upon the mountains, and upon the corn, and upon the new wine, and upon the oil, and upon that which the ground bringeth forth, and upon men, and upon cattle, and upon all the labour of the hands” ( 2Ki 1:11 ). The earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof. So there are men who still believe that plague, and pestilence, and short harvest, and things evil that are of a material kind, have a subtle and often immeasurable relation to a divine thought, to a new disclosure of divine providence; that all these things round about us are used as instruments in the chastening, and education, and sanctification of the human race. We cannot be laughed out of this citadel. Sometimes we have half left it under the joke of the giber, because we had no answer to the mocker’s laugh; but presently we began to see how things are related, how mysteriously earth belongs to heaven, and how the simplest, meanest flower that grows draws its life-blood from the sun; then we have returned into the sanctuary, and said, Be the mysteries dark as they may, and all but innumerable, there is a comfort in this doctrine that there is in none other and not a quieting comfort after the nature of a soporific, but an encouraging, stimulating, rousing comfort, that lifts our prayer into a nobler elevation, and sharpens our voice by the introduction of a new accent. So we abide in this Christian faith, and await the explanation which God has promised.
This call for a famine was made known by Elisha unto the woman whose son he had restored to life. There are people who have intimations of coming events. Account for it as we may, one man does see farther than another. We may content ourselves by saying, This is due to intellectual capacity; this prescience is a mere freak of talent or of genius; it is one of the phenomena not yet brought within the reach of any recognised law. We may talk nonsense of that kind to ourselves in our lowest moods, but again the spirit is suddenly lifted to the right point of observation, and we come to this solemn fact: “The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him.” We cannot tell on grounds philosophical or merely rational how we did what has saved us from a thousand troubles. How did the idea occur to us that if we introduced such and such a line into our covenant it would be better? At the time nothing seemed less likely than that such a line would be either needed or operative; and now we find that the insertion of that one line has been to us liberty, perhaps wealth, perhaps comfort. The prophetic spirit has never been withdrawn from the world, but the prophetic spirit has always been punished by the world. The prophets have always had to sleep outside, and get the hairy garment where they could for the covering of their bare shoulders. The world hates to live the future within a day, when that future is declared by a prophetic voice, which not only announces comforts but pronounces judgments. In the way of anxiety the world will live any number of days at a time; in the spirit of apprehension some men are living seven years ahead of themselves at this moment: but not in the prophetic sense of anticipation, which sees a great reconcilement of all contradictions, the uplifting of clouds from covered mountains, and the incoming and downpouring of heaven’s radiant morning that shall clothe all things with the glory of God. We cannot, therefore, tell how it is that some men have intimations of what is coming, and how those intimations are passed on even to the humblest class of the population.
Hearing this word, “The woman arose, and did after the saying of the man of God: and she went with her household, and sojourned in the land of the Philistines seven years” ( 2Ki 8:2 ). Here is a wonderful fact that there should be plenty in Philistia, and nothing in the land which we call promised and holy. This is a circumstance not easily to be understood, that the enemy should have abundance, and that those who are supposed to have special relations to the divine throne should be left empty-handed. There was always plenty in the low-lying land or valley inhabited by these Philistines; or, if they had not plenty of themselves, they could easily import it by sea from Egypt. Behold, the Philistines had the best of it! They have today, if the terms “the best of it” are to be measured by wheat, and oil, and wine, and gold. We should not be surprised, if these standards be erected, if the “world,” as we understand that word, should be in a superior condition of comfort to those who are spiritually-minded and whose house is in heaven. How long shall we be learning the lesson that “a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth”? how long also in learning that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God? When shall we be made to understand that this world is but a beginning, a symbol, an alphabetical hint of a great literature to us yet unpublished and unknown? Until Christians learn that lesson they will often be chafed and exasperated by appearances which seem to point in the direction that worldly-mindedness or worldly-wisdom furnishes the true security and reward of life. When they seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness, the world will believe that they are at least consistent with their faith, even though that faith be found at last to be a delusion. “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”
The famine is now over. “The woman returned out of the land of the Philistines: and she went forth to cry unto the king for her house and for her land” ( 2Ki 8:3 ). Immediate access to the king was permitted in Oriental countries; so we read in 2Sa 14:4 : “And when the woman of Tekoah spake to the king, she fell on her face to the ground, and did obeisance, and said, Help, O king,;” and in 1Ki 3:16 : “Then came there two women, that were harlots, unto the king, and stood before him;” and in 2Ki 6:26 : “And as the king of Israel was passing by upon the wall, there cried a woman unto him, saying, Help, my lord, O king.” That is a remarkable circumstance that the people should be permitted to speak to the king. It is so in a limited sense now: but in a sense so limited as to be painful to those who care for it The king should hear the sufferer himself if he would understand the petition. The written petition the king might read in his own tone, and the king might be in an evil humour or in a frivolous mood; he might hasten over the lines as if they contained nothing; but when the petitioner stands before the king, and says, “Help, O lord, the king,” the king is in a position to know by the very voice how far the person addressing him is animated by a spirit of profound and rational earnestness. What is impossible under many human conditions is possible as between the soul and God. When shall we learn this fact, accept it, and rest in it? Then should we know the meaning of the words, “Pray without ceasing;” “Wait on the Lord;” “Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for him.” Let your own voice be heard in heaven. Do not pray by proxy. Go, hasten to the King and say, Help, O King of heaven! God be merciful to me a sinner! Let every soul, in the priesthood of Christ, plead its own case point to the void that makes its heart so empty. Let every sinner state his own circumstances, and pray, if not in his own words for he may have no gift of words yet in his own tone. By the tone God judges. Your words may be made of gold, your sentences built up with stars, and yet be but a fabric made by the hand; but the tone comes from the heart, and interprets the spirit’s need, and impresses the infinite ear of the listening God.
We have not spared the kings of Israel or of Judah up to this point. Now an opportunity is afforded to remark upon the good qualities of one whom we have condemned in no measured terms. The king asked the woman what she wanted, she told him, and the king at once “appointed unto her a certain officer, saying, Restore all that was her’s, and all the fruits of the field since the day that she left the land, even until now” ( 2Ki 8:6 ). The king was bad, but there was this good feature in his case, and it ought to be pointed out. But remember that the hand may be the hand of an assassin though there gleams upon it a diamond of the first water. The king of Israel generously responded to the poor woman’s cry. Let that be set down to his credit. We do but repel men if we do not recognise whatever may even seem to be good about them. If there is one spot of light in all the dark cloud, look at it as if it were of infinite value. Encouragement may help some men towards piety.
Elisha discovers the old form of his character when he proceeds to Damascus. Note his boldness. We have seen how he baffled the king, how the king sent after him, and could not find him. The king might as well have sent after the wind, commanding the charioteer to bring it back. Who can seize a spirit? Who can arrest a soul? Who can encage a thought? Elisha had been identified with a retreat of which Syria could only think with humiliation. The Syrians heard a “noise,” and away they ran, as if a flock of sheep had seen a wolf descending on the fold. It was but a “noise.” Who can measure a noise? Who knows what it means? Is it the tramp of an army? Is it the descent of a cloud filled with spirits? Is it an intimation of the day of judgment? What does it represent? The king of Syria knew not, and we have already reminded ourselves that “the wicked flee when no man pursueth.” But Elisha is very bold. He will go down into the king’s own country. Why? Because he has a message. You cannot have a missionary until you have a gospel. You may have a man who will run an errand for you on certain specified terms, and the man will be very particular to have the bond fulfilled. But the man of God will go anywhere, everywhere, at any time. What makes this Elisha so bold? The message that burns within him makes him courageous. It is the truth that makes heroes. Given a conviction that seizes the whole soul, and it will burn its way out into language. Why have we such dainty preaching; such accommodations to human infirmity and social circumstances? Because our message is a recitation; because it begins and ends within mechanical boundaries; because it admits of formulation and of criticism: whereas the real message of God the outgoing of the soul in truth and judgment defies criticism; is not above it or below it, but away from it, in infinitely higher spheres, unpolluted, undebased by the pedantry of men who have a trick of seeing flaws, but no genius for the understanding of entireties and perfect harmonies. We shall have men hesitating about going to small settlements and to heathen countries, and to undertaking very difficult work, just in proportion as they have no message. Given the right message, and all things fall down before it.
When the king heard that the man of God had come, he addressed a message to him and sent all manner of temptations to the prophet rich robes, precious metals, the luscious wines of Helbon, the drink of the Persian kings, the soft white wool of the Antilibanus, the damask coverings of couches, a procession of forty camels’ burden all to be offered to Elisha. Now Elisha was above all these things, we may not be. Shame upon those who report how many carriages stand at their church-doors! Shame upon shame to those who wearing a prophet’s mantle of their own manufacture, have to ask what is the congregation before they can deliver their message! How independent were these men of old! You could never do them any favour. They had no “expectations.” What the Lord teacheth me, that will I surely say, though I go home to my salary, which consists of two figures bread of affliction, and water of affliction; it is a poor income, but I must deliver God’s message. The times die for want of that heroic spirit.
