Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Kings 13:19
And the man of God was wroth with him, and said, Thou shouldest have smitten five or six times; then hadst thou smitten Syria till thou hadst consumed [it]: whereas now thou shalt smite Syria [but] thrice.
19. the man of God was wroth ] We must think of sorrow as well as anger. We can see through all Elisha’s life, that the welfare of his country was very dear to him. Hence his desire that the king should accept God’s announcement of victory with eagerness, and his grief that he did not.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The unfaithfulness of