The prophet looked upon Hazael fixed those wondrous eyes upon him; and the tears came and ran down his furrowed cheeks. “And Hazael said, Why weepeth my lord? And he [Elisha] answered, Because I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel: their strong holds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their women with child” ( 2Ki 8:12 ). And the prophet cried for the sufferings of Israel. Sometimes the answer of Hazael is read as though he himself were shocked. He was not shocked. He gloried in the prophecy. Read the thirteenth verse thus: But what, thy servant only a dog is it possible that he, so mean, can do this great thing? He gloried in his wickedness. When he heard of this cruelty he was like a man who heard his native tongue in a far-off land. Elisha told no lie to Hazael when he said, “Go, say unto him, Thou mayest certainly recover: howbeit the Lord hath shewed me that he shall surely die”: equal to Go, and perform your trick, tell your customary lies, flatter the dying man that he is better today than he was yesterday; but know this, he is to die, and all the physicians in Syria cannot heal the king. What wonder that Elisha wept? Who would not weep if he could see what is coming upon his country? Whose heart would not pour out itself in blood to know what is yet to be done in the land of his birth or the country of his adoption? If the men of long ago could have seen how civilisation would be turned into an engine of oppression, how the whole land would groan under the burden of drunkeries, and breweries, and houses of hell of every name; if they could have seen how the truth would be sold in the market-place, and how there would be no further need of martyrdom, surely they would have died the violent death of grief. The heart can only be read in the sanctuary. You cannot read it through journalism, or criticism, or political comment, or combinations of any kind which exclude the divine element; to know what Hazael will do, let Elisha read him. The journalist never could have read him; he might have called him long-headed, intrepid, sagacious, a statesman; but the prophet said, “Their strong holds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their women with child:” thy course is a course of havoc. It is only in the sanctuary that we know what things really are. When the pulpit becomes a very tower of God, a very fort of heaven, then the preacher will be able to say, as no other man can say, what the heart is, and what the heart will do under circumstances yet to be revealed. But whence has the preacher this power? He has it as a divine gift. Then did God know the world before he sent his Son to save it? It was because he knew it that he loved it and pitied it. Whilst we were yet sinners Christ died for us. He did not catch us on the return, seeing that we were about to amend, gathering ourselves up for a supreme effort at amelioration; it was not then that Christ died for us, but whilst we were yet sinners, whilst both hands were outstretched in rebellion, and then thrown down to cruelty, and then put out in cupidity and oppression and wrong of every form. When the heart had gone astray, then Christ died for us! Amazing love pity infinite! We have heard of this famine in the land of Israel: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord.” O pitiful One, take our bread, our cattle, destroy our fields, burn our forests; but take not thy Holy Spirit from us!
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
XI
THE STORY OF NAAMAN, THE SIEGE OF SAMARIA,
AND THE DEATH OF JEHORAM (OF JUDAH)
2Ki 5:1-8:24
We commence this chapter with the story of Naaman, recorded in 2Ki 5:1-24 , which is a continuation of the record of Elisha’s miracles. In this passage we have a very graphic and complete account of two miracles which are especially remarkable in their relation to each other. One was the cure of leprosy and the other was the infliction of leprosy. One was wrought on a foreigner and a man of prominence; the other, on a Hebrew and a servant. The second was consequential on the first and the two together must have given Elisha a great reputation at home and abroad, and at the same time extolled Jehovah as the great God in the surrounding nations.
This Naaman was by nationality a Syrian, by position a captain, a great and honorable man. “He was also a mighty man of valor,” one who had rendered valuable services to his country in giving deliverance (Hebrew salvation) from an oppressor. Here arises the question, “What was this deliverance of Naaman?” To this question we find no reply in the Scriptures but there is evidence enough from the Assyrian monuments. Prior to this time an Assyrian monarch had pushed his conquests as far west as Syria bringing this country into subjection, but Syria revolted after a few years and once more gained her independence. It was this deliverance that was wrought by Naaman in which he distinguished himself and won the special favor of the Syrian king.
But Naaman had one serious defect. He was a leper. The way this fact is introduced is most natural, viz.: by the adversative conjunction but. It is true that the conjunction is in italics, showing that the word does not occur in the original, yet the adversative idea is there. It is suggestive of the fact that too often people spoil a splendid recommendation of other people with the introduction of some defect; as, Byron was a great poet but was clubfooted. Or that man is an excellent gentleman but he has one failing, etc. So we go on describing people, saying all the good things we know about them, and then marring their fine reputation by pointing out some fault, altogether unlike the spirit of the inspired historian here in the case of Naaman. This thought is further illustrated in the case of David. Nathan said to him, “Jehovah hath put away thy sin, howbeit,” and then follows with a long list of consequences of the sin which would come upon David. We find the adversative conjunction used to introduce good qualities also, as in 2Ch 19:3 . After Jehu the prophet had rebuked Jehoshaphat for his sin, he said, “Nevertheless there are good things found in thee,” etc. Other examples might be given but these are enough. To sum up what I have said: But may be used adversely to introduce the bad when the good is mentioned first, and to introduce the good when the bad is mentioned first. A fact generally admitted by all, is that both qualities are found in varying ratios in all of us. Therefore we should remember the saying, “There is so much good in the worst of us and so much bad in the best of us that it scarcely behooves any of us to say anything about the rest of us.”
As has already been stated, this defect of Naaman was leprosy, which comes from the Hebrew word meaning a stroke, because the ancients regarded this disease as a stroke from God. Of course it carried with it the idea of penalty for sin committed, just as the three friends of Job reasoned with respect to his case. They said, “This stroke is from God because of your sins.” They thus attributed all afflictions to sin as the cause and to God as inflicting the penalty. The Greek word from which we get our word leprosy means “a scale” and thus indicates a certain characteristic of the disease, viz: that in certain stages of the disease the skin becomes scaly.
There is a most impressive lesson here for us in the instrumentality of this miracle. On some one of their marauding expeditions into northern Israel they had captured a little Jewish maiden who was made servant to Naaman’s wife. The beauty and radiance of her life are seen in the few words here said about her. She expressed a most ardent desire that her master might be healed and pointed out the source of such healing as her God, who would effect such a cure through his servant, Elisha, the prophet in Samaria. All this is an expression of affection, the affection of a servant for her master. How sublime such affection under such conditions! A captive maiden, with the loyalty of a child for a parent, reveals to her master the true source of healing. May we not think of this little Jewish maid in her love for and her loyalty to her oppressors, as a kind of type of Christians in their relation to the world? Surely the human instrumentality in this great divine transaction should not be underestimated. Neither can we fail to recognize the human in God’s plan for the salvation of the world. This little maid played her part and played it well. Are we doing our part in the great plan of God as well as she?
The transactions from this point in the story are rapid and interesting. Naaman appeals to the Syrian king who in turn sends a letter to Jehoram the king of Israel asking for the recovery of Naaman of his leprosy. This royal courtesy of the Syrian king was misunderstood by the king of Israel, who thought that the king of Syria was seeking a quarrel with him. Just here Elisha intervenes to save the day, by offering to do what Jeroboam in his royalty could not do, viz: to heal Naaman of his loathsome disease. But how simple the prescription! Dip in the Jordan seven times. Why seven? Seven was a symbol of perfection and here symbolized the perfect obedience required upon the part of Naaman. But Naaman was wroth and went away saying, “Behold, I thought, he would surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the Lord his God, and wave his hand over the place and recover the leper. Are not . . . the rivers of Damascus better than all the waters of Israel? May I not wash in them and be clean?” This reply shows what was in Naaman’s mind. He expected Elisha to make a great display, and he seems also to have expected an incantation by which the cure would be effected, but the prophet understood human nature too well to be engulfed into violating the law of his God. The captain’s anger was most natural; it was the result of a keen disappointment, but it prepared the way for a hearing from his servants, which resulted in his cure.
There are several lessons here for us: (1) Human nature calls for display. This is true often in the most vital matters, such as the salvation of the soul; (2) May we not find in this incident an illustration of the simplicity of the plan of salvation? Upon this point many stumble. They say, “What shall I do to be saved?” or “What shall I give?” (3) Healing is obtained by taking the remedy: “He that believeth on him is not condemned: he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God” (Joh 3:18 ).
It is noteworthy in this connection that the servants of Naaman interceded with him as children begging a father and this influenced him to try the offered remedy. Their reasoning with him was simple and effective: “If the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldst thou not have done it? How much rather then when he saith to thee, Wash and be clean”? This was sufficient. He went down, dipped himself and was healed. Here arises the question of the virtue of his cure. It was not in the Jordan, nor in the seven dips, but in the power of God. Of course, it came in response to conditions met, just as in the case of all other blessings.
May we not find here a parallel case to the New Testament teaching on baptismal regeneration? Hardly; here the dipping was made a condition of Naaman’s healing, but in the New Testament we do not find baptism a condition of salvation, but the conditions of salvation are repentance and faith. However there is this parallel: that God’s own prescribed conditions must be met before there is any blessing. In this connection it is well to note also that the word for “dip” here, in the Septuagint, is bapto from which comes the New Testament word “baptize,” and that this word means the same as the original Hebrew word, viz: to dip, to immerse. This Old Testament incident is an illustration of the meaning of bapto and baptize and thus confirms the New Testament teaching of baptism by immersion.
Naaman’s gratitude for his healing is very beautifully and impressively expressed: (1) He returned from the Jordan to Elisha, a journey of forty or fifty miles out of his way; (2) he offered the prophet the presents which he had brought from Damascus; (3) he embraced the Jehovah religion and made a vow to renounce all other gods but Jehovah; (4) he honored the request of Elisha (as he thought) by his servant, Gehazi. In all this one is reminded of the incident in the New Testament where the one leper returned to thank our Lord for his healing, evidencing the additional blessing of salvation, yet this act of Naaman involved far more trouble and inconvenience than that of the Samaritan leper..
It should also be noted here that Elisha refused his presents, not because he was not worthy to receive them, but to show this heathen man that not all of God’s prophets were mercenary, as was the case with the priests of other religions. It sets forth Elisha in a beautiful light. We see here the spirit of self-denial which reminds us of Paul’s life and teaching. One could wish that he might always be able to find just such a spirit in the prophets of Jehovah in this twentieth century. Alas, too often the spirit of Gehazi possesses them rather than the spirit of Elisha. But we thank God that the majority are walking in the steps of Elisha.
But what did Naaman mean by wanting “Two mules’ burden of earth”? It cannot be definitely known just what was in his mind, but of all the theories proposed, the context seems to have a great bearing on the one which says that he wanted this earth from the land of Israel to erect an altar to Jehovah in the land of Syria or, perchance, to sprinkle it upon a certain area of his own land, thereby making it “holy ground” and suitable for the worship of Jehovah. History tells us that some of the Jews carried earth from their own land when they were carried into captivity to Babylon. This seems to have been the prevailing idea among the Orientals. Yet another matter should be considered here, viz: If Naaman here embraced the Jehovah religion, why should he bow himself down in the house of Rimmon? This seems to be a reference to his work, as an attendant upon the king of Syria, to perform certain duties relative to his master in the house of Rimmon. He seemed to realize that Jehovah was a jealous God, but he was not strong enough to become a martyr to the Jehovah religion. In this we may not judge Naaman too severely, especially in view of the fact that Naaman was a heathen, reared in a heathen religion, and going back to a heathen environment, and may we not confidently expect to meet Naaman in the “Sweet By and By” as one of God’s jewels gathered out of a foreign land? One could wish that he might greet this Syrian general and this little Jewish maid along with Elijah’s widow of Zarephath, Elisha’s Shunammite woman and our Lord’s Syro-Phoenician woman on the bright shores of everlasting deliverance.
Over against this cheering picture of Elisha and Naaman hangs the blighting picture of Gehazi, a renegade Jew. With the spirit of avarice he seized his opportunity to get the presents offered his master. His sin was manifold. He was guilty of lying, covetousness, and sacrilege. He lied to Naaman outright in the matter of the presents; he was prompted in it all by the spirit of covetousness; and he committed sacrilege in the ill use he made of the name of his master and in his profane oath. But the eye of the seer was there and he was completely caught. May we not rejoice that justice found her own, or shall we revolt at the severity of the penalty inflicted? If the latter, then must we pass by the case of Ananias and Sapphira and a multitude of others like unto them? We will rejoice rather in the prophetic and apostolic judgments since they are strokes of God through his own appointed executioners. But what of the descendants of Gehazi involved in this penalty? Here comes in the law of heredity which he could escape only by denying himself of the privilege of marriage which he may have done; we do not know. One could wish that he might lift the curtain and see further into the course of Naaman and Gehazi, but we must be content with whatever revelation has disclosed, and dare not to intrude into the precincts of the Most Holy uninvited. Here they pass from our view never to reappear.
Turning to the Scriptures we meet again Benhadad II, king of Syria, who was under treaty with Israel twelve years during which time Ahab furnished troops in a league against Assyria, but now he breaks the treaty and invades Israel according to the prophecy given Ahab when he let Ben-hadad go (1Ki 20:35-43 ). What a pity Ahab did not obey the Lord and put an end to him. But we should not have had this great lesson of national sin and its penalty.
This Benhadad comes now, besieges Samaria and causes sufferings in Israel unparalleled in their history. The head of an ass, the most undesirable part of the most undesirable animal, sold for 80 shekels, about $50.00; a kab of doves’ dung sold for 5 shekels, about $3.00; and the women killed their own sons and ate them. Such indicates the horrors of this terrible siege. But this is the fulfilment of the prophecy of Deu 28:56-57 , which has three literal fulfilments in the history of the Jewish people, viz: (1) in this instance, the siege of Samaria by Benhadad; (2) in the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and (3) in the siege of Jerusalem by Titus, A.D. 70. The story here of the two women and the appeal of one of them to the king is very pathetic. Who can censure the mother for hiding her son? The mystery is that the other one ever gave up hers. All this shows the dire straights into which they had become because of this siege.
For all this the king of Israel proposes a remedy, viz: that the head of Elisha be taken from his shoulders. But we note the fact that this was contrary to law. An Oriental monarch might do such a thing consistently. Beheading was practiced in Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia, but it was positively forbidden by the Jewish law. Why should he strike for Elisha when such a calamity came? He evidently thought that Elisha was to blame for their condition. He may have associated this instance with the drought which came at the word of Elijah, or he may have thought that Elisha could work miracles at will and that he purposely refused to relieve the people. However the case may be, it is the common plea of the enemies of God’s cause against his agents and ministers. So with an oath he vows to take the head of God’s prophet.
But Elisha was not to be so ill-treated. He was a seer and the Spirit of God in him was sufficient for every emergency. He saw the plan before the messenger of vengeance arrived and made counterplans to defeat the whole purpose of the king. The story of this incident is beautifully told in the record: how Elisha stopped the messenger and even his master, and with keen insight into the future made a most interesting prediction, viz: that on the morrow they would be amply supplied at reasonable prices. The messenger was doubtful but this prediction allowed for Elisha a probation and a respite from the wrath of the king.
The fulfilment of this prediction is found in the incident of the lepers, the story of which is given in the record. The lesson of this incident is illustrative of the condition of the sinner: “Why sit we here until we die? If we say we will enter the city, when the famine is in the city, and we shall die there: and if we sit here, we shall die also . . . if the Syrians kill us, we shall but die.” This pictures the state of the sinner and his reasoning when he faces the question of decision: “I can but die; therefore, will I trust him.” This text has been used by hundreds of preachers to illustrate the point of decision. There is also another fine text in this connection, viz: “We do not well: this day is a day of good tidings, and we hold our peace.” What a good missionary text! They told it and so should we. The world, like Samaria, is perishing for the necessaries of life, and we know where there is plenty. Let us tell it, lest when the blessed light of God’s eternal morning bursts forth upon us our sin of omission will overtake us.
They did tell it, but as is often the case when we preach, they did not believe it. It was received with distrust; they thought the Syrians had set a trap for them and so they sent messengers and chariots after them to ascertain the facts in the case. The report of these messengers was convincing. They pursued the Syrians as far as the Jordan and found garments and vessels scattered all along the way. Evidently the Syrians had gotten a good “scare” but this is easily explained when we take into consideration that it was the Lord’s “scare.” He made them to hear a great noise of chariots, of horsemen and of a great host. It is no wonder that they ran for their lives. In this connection we find the fulfilment of the prophecy of Elisha to the messenger of vengeance in two important aspects, viz: (1) the price of flour and barley became reasonable; (2) the messenger of vengeance was made gatekeeper by the king and was trodden to death, thus fulfilling Elisha’s statement that he should see it with his eyes but should not eat thereof. This must have been a horrible death, to be trampled to death while starving and yet in sight of plenty. We may think of this as illustrating another class of sinners, those who die in sight of plenty and yet because of their previous course in sin are altogether unable to get to the table of God’s kingdom. This man died because of his unbelief, 2Ki 7:2 ; 2Ki 7:19 f.
The next event according to our study of this section is the death of Jehoram king of Judah and his sad funeral. He had a complication of dreadful diseases, which are mentioned in any good commentary. The sad feature of his funeral is the fact that he was not buried in the usual way in which they buried their kings. He had no burning for him, and was not interred in the sepulchers of the kings. It is sad to have such distinction in one’s death. But such must be the lot of those who sin against Jehovah. We may be sure our sins will find us out.
It is well to note that the book of Obadiah falls in this period, and will be studied in the light of this history when we take up the prophets of the Assyrian period.
QUESTIONS
1. Tell the story of Naaman, the leper.
2. Who was Naaman and what was his standing?
3. What was Naaman’s victory for God?
4. What word introduces the defect in Naaman, what play on it and what the lesson?
5. What this defect and why was it considered such a misfortune?
6. What was the instrumentality of his healing and what the lessons?
7. What was Elisha’s prescription, what was Naaman’s reply, and what the lesson?
8. How was he finally induced to take the remedy and in what was the virtue of his healing?
9. What was the word here in the Septuagint translated “dipped,” and what was the bearing on the New Testament usage of the word?
10. What was the effect of this healing on Naaman and how did he show his gratitude?
11. Explain Naaman’s request for “two mules’ burden of earth” and his bowing himself in the house of Rimmon.
12. How did Gehazi get the reward, what was his sin and what was his punishment?
13. Who was Benhadad and what was his relation to Israel at this time?
14. What indicates the great suffering in the siege of Samaria?
15. What was the king’s proposed remedy and what the meaning of it?
16. Give the story of the king’s messenger of vengeance and Elisha’s promise of plenty.
17. Give the story of the four lepers at the gate. What was the lesson?
18. What missionary text in this connection?
19. How was the message of the lepers received, how was it verified, and how were Elisha’s promise and prophecy fulfilled?
20. Describe the awful sickness and death of Jehoram, and his sad funeral.
21. What prophetic book has its setting here?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
2Ki 8:1 Then spake Elisha unto the woman, whose son he had restored to life, saying, Arise, and go thou and thine household, and sojourn wheresoever thou canst sojourn: for the LORD hath called for a famine; and it shall also come upon the land seven years.
Ver. 1. Then spake Elisha. ] Or, Elisha had spoken to the woman, so Junius rendereth it, sc., about the time of his raising her son to life: then he foretold her, by way of gratitude, this sore famine, the same, some think, with that spoken of by Joel, Joe 1:1-20 which soon after began, and lasted seven years, which was an ordinary time for great famines, as Gen 41:27 2Sa 24:13 2Ki 4:38 .
Thou and thy household.
For the Lord hath called for a famine.
Seven years.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
whose son. Compare 2Ki 4:35.
famine = the famine, which had already begun. Probably the same as 2Ki 4:38. Occasion is not determined by the text, but, 2Ki 8:3 takes up the history at the end of the seven years.
it shall also come = it is come.
seven years: i.e. “[to last] seven years”.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Chapter 8
Now Elisha spake unto the woman, whose son had been restored to life, and he said, [You better get out of here because there’s going to be a seven-year famine in this area] ( 2Ki 8:1 ).
And so she left and she moved down to the area of the Philistines and stayed there for seven years. Now after the seven years, she came back from the land of the Philistines and she found that people have moved into her house and on to her property and taken over her land. Now, it so happened that the king at this time was talking with Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, and Gehazi was telling him all of the miracles that Elisha has performed.
And the woman was coming to the king and going to seek that he give her her land back and all. And so Gehazi was telling her about this woman that had this son and how the son died and was healed and all, and at the same time she came up to the king to see if she could get her land back, and Gehazi said, “As the Lord liveth, this is the woman. This is her. This is the one I was telling you about.” And so the king inquired. This is the boy; this is the boy that was healed and all. He was dead and was healed. And so the king had her land restored to her plus all of the fruits from the field from the time that she had left.
Now Elisha came to Damascus ( 2Ki 8:7 );
Now up unto the area of Benhadad.
the king of Syria who was very sick; and they told Benhadad that Elisha is come on up. So he sent Hazael ( 2Ki 8:7-8 ),
Now you remember that last week as we were studying Elijah’s flight down to mount Horeb, and the Lord. He was hiding in the cave, and the Lord said, “What are you doing here, Elijah?” Elijah said, “I’ve been jealous for God and you know they have broken Your covenant. They’ve broken down Your altars and they’ve killed your prophets. I’m the only one left and all.” The Lord said, “No, what are you doing here? You’re doing nothing.” And God says, “Now look, get out of here. Go up to Damascus and anoint Hazael to be king over Syria.”
Now this is sometime later, Elisha is up in Syria. And the king Benhadad is sick and he sends Hazael, the one that Elijah had anointed to be the king over Syria, he sent him to Elisha to inquire whether or not the king was going to recover from this illness. And so Hazael came to Elisha and he said, “The king wants to know if he’s going to recover from the illness.” And Elisha just stood staring at him. And he said, “Well, what’s wrong?” And he said, “Well,” he said, “the king is will surely recover from the illness, but he’s going to die.” And he kept staring at him. And he began to weep, and Hazael was very uncomfortable.
So he said, Why are you weeping, my Lord? He answered, Because, [he said] I know the evil that you will do to the children of Israel: you’re going to set their strongholds on fire, their young men will you slay with the sword, and you will dash their children, and rip up the pregnant women. Hazael said, Am I a dog, that I should do these horrible things? And Elisha answered, The LORD hath showed me that you’re going to be the king over Syria ( 2Ki 8:12-13 ).
Again, here is that marvelous spiritual insight as Elisha could see what the future held, what this man Hazael was going to be doing to the children of Israel. This is much like when Jesus was on the Mount of Olives looking at Jerusalem. On the day of His triumphant entry and as He began to weep, He said, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, if you’d only known what belong to your peace in this thy day. It’s hid from your eyes and now desolation is going to come. Your children are going to be slain in the street.” And He was weeping as He could see what lay in store for the city that was before Him as He was there on the Mount of Olives overlooking the city. He could see the devastation that was coming and He wept over it. So here the prophet Elisha could see what this man was going to do. The horrible devastation, the atrocities. And he began to weep, and of course, the guy was embarrassed. He said, “Am I a dog that I would do this kind of thing?” And he said, “The Lord has shown me you are going to be the king over Syria.”
Well, he went back to Benhadad and he said, “What did the prophet say?” And he said, “The prophet said you would surely recover from this illness.” But he took a wet blanket and he smothered Benhadad, and Hazael became the king over Syria.
Now in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab, Jehoshaphat then being the king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat the king of Judah began to reign ( 2Ki 8:16 ).
So here’s where you got these two Jehorams reigning. One is the son of Ahab; the other is the son of Jehoshaphat. Jehoshaphat and Ahab were sort of co-conspirators. They were friends, and perhaps they decided to name their son the same names.
He was thirty-two years old when he began to reign; and he reigned for eight years in Jerusalem. But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel: because he actually married the daughter of Ahab ( 2Ki 8:17-18 ):
And thus, the idolatries and all of the northern kingdom were now introduced into Judah, the southern kingdom, through Jehoram. He was a wicked, evil king.
and he did evil in the sight of the LORD. But the LORD would not destroy Judah for David’s sake. Now in his days the Edomites revolted against Judah ( 2Ki 8:18-20 ),
And he came down to smite them but he himself was put to flight by the Edomites. And then Libnah joined in the revolt against Judah.
And Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David: and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead ( 2Ki 8:24 ).
Now Ahaziah would be then a relationship to Ahab and Jezebel. He’s sort of the grandson.
And in the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign. He was twenty-two years old when he began to reign; he reigned only for one year. His mother’s name was Athaliah ( 2Ki 8:25-26 ),
She was a wicked woman.
she was the daughter of Omri the king of Israel. And he walked in the way of the house of Ahab, did evil in the sight of the LORD, as did the house of Ahab: for he was the son-in-law of the house of Ahab. And he went with Joram the son of Ahab to the war against Hazael the king of Syria in Ramothgilead; and the Syrians wounded Joram. And king Joram went back to be healed in Jezreel of the wounds which the Syrians had given to him, when he fought against Hazael the king of Syria. And Ahaziah the son of Jehoram the king of Judah went down to see Joram the son of Ahab in Jezreel, because he was sick ( 2Ki 8:26-29 ).
And so Ahaziah went up to see the king to sort of comfort him in his sickness. Now next week we will pick up with chapter nine and we will move on as these two kings are assassinated as they are visiting there. And so Jehu becomes the king over Israel and a new king over Judah.
Shall we stand.
David said, “Thy word have I hid in my heart, O Lord, that I might not sin against Thee” ( Psa 119:11 ). Also, “the entrance of thy word giveth light” ( Psa 119:130 ). “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, a light unto my path” ( Psa 119:105 ). And may God enrich your knowledge of Himself through the study of His word. And may we learn the value of commitment to God. And may we learn the dangers of unbelief. May God teach us through the word how to walk with Him in faith. And may God grant to us spiritual insight in these days to come, especially in which evil days are going to wax worse and worse. If you don’t have spiritual insight, you’re going to be going under. May God grant to you that spiritual insight that you can see behind the scenes. You can see what the others aren’t seeing. That you can see that God is working and that His hand is actually in these things that are transpiring and God is bringing to us His will and His purposes, for Jesus is coming very soon. And may God grant you great spiritual insight as we move into this dark period of the history of the United States. May you be sustained by the power of the Spirit and by the hope that is ours through the Word of God. “
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
2Ki 8:1-6
2Ki 8:1-6
ELISHA AGAIN AIDED THE SHUNAMMITE;
THE ASSASSINATION OF BENHADAD BY HAZAEL;
AND THE WICKED REIGNS OF JORAM AND AHAZIAH OF JUDAH;
THE SEQUEL TO THE STORY OF THE SHUNAMMITE
“Now Elisha had spoken unto the woman, whose son he had restored to life, saying, Arise, and go thou and thy household wheresoever thou canst sojourn: for Jehovah hath called for a famine; and it shall come upon the land seven years. And the woman arose, and did according to the word of the man of God; and she went with her household, and sojourned in the land of the Philistines seven years. And it came to pass, at the seven years’ end, that the woman returned out of the land of the Philistines: and she went forth to cry unto the king for her house and for her land. Now the king was talking with Gehazi the servant of the man of God, saying, Tell me, I pray thee, all the great things that Elisha hath done. And it came to pass, as he was telling the king how he had restored to life him that was dead, that, behold, the woman, whose son he had restored to life, cried to the king for her house and for her land. And Gehazi said, My lord, O king, this is the woman, and this is her son, whom Elisha restored to life. And when the king asked the woman, she told him. So the king appointed unto her a certain officer, saying, Restore all that was hers, and all the fruits of the field since the day that she left the land, even until now.”
The big problem in this paragraph is the mention of Gehazi. Unless he had providentially been healed of his leprosy, this episode would necessarily have had to happen PRIOR TO the healing of Naaman, because it would be quite unlikely that the king of Israel would be talking freely with a leper. This problem has resulted in different opinions of scholars regarding which king restored the Shunammite’s properties. Hammond believed it was Jehoram, and Martin wrote that it was Jehu. (See our introduction regarding the uncertainties regarding the chronologies in 2Kings.) The very fact of the sacred author’s omitting the information that men seek regarding such questions underscores their lack of importance. It really does not make any difference which king it was. The big point of the narrative is that of the Shunammite’s trust of the prophet’s word and her reward in doing so.
“She went with her household and sojourned in the land of the Philistines” (2Ki 8:2). The coastal plain of Palestine was usually spared from droughts that came to Israel, and even when it was not spared, supplies were readily available by sea from Egypt and the Nile Delta. Of course, during the woman’s seven years’ absence, her properties were appropriated by someone else, hence, her appeal to the king. Also, it would appear that during her sojourn in Philistia her husband had died.
“The king was talking with Gehazi … and as he was telling the king … behold, the woman … cried to the king” (2Ki 8:4-5). Nothing is more wonderful than the timing of the providences of God. “Note the coincidence. God times incidents with precision; `things work together’ (Rom 8:28); they interweave.” Another example is found in the reading to the king of Persia of the honors due Mordecai just before his asking Haman what should be done for the man whom the king delighted to honor (Est 6:1-14).
“The king appointed unto her a certain officer, saying, Restore all that was hers” (2Ki 8:6). “The primary meaning of the word officer here is eunuch, and the secondary meaning is court minister.” “Eunuch is the preferred meaning here for propriety’s sake when a man accompanied a lady.” The introduction of eunuchs into the social structure of the royal families of Israel was due to their shameful harems. David possessed eunuchs (1Ch 28:1), and presumably Solomon also; and afterward “Eunuchs were common in the Samarian court of Israel; but there is no record of them in the kingdom of Judah until the times of Hezekiah (Isa 56:3-4).”
“What happened here shows that Elisha’s previous offer to speak to the king for the Shunammite woman (2Ki 4:13) had not been an idle one.”
E.M. Zerr:
2Ki 8:1. The famine of the preceding chapter was local, confined to a city and caused by a military siege. The one predicted now will be a miraculous one and will affect the land in general. A natural famine would not likely continue for a definite number of years as this one is to continue. In two respects it will be like the famine in Egypt in the time of Joseph. It is to last just seven years, and the Lord was to call for it. (Psa 105:16). In kind appreciation for past favors from the woman, Elisha warned her of the coming distress so she could arrange some place to live.
2Ki 8:2. Acting upon the advice of Elisha, the woman went into the land of the Philistines where she remained for the duration of the famine. This land seems to have been more fortunate in times of famine. Isaac went there (Gen 26:1) at such a time and prospered. Now this woman went there to escape the famine in her country.
2Ki 8:3. In the absence of the owner during the famine, the woman’s property had been unlawfully seized by some person. She was unable to dislodge the intruder and had to appeal to the king for relief.
2Ki 8:4. Before the woman came to the king, however, he had entered into conversation with Gehazi, personal servant of Elisha. It would be expected that he would make mention of his master, the prophet, and of his greatness in general. But general reference to the accomplishments of the man of God did not satisfy the king.
2Ki 8:5. Among the great things Gehazi told the king was the feat of restoring to life the son of a certain woman. Just as he was telling the king about it, that very woman came into their presence to make the petition mentioned in V. 3. That served as an excellent introduction, and Gehazi confirmed her plea by connecting her with the miracle then being reported.
2Ki 8:6. The word famine is from BLAB and Strong’s definition is, “hunger (more or less extensive).” From this definition we would conclude that even in a time of famine, there would be some products of the land available. In Gen 43:11 we read that in spite of the general famine, Jacob was able to send nuts and other products as a “present” into Egypt. Some things could be staples that had been stored for many years, but nuts and other such things would not likely be suitable for food after too many seasons. The conclusion is, therefore, that a state of general dearth would not entirely stop the production of such articles as would be brought forth from the deeper moisture of the earth. This all agrees with the “more or less extensive” part of the definition. There would not be sufficient for sustenance of the whole citizenry, but a scant subsistence might be maintained by a person here and there, through the use of these commodities. They could be exchanged at some market within reach for the more necessary items of food. Such use had been made of this woman’s land in her absence. The king ordered her property to be given up by the usurper, and also to have her reimbursed for these things that had been produced while she was out of the country.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
The influence of Elisha is incidentally seen in the converse of the king with Gehazi and the restoration of the lands of the Shunammite woman for the sake of the prophet.
Elisha visited Damascus, where occurred an incident full of remarkable interest. Benhadad had sent Hazael to ask if he would recover from his sickness. Elisha’s reply was strange in the extreme. He declared the king would recover, but that he would die; that is to say, he affirmed that his death would not come by his sickness, but that it was imminent in another way. The prophet gazed long and fixedly into the eyes of Hazael. It would seem that he saw far more in the soul of the man than any other had seen, perhaps more than the man himself was conscious of. He gazed until Hazael was ashamed, and then the prophet broke into tears. He was conscious that he stood in the presence of a man who would be the instrument of terrible chastisement to Israel in days to come, and he told him all the story. This insight into a human soul again reminds us of the Messiah who came so long afterward. In all probability Hazael’s protest was sincere, yet every word was fulfilled.
In the last part of the chapter we have the story of Judah’s corruption. Joram walked in the ways of the house of Ahab, whose daughter Athaliah he married. Ahaziah was the son of the union.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
the Power behind the Throne
2Ki 8:1-15
Nothing happens in our life or in the world apart from the divine appointment or permission. Behind every event and incident there is a divine providence. The Shunammite who had done so much for Elisha was remembered and cared for, years afterward. The King has a wonderful memory for those who fed him when he was hungry, and ministered to him when he was in need. When saw we thee? Inasmuch as, Mat 25:37. This conversation between the king and Gehazi might have seemed an accident, but it was a providence. If we abide in the will of God, life will be sown with divine coincidences.
Here is another instance: Elisha comes to Damascus, evidently at Gods bidding, just when Benhadad is sick. That sickness would not be mortal, but he would die prematurely from another cause. Would that men of God today had more of this gift of weeping over sinners and their destiny! No one resented hearing D.L. Moody talk of hell, because his voice always faltered. The prophet read Hazaels destiny from the Book of God-not from his set face-and how astounding it was! Ah, what depths of wickedness there are of which we are capable! Keep back thy servant from presumptuous sins.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
2Ki 8:7-15
From this history some points of instruction may be derived.
I. You cannot predict, from a man’s early natural disposition, what he will be capable of. Nothing will save a man but firm habits, steadfast principles, and the grace of God in confirmation of them.
II. Men are capable of a course at which their whole nature revolts. But it must be through a gradual reduction to a lower condition. Men in evil courses are like persons who go down winding stairs. The upper stairs hide the lower ones, so that they see only three or four steps before them. Men go down courses of pleasure, vice, and crime, seeing only one or two steps in a whole career. This is the reason and philosophy of keeping aloof from courses which lower the moral tone of the mind. It is the early steps which lead a man to wrong under such circumstances.
III. We are all of us either advancing from strength to strength to appear before God, or we are, consciously or unconsciously, drifting further and further from the early period of innocence, from the early honour, from the early faith. Let us take heed. Let us call God to our side and yield ourselves to His will. By prayer, by faith, and by reliance on the power of God, live so that, at whatever hour the Son of man may come, He shall find you ready and willing to depart and be with Christ, which is better than life.
H. W. Beecher, Sermons, 4th series, p. 413.
References: 2Ki 8:7-15.-A. Edersheim, Elisha the Prophet, p. 287. 2Ki 8:9.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. xiv., p. 25. 2Ki 8:13.-S. Greg, A Layman’s Legacy, p. 142; J. Fordyce, Christian World Pulpit, vol. viii., p. 323. 2Ki 8:16-29.-Parker, vol. viii., p. 196. 2Ki 8:19.-J. M. Neale, Sermons in Sackville College, vol. iii., p. 116. 2Ki 8:28. 2Ki 9:15.-A. Edersheim, Elisha the Prophet, p. 287.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
am 3113, bc 891
whose son: 2Ki 4:18, 2Ki 4:31-35
sojourn: Gen 12:10, Gen 26:1, Gen 47:4, Rth 1:1
the Lord: Gen 41:25, Gen 41:28, Gen 41:32, Lev 26:19, Lev 26:20, Lev 26:26, Deu 28:22-24, Deu 28:38-40, 1Ki 17:1, 1Ki 18:2, Psa 105:16, Psa 107:34, Hag 1:11, Luk 21:11, Luk 21:22, Act 11:28
called for a famine: Jer 25:29
seven years: Gen 41:27, 2Sa 21:1, 2Sa 24:13, Luk 4:25
Reciprocal: Gen 41:30 – seven years 2Ki 4:13 – among mine 2Ki 4:35 – and the child opened 2Ki 4:38 – a dearth 1Ch 21:12 – three years’ famine 2Ch 6:28 – if there be dearth Amo 4:6 – and want
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
FAMINEGODS MESSENGER
The Lord hath called for a famine.
2Ki 8:1
I. What is the meaning of this expression?Simply, the Lord hath produced itordered it; it is part of His Providence. God said, Let there be light: and there was light. A wonderful thing is this we find in the whole BibleGod calling for circumstances as if they were creatures which could hear Him and respond to His call; as if famine and plenty, pestilence and scourge of every name, were so many personalities, all standing back in the clouds, and God said, Famine, forward! and immediately the famine came, and took away the bread of the people; but then next door to famine stands plenty, and God says to abundance, Forward! and the earth laughs in harvests; the table is abundantly spread, and every living thing is satisfied. Take Eze 36:29 as presenting the pleasant side of this call by the voice Divine: I will call for the corn, and will increase it, and lay no famine upon you. Hear how the Divine voice rolls through all this sphere of revelation. If you proceed to Rom 4:17 you will find in the last clause of the verse words often overlooked: God calleth those things which be not as though they were. God is always creating, calling something out of nothing, amazing the ages by new flashes of glory, unexpected disclosures of presence and grace. Calling for a famine is a frequent expression. You find it, for example, in Psa 105:16 : Moreover He called for a famine upon the land: He brake the whole staff of bread; and you find it in so out-of-the-way a corner as the prophecy of Hag 1:11 : And I called for a drought upon the land, and upon the mountains, and upon the corn, and upon the new wine, and upon the oil, and upon that which the ground bringeth forth, and upon men, and upon cattle, and upon all the labour of the hands.
II. The earth is the Lords, and the fulness thereof.So there are men who still believe that plague, pestilence, and short harvest, and things evil that are of a material kind, have a subtle and often immeasurable relation to a Divine thought, to a new disclosure of Divine Providence; that all these things round about us are used as instruments in the chastening, and education, and sanctification of the human race. We cannot be laughed out of this citadel. Sometimes we have half left it under the joke of the jiber, because we had no answer to the mockers laugh; but presently we began to see how things are related, how mysteriously earth belongs to heaven, and how the simplest, meanest flower that grows draws its life-blood from the sun; then we have returned into the sanctuary, and said, Be the mysteries dark as they may and all but innumerable, there is a comfort in this doctrine that there is in none otherand not a quieting comfort after the nature of a soporific, but an encouraging, stimulating, rousing comfort, that lifts our prayer into a nobler elevation, and sharpens our voice by the introduction of a new accent. So we abide in this Christian faith, and await the explanation which God has promised.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
2Ki 8:1. Then spake Elisha There is nothing in the Hebrew for this particle of time, then. It is literally, And Elisha spake, or, as Houbigant renders it, had spoken. So 2Ki 8:2, The woman had arisen, and done, &c. He conjectures, from 2Ki 8:4, that this event happened before Gehazi was struck with the leprosy: this, however, is by no means certain. On the other hand, most commentators seem to be of opinion that it took place in the order in which it is recorded in the history, after the events related in the former chapter, and some think several years after. Unto the woman whose son he had restored to life Manifesting his gratitude for her former kindness, by taking special care for her preservation. Go thou, and sojourn, &c. In any convenient place out of the land of Israel. For the Lord hath called for a famine Hath appointed to bring a famine upon the country, or a great scarcity of provisions. The manner of speaking intimates that all afflictions are sent by God, and come at his call. Seven years A double time to the former famine under Elijah, which was but just, because they were still incorrigible under all the judgments of God, and under the powerful ministry of Elisha, who confirmed his doctrine by so many astonishing miracles.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Ki 8:8. Take a present. See on 1Ki 14:3.
2Ki 8:10. Thou mayest certainly recover. Aye, say as you all do, both physicians and courtiers. Cry aloud, for Baal is a god. This was said in irony, to rebuke their cruel politeness.The Lord hath showed me that he shall surely die. The rabbins say that is written for . The Romans had a law that it was death to announce the decease of the emperor, except by the senate! But a rhetorician was applauded for doing it by a figure, called circumlocution. He said that Csars servants had done that in their masters absence which they would have done, if he had been dead.
2Ki 8:11. He settled his countenance stedfastlyand the man of God wept. He saw the character of Hazaels conquests, having the gift of discerning spirits. This mans consecration operated as the sop to Judas, first to destroy others, by which he destroyed himself. With the oil, the mania of conquest seized his soul. He magnified his commission against Israel, invaded Philistia, and Jerusalem opened her gates on his return. The Ammonites also were subdued. Then God, who in anger made him king, in anger cast his rod away.
2Ki 8:13. Thou shalt be king. These things are certainly set down in due order of time, though the Lord had commanded Jehu and Hazael to be anointed long before. Ahabs repentance had obtained the reprieve, as recorded in 1Ki 21:29.
2Ki 8:15. Hazael took a thick cloth, wetted in water, to stop the breath of the king. He was a regicide: he began his reign with murder, and waded through seas of blood, till he reached the dark shores of hades: the scourge of God to a guilty people, as Tamerlane used to say of himself.
2Ki 8:20. Edom revolted, and thus the prediction of Isaac was fulfilled. Gen 27:40.
2Ki 8:26. Two and twenty years old. This reading is followed by the Jews; and that in 2Ch 22:2, is thought to be an error.Athaliah the daughter of Omri. She was the daughter of Ahab, but children were called the sons and daughters of their more distinguished ancestors; as Jethro, Hobab, and Raguel, are called the fathers of Moses wife.
REFLECTIONS.
When a child is afflicted, the parent seems to forget all his other children, that he may care solely for that which is sick. So it is with our heavenly Father; he is peculiarly present with his people in the water, in the fire, and in every time of danger. He removed the faithful out of Judea, before the Romans brought the uttermost vengeance on the land; and he inspired St. Peter to write and comfort them when scattered abroad. On the same protecting principle he now removed this most valuable woman to eat bread in Philistia, while Israel had short harvests, a seven years famine. Why should a good man ever despair in the day of tribulation? When God is pleased to sift a nation as wheat, it is morally, and in his esteem, of far greater importance than the temporal inconvenience of his people; and especially as that inconvenience is rendered subservient to their greater purity, and more extensive usefulness.
As there was a care in sending this widow and her orphan away, so there was an equal care over her return. Elisha had most prudently dismissed Gehazi, after his flagrant falsehoods and crimes; but from the good spirit he was now in, it would seem he had profited by the tremendous strokes of the rod, for he spoke well of his master in Samaria. So it providentially happened that he was engaged in reciting to the king the great piety, the glorious ministry, and the stupendous miracles of his master, when the Shunemite returned to claim her land, which had been seized on some political pretense. God is truly the widows husband, and the orphans friend. This favourable incident, in a moment of family crisis, strongly marks his unceasing care over his church and people.
Elisha was not only in great celebrity in his own country, but in the kingdom of Damascus, and consequently in all the neighbouring states. Hence Benhadad, the greatest enemy of Israel, having heard during the sickness that the prophet approached his capital, sent Hazael with a present to consult him concerning his recovery. His conscience told him that his idol Rimmon was no god. Rimmon was deaf to prayer, and devoid of pity to the king. How strange that the gentile nations, who derived from the Jews a considerable knowledge of the true God, should nevertheless be so grossly carried away with the worship of idols.
We see on some occasions that the presents and the humiliations of certain wicked men are totally unavailing. Elisha came not to comfort the king, but to execute the sentence which God had long pronounced against him. 1 Kings 19. He came to designate Hazael to the throne, that the house of Benhadad might receive its punishment for a long series of vexatious and unprovoked wars against Israel. He allowed him, as God allows of all evil, if he were so resolved, to tell the king that he might certainly recover; for it really seems to have been a crime punishable with death to tell kings that they should die! Hazael, learning the true pleasure of heaven concerning his master, was overjoyed, and had not patience to wait a few days, but cruelly suffocated him. He who had murdered myriads, spending his whole life in bloody wars, must himself drink the bitter cup, and die by the hands of him whom he had raised to dignity.
We learn farther, that wicked men have not unfrequently too high an opinion of their own virtue. When the man of God told Hazael of the cruelties he would exercise on the children of Israel, he replied, Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this? And who would think that a man distinguished by good sense, would be guilty of so many follies? Who would think that a man distinguished by so many acts of benevolence, would now and then be guilty of so many exactions and unfair advantages in trade? And who would think a man distinguished by so much modesty and politeness, would on certain occasions be guilty of so much intemperance and lawless desire? Nay, he himself, recoiling at the crime, would say with Hazael, Is thy servant a dog that he should do this horrid thing? But it is the day of temptation which makes manifest the heart. Knowing therefore the depravity of our nature, let us seek a new heart and the image of God.
We have here a farther account of the degeneracy of Davids line by intermarrying with Ahabs house, and by living as that apostate family. Continuing still in their iniquities, we must expect to see repeated strokes of divine vengeance, and in a way which hardly any two kingdoms ever knew before. So it must ever be with wicked men, yea with all the families and nations which forget God.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Ki 8:1-29. Elisha and the Shunammite. Hazael, King of Syria.This chapter is somewhat varied as to composition. It opens with a short story about Elisha (2Ki 8:1-6), of which we may presuppose (a) that it is earlier than 5, because Gehazi (2Ki 8:4) is not a leper; (b) that the king of Israel is an admirer of the prophet, By Elishas advice the Shunammite lady, whose husband is apparently dead, leaves her home to avoid a famine (cf. Rth 1:1), and her lands were restored when the king ascertained who she was. 2Ki 8:6-15 is a second narrative of the prophet. Jehoram must have been king of Israel at the time, as Hazael was contemporary with Jehu. The difficulty the story presents to us is that the prophet appears to suggest to Hazael the crime of which he was to become guilty. Elisha did not, as might have been supposed from 1Ki 19:15*, anoint Hazael. This kings name is found in the inscription of Shalmaneser II, which contains the name of Jehu (842 B.C.). Elishas visit to Damascus (2Ki 8:7) implies a truce between Israel and Syria, and he was evidently highly honoured. 2Ki 8:11 is a hard verse; Elisha evidently put Hazael to shame by the searching gaze with which he regarded him. The cruelties which Hazael was declared to be about to perpetrate were the ordinary excesses of a conqueror. Hazael did not regard the idea with horror, but doubted whether he would ever become great enough to perform such deeds. What am I? he says (2Ki 8:13). A mere dog. How can I ever do such famous acts? The subject is not named in 2Ki 8:15, and Ewald (see Cent. B) suggests that Ben-hadad may have been murdered by someone else, possibly his bath attendant. This seems unlikely. 2Ki 8:16-29, with the exception of 2Ki 8:20-22, comes from the annals which gave the regnal years of each king, etc. There was a king of the same name, Jehoram or Joram, on both thrones. Jehoram married the daughter of Ahab (2Ki 8:18), who is called Athaliah, daughter of Omri (2Ki 8:26). This is accounted for by the fact that Jehu is himself described as Omris son, though no relative, and the destroyer of his family. But for inscriptions we could never have known how important Omri was. Jehoram of Judah is remarkable only for the revolt of Edom. This was a very serious blow to Judah, as it was thus deprived of the trade by the Red Sea (p. 71). Joram apparently won a victory at a place called Zair (2Ki 8:21), otherwise unknown. The chronicler (2 Chronicles 21) says that the prophet Elijah wrote this king a letter of rebuke. The notice of the one-year reign of Ahaziah (2Ki 8:25 ff.) is only an introduction to the momentous facts recorded in 2Ki 8:9.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
THE SHUNAMITE AGAIN
(vv.1-6)
The Shunamite woman is typical of the godly remnant of Israel. She had learned the grace of God in giving new life (ch.4:17) and further in resurrection power (ch.4:32-37). Now she is to learn His grace in sustaining her in time of famine and in restoring all her possessions. Elisha tells her to leave and go wherever she may find a place, because the Lord had called for a seven year famine. This reminds us of the seven year tribulation that is to come specially upon Israel, though affecting all the world.
The nation Israel will suffer dreadfully at that time, but the godly remnant are pictured in the woman of Rev 12:1-17. “The woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent (Rev 12:14). The Lord Jesus, in Mat 24:15-18 warns the disciples concerning that time, to flee from their homes in Israel.
This woman of Shunem must have been widowed by the time Elisha spoke to her, for he told her to take her household. If her husband had been living, Elisha would have addressed him. She took her household and stayed in the land of the Philistines seven years. At the end of that time she returned, but her property had evidently been appropriated by the government, so that she went to appeal to the king for her property.
The Lord ordered matters in such a way that the king was talking with Gehazi, who had been the servant of Elisha, but was now a leper (v.4). It may seem strange that the king would talk with a leper, but he was curious to know about the miracles in Elisha’s life, There is no indication that these miraculous things had any vital effect in turning Jehoram to the Lord, but like so many people, he liked to be entertained by spectacular things. Herod hoped to see some miracle done by the Lord Jesus (Luk 23:8), but he had only contempt for Him personally.
However, as Gehazi was telling the king about the miracle by which Elisha restored the son of the woman of Shunem to life, the woman herself appeared. Gehazi then told the king that this was the woman of whom he spoke (v.5). Of course the king asked the woman about it and she confirmed the truth of that incident. It was the Lord Who had ordered things in this way, thus having such effect upon the king that he willingly commanded that all the woman’s property should be restored to her as well as all the proceeds of the land for the seven years she had been absent.
This is a lovely picture of the completeness of the restoration of blessing to the remnant of Israel at the beginning of the millennium. She was blessed beyond all she had asked, just as believers today are told that our Lord is able to do “exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think” (Eph 3:20).
BEN HADAD AND HAZAEL
(vv.7-15)
The Lord had cold Elijah to go to Damascus and anoint Hazael to be king over Syria (1Kings19:15), but Elijah did not do this, nor did he anoint Jehu as king of Israel, as he was told. This was done by one of the sons of the prophets in 2Kings9:6. But now Elisha went to Damascus, certainly led by the Lord to do so. The king of Syria, Ben Hadad, was sick, and when told the man of God had come there, he sent his army commander with a present to ask Elisha if he would recover of his disease (vv.1-2). When it became a matter of possibly involving death, he knew it was no use appealing to his idols.
The present Hazael brought was amazing, – 40 camel-loads of every good thing of Syria! We are not told that Elisha accepted this, and in fact we may be sure he did not. Hazael then presented Ben Hadad’s question, would he recover of this disease (v.9).
Elisha told him to tell Ben Hadad that he would recover. However, he added, “The Lord has shown me that he will really die” (v.10). Under normal circumstances he would recover, but Elisha knew the treachery of Hazael and looked him straight in the eyes till he was ashamed; “and the man of God wept” (v.11). When Hazael asked why he wept, Elisha answered that he knew the evil that Hazael would do to the children of Israel, setting their strongholds on fire, killing their young men, dashing their children to death and ripping open their pregnant women (v.12). Hazael protested, was he a dog to act so wickedly? But a dog would not do those things: he was much worse than a dog. “Elisha answered, The Lord has shown me that you will become king over Syria” (v.13).
Hazael returned to Ben Hadad with the message that he would recover. Of course Hazael knew he was acting in gross wickedness when he privately smothered Ben Hadad to death by a thick cloth soaked in water (v.15), but we can easily imagine how he would rationalise his action. He would feel safe in doing what he did, for had the prophet not said that Ben Hadad would die and Hazael would reign in his place? Also the king was sick and who would suspect he had not died of his sickness?
THE BRIEF REIGN OF JEHORAM IN JUDAH
(vv.16-24)
Joram, the son of Ahab, had reigned in Israel five years when Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat took the throne of Judah. Instead of following his father’s faith, he followed his father’s bad example in identifying himself with evil men. He reigned only 8 years. His father had shown friendship with Ahab, and Jehoram married Ahab’s daughter Athaliah, a woman as wicked as her mother Jezebel (v.18). In spite of this evil in Judah, the Lord refrained from destroying it, for the sake of His promise to David that He would sustain the kingdom through David’s sons (v.19).
In Jehoram’s days Edom revolted from the authority of Judah and made a king over themselves (v.20). Jehoshaphat had at least kept Edom under control, but not so Jehoram. By faithfully walking with God we shall be able to keep the flesh under control, but when faith wavers, the flesh will soon assert itself in wilful evil.
Jehoram (also called Joram) made an attempt to subdue Edom again (v.2), taking all his chariots with him and attacking by night, but his own troops fled. Edom was too strong, just as the flesh is too strong for mere human energy. Thus Judah regained no authority over Edom to the day of the writing of this report. Libnah also revolted at that time. Libnah means “whiteness,” so that we are taught by this that Judah lost control of moral purity at the time they lost control of the flesh. This will always be true. If we do not keep the flesh in subjection, we shall not possess moral purity.
Joram (or Jehoram) died without regaining what he had lost, though he was buried among the kings in Jerusalem (v.24).
AHAZIAH’S VERY BRIEF REIGN
(vv.24-29)
Ahaziah, son of Jehoram, took the throne of Judah when his father died (v.25). His age was only 22 years, and he reigned only one year in Jerusalem. His mother, Athaliah, had come from Israel, not Judah, and Ahaziah followed the wicked ways of his mother and her parents (v.27).
He allied himself with Joram, king of Israel, to fight against Hazael, king of Syria. In that battle Joram was wounded and returned to Jezreel to recover from his wounds (v.28). Ahaziah was so friendly with him that he went down to visit him. But Chapter 9 shows us that God was intervening with some serious results for these two kings.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
8:1 Then spake Elisha unto the woman, whose son he had restored to life, saying, Arise, and go thou and thine household, and sojourn wheresoever thou {a} canst sojourn: for the LORD hath called for a famine; and it shall also come upon the land seven years.
(a) Where you can find a convenient place to dwell, where there is plenty.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
God’s ability to control timing to bring blessing on the faithful 8:1-6
Several details in this incident hinge on timing that God supernaturally controlled to bring blessing on the Shunamite woman, as God had promised. God directed her away from the famine before it came on Israel for the nation’s apostasy (2Ki 8:1; cf. Deu 11:16-17; Deu 28:38-40; 1Ki 18:2; et al.). The timing of the length of the famine showed it was an act of God (2Ki 8:1; cf. 2Ki 4:38; 2Ki 6:25; 2Ki 7:4). Evidently the woman had sold her property before she left Israel and now wished to buy back her family inheritance. This was a right that the Mosaic Law protected (Lev 25:23-28; Num 36:7; cf. 1Ki 21:3). Another view is that the woman had left her property and "the crown" had taken it over. In such a situation the state held the land until the legal owner reclaimed it (Exo 21:2; Exo 23:10-11; Deu 15:1-2). [Note: Jones, 2:440.] Her position was similar to that of Naomi in the Book of Ruth. She had fled a famine, lost her male supporter, and was at the mercy of the political system. [Note: A. Graeme Auld, I and II Kings, p. 178.] Jehoram was responsible to enforce the Law, and he did so in this case. What God used to move him to grant the woman’s request was the story that Gehazi happened (!) to tell him about this woman (2Ki 8:5). This event evidently happened before Gehazi became a leper. God blessed the woman for her obedience to God’s instructions that came to her through Elisha (2Ki 8:1). He not only restored her house and land but also the produce of her land (its fertility; 2Ki 8:6). Thus the Israelites saw that Yahweh is the lord of time who brings blessing on the faithful.
"Elisha wields as much political influence as any biblical prophet." [Note: House, p. 281.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
THE SHUNAMMITE AND HAZAEL
2Ki 8:1-15
(Circa B.C. 886)
“Our acts still follow with us from afar,
And what we have been makes us what we are.”
-GEORGE ELIOT
THE next anecdote of Elisha brings us once more into contact with the Lady of Shunem. Famines, or dearths, were unhappily of very frequent occurrence in a country which is so wholly dependent, as Palestine is, upon the early and latter rain. On some former occasion Elisha had foreseen that “Jehovah had called for a famine”; for the sword, the famine, and the pestilence are represented as ministers who wait His bidding (Jer 25:29; Eze 38:21). He had also foreseen that it would be of long duration, and in kindness to the Shunammite had warned her that she had better remove for a time into a land in which there was greater plenty. It was under similar circumstances that Elimelech and Naomi, ancestors of Davids line, had taken their sons Mahlon and Chillon and gone to live in the land of Moab; and, indeed, the famine which decided the migration of Jacob and his children into Egypt had been a turning-point in the history of the Chosen People.
The Lady of Shunem had learnt by experience the weight of Elishas words. Her husband is not mentioned, and was probably dead; so she arose with her household, and went for seven years to live in the plain of Philistia. At the end of that time the dearth had ceased, and she returned to Shunem, but only to find that during her absence her house and land were in possession of other owners, and had probably escheated to the Crown. The king was the ultimate, and to a great extent the only, source of justice in his little kingdom, and she went to lay her claim before him and demand the restitution of her property. By a providential circumstance she came exactly at the most favorable moment. The king-it must have been Jehoram-was at the very time talking to Gehazi about the great works of Elisha. As it is unlikely that he would converse long with a leper, and as Gehazi is still called “the servant of the man of God,” the incident may here be narrated out of order. It is pleasant to find Jehoram taking so deep an interest in the prophets story. Already on many occasions during his wars with Moab and Syria, as well as on the occasion of Naamans visit, if that had already occurred, he had received the completest proof of the reality of Elishas mission, but he might be naturally unaware of the many private incidents in which he had exhibited a supernatural power. Among other stories Gehazi was telling him that of the Shunammite, and how Elisha had given life to her dead son. At that juncture she came before the king, and Gehazi said, “My lord, O king, this is the very woman, and this is her son whom Elisha recalled to life.” In answer to Jehorams questions she confirmed the story, and he was so much impressed by the narrative that he not only ordered the immediate restitution of her land, but also of the value of its products during the seven years of her exile.
We now come to the fulfillment of the second of the commands which Elijah had received so long before at Horeb. To complete the retribution which was yet to fall on Israel, he had been bidden to anoint Hazael to be king of Syria in the room of Benhadad. Hitherto the mandate had remained unfulfilled, because no opportunity had occurred; but the appointed time had now arrived. Elisha, for some purpose, and during an interval of peace, visited Damascus, where the visit of Naaman and the events of the Syrian wars had made his name very famous. Benhadad II, grandson or great-grandson of Rezin, after a stormy reign of some thirty years, marked by some successes, but also by the terrible reverses already recorded, lay dangerously ill. Hearing the news that the wonder-working prophet of Israel was in his capital, he sent to ask of him the question, “Shall I recover?” It had been the custom from the earliest days to propitiate the favor of prophets by presents, without which even the humblest suppliant hardly ventured to approach them. The gift sent by Benhadad was truly royal, for he thought perhaps that he could purchase the intercession or the miraculous intervention of this mighty thaumaturge. He sent Hazael with a selection “of every good thing of Damascus,” and, like an Eastern, he endeavored to make his offering seem more magnificent by distributing it on the backs of forty camels.
At the head of this imposing procession of camels walked Hazael, the commander of the forces, and stood in Elishas presence with the humble appeal, “Thy son Benhadad, King of Syria, hath sent me to thee, saying, Shall I recover of this disease?”
About the kings munificence we are told no more, but we cannot doubt that it was refused. If Naamans still costlier blessing had been rejected, though he was about to receive through Elishas ministration an inestimable boon, it is unlikely that Elisha would accept a gift for which he could offer no return, and which, in fact, directly or indirectly, involved the death of the sender. But the historian does not think it necessary to pause and tell us that Elisha sent back the forty camels unladen of their treasures. It was not worthwhile to narrate what was a matter of course. If it had been no time, a few years earlier, to receive money and garments, and olive-yards and vineyards, and men-servants and maid-servants, still less was it a time to do so now. The days were darker now than they had been, and Elisha himself stood near the Great White Throne. The protection of these fearless prophets lay in their utter simplicity of soul. They rose above human fears because they stood above human desires. What Elisha possessed was more than sufficient for the needs of the plain and humble life of one whose communing was with God. It was not wonderful that prophets should rise to an elevation whence they could look down with indifference upon the superfluities of the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, when even sages of the heathen have attained to a similar independence of earthly luxuries. One who can climb such mountain-heights can look with silent contempt on gold.
But there is a serious difficulty about Elishas answer to the embassage. “Go, say unto him”-so it is rendered in our Authorized Version-“Thou mayest certainly recover: howbeit the, Lord hath showed me that he shall surely die.”
It is evident that the translators of 1611 meant the emphasis to be laid on the “mayest,” and understood the answer of Elisha to mean, “Thy recovery is quite possible; and yet”-he adds to Hazael, and not as part of his answer to the king-“Jehovah has shown me that dying he shall die,”-not indeed of this disease, but by other means before he has recovered from it.
Unfortunately, however, the Hebrew will not bear this meaning. Elisha bids Hazael to go back with the distinct message, “Thou shalt surely recover,” as it is rightly rendered in the Revised Version.
This, however, is the rendering, not of the written text as it stands, but of the margin. Every one knows that in the Masoretic original the text itself is called the Kthib, or “what is written,” whereas the margin is called Qri, ” read.” Now, our translators, both those of 1611 and those of the Revision Committee, all but invariably follow the Kethib as the most authentic reading. In this instance, however, they abandon the rule and translate the marginal reading.
What, then, is the written text?
It is the reverse of the marginal reading, for it has: “Go, say, Thou shalt not recover.”
The reader may naturally ask the cause of this startling discrepancy.
It seems to be twofold.
(I) Both the Hebrew word, lo, ” not” (alo), and the word lo, to him, have precisely the same pronunciation. Hence this text might mean either “Go, say to him, Thou shalt certainly recover,” or “Go, say, Thou shalt not recover.” The same identity of the negative and the dative of the preposition has made nonsense of another passage of the Authorized Version, where “Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy: they joy before Thee according to the joy of harvest,” should be “Thou hast multiplied the nation, and increased its joy.” So, too, the verse “It is He that hath made us, and not we ourselves,” may mean “It is He that hath made us, and to Him we belong.” In the present case the adoption of the negative (which would have conveyed to Benhadad the exact truth) is not possible; for it makes the next clause and its introduction by the word “Howbeit” entirely meaningless.
But-
(II) this confusion in the text might not have arisen in the present instance but for the difficulty of Elishas appearing to send a deliberately false message to Benhadad, and a message which he tells Hazael at the time is false.
Can this be deemed impossible?
With the views prevalent in “those times of ignorance,” I think not. Abraham and Isaac, saints and patriarchs as they were, both told practical falsehoods about their wives. They, indeed, were reproved for this, though not severely; but, on the other hand, Jael is not reproved for her treachery to Sisera; and Samuel, under the semblance of a Divine permission, used a diplomatic ruse when he visited the household of Jesse; and in the apologue of Micaiah a lying spirit is represented as sent forth to do service to Jehovah; and Elisha himself tells a deliberate falsehood to the Syrians at Dothan. The sensitiveness to the duty of always speaking the exact truth is not felt in the East with anything like the intensity that it is in Christian lands; and reluctant as we should be to find in the message of Elisha another instance of that falsitas dispensativa which has been so fatally patronized by some of the Fathers and by many Romish theologians, the love of truth itself would compel us to accept this view of the case if there were no other possible interpretation.
I think, however, that another view is possible. I think that Elisha may have said to Hazael, “Go, say unto him, Thou shalt surely recover,” with the same accent of irony in which Micaiah said at first to the two kings, “Go up to Ramoth-Gilead, and prosper; for the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king.” I think that this whole manner and the tone of his voice may have shown to Hazael, and may have been meant to show him, that this was not Elishas real message to Benhadad. Or, to adopt the same line of explanation with an unimportant difference Elisha may have meant to imply, “Go, follow the bent which I know you will follow; go carry back to your master the lying message that I said he would recover. But that is not my message. My message, whether it suits your courtier instincts or not, is that Jehovah has warned me that he shall surely die.”
That some such meaning as this attaches to the verse seems to be shown by the context. For not only was some reproof involved in Elishas words, but he showed his grief still more by his manner. It was as though he had said, “Take back what message you choose, but Benhadad will certainly die”; and then he fastened his steady gaze on the soldiers countenance, till Hazael blushed and became uneasy. Only when he noted that Hazaels conscience was troubled by the glittering eyes which seemed to read the inmost secrets of his heart did Elisha drop his glance, and burst into tears. “Why weepeth my lord?” asked Hazael, in still deeper uneasiness. Whereupon Elisha revealed to him the future. “I weep,” he said, “because I see in thee the curse and the avenger of the sins of my native land. Thou wilt become to them a sword of God; thou wilt set their fortresses on fire; thou wilt slaughter their youths; thou wilt dash their little ones to pieces against the stones; thou wilt rip up their women with child.” That he actually inflicted these savageries of warfare on the miserable Israelites we are not told, but, we are told that he smote them in all their coasts; that Jehovah delivered them into his hands; that he oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz. {2Ki 10:32; 2Ki 13:3; 2Ki 13:22} That being so, there can be no question that he carried out the same laws of atrocious warfare which belonged to those times and continued long afterwards. Such atrocities were not only inflicted on the Israelites again and again by the Assyrians and others, {Isa 13:15-16 Hos 10:14; Hos 13:16 Nah 3:10} but they themselves had often inflicted them, and inflicted them with what they believed to be Divine approval, on their own enemies. {See Jos 6:17-21 1Sa 15:3 Lev 27:28-29} Centuries after, one of their own poets accounted it a beatitude to him who should dash the children of the Babylonians against the stones. {Psa 137:9}
As the answer of Hazael is usually read and interpreted, we are taught to regard it as an indignant declaration that he could never be guilty of such vile deeds. It is regarded as though it were “an abhorrent repudiation of his future self.” The lesson often drawn from it in sermons is that a man may live to do, and to delight in, crimes which he once hated and deemed it impossible that he should ever commit.
The lesson is a most true one, and is capable of a thousand illustrations. It conveys the deeply needed warning that those who, even in thought, dabble with wrong courses, which they only regard as venial peccadilloes, may live to commit, without any sense of horror, the most enormous offences. It is the explanation of the terrible fact that youths who once seemed innocent and holy-minded may grow up, step by step, into colossal criminals. “Men,” says Scherer, “advance unconsciously from errors to faults, and from faults to crimes, till sensibility is destroyed by the habitual spectacle of guilt, and the most savage atrocities come to be dignified by the name of state policy.”
“Lui-meme a son portrait force de rendre hommage,
Il fremira dhorreur devant sa propre image.”
But true and needful as these lessons are, they are entirely beside the mark as deduced from the story of Hazael. What he said was not, as in our Authorized Version, “But what, is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing?” nor by “great thing” does he mean “so deadly a crime.” His words, more accurately rendered in our Revision, are, “But what is thy servant, which is but a dog, that he should do this great thing?” or, “But what is the dog, thy servant?” It was a hypocritic deprecation of the future importance and eminence which Elisha had prophesied for him. There is not the least sense of horror either in his words or in his thoughts. He merely means “A mere dog, such as I am, can never accomplish such great designs.” A dog in the East is utterly despised; {1Sa 24:14; 2Sa 9:8} and Hazael, with Oriental irony, calls himself a dog, though he was the Syrian commander-in-chief-just as a Chinaman, in speaking of himself, adopts the periphrasis “this little thief.”
Elisha did not notice his sham humility, but told him, “The Lord hath showed me that thou shalt be King over Syria.” The date of the event was B.C. 886.
The scene has sometimes been misrepresented to Elishas discredit, as though he suggested to the general the crimes of murder and rebellion The accusation is entirely untenable. Elisha was, indeed, in one sense, commissioned to anoint Hazael King of Syria, because the cruel soldier had been predestined by God to that position; but, in another sense, he had no power whatever to give to Hazael the mighty kingdom of Aram, nor to wrest it from the dynasty which had now held it for many generations. All this was brought about by the Divine purpose, in a course of events entirely out of the sphere of the humble man of God. In the transferring of this crown he was in no sense the agent or the suggester. The thought of usurpation must, without doubt, have been already in Hazaels mind. Benhadad, as far as we know, was childless. At any rate he had no natural heirs, and seems to have been a drunken king, whose reckless undertakings and immense failures had so completely alienated the affections of his subjects from himself and his dynasty, that he died undesired and unlamented, and no hand was uplifted to strike a blow in his defense. It hardly needed a prophet to foresee that the scepter would be snatched by so strong a hand as that of Hazael from a grasp so feeble as that of Benhadad II. The utmost that Elisha had done was, under Divine guidance, to read his character and his designs, and to tell him that the accomplishment of these designs was near at hand.
So Hazael went back to Benhadad, and in answer to the eager inquiry, “What said Elisha to thee?” he gave the answer which Elisha had foreseen that he meant to give, and which was in any case a falsehood, for it suppressed half of what Elisha had really said. “He told me,” said Hazael, “that thou shouldest surely recover.”
Was the sequel of the interview the murder of Benhadad by Hazael?
The story has usually been so read, but Elisha had neither prophesied this nor suggested it. The sequel is thus described. “And it came to pass on the morrow, that he took the coverlet, and dipped it” in “water, and spread it on his face so that he died: and Hazael reigned in his stead.” The repetition of the name Hazael in the last clause is superfluous if he was the subject of the previous clause, and it has been consequently conjectured that “he took” is merely the impersonal idiom “one took.” Some suppose that, as Benhadad was in the bath, his servant took the bath-cloth, wetted it, and laid its thick folds over the mouth of the helpless king; others, that he soaked the thick quilt, which the king was too weak to lift away. In either case it is hardly likely that a great officer like Hazael would have been in the bath-room or the bedroom of the dying king. Yet we must remember that the Praetorian Praefect Macro is said to have suffocated Tiberius with his bed-clothes. Josephus says that Hazael strangled his master with a net; and, indeed, he has generally been held guilty of the perpetration of the murder. But it is fair to give him the benefit of the doubt. Be that as it may, he seems to have reigned for some forty-six years (B.C. 886-840), and to have bequeathed the scepter to a son on whom he had bestowed the old dynastic name of Benhadad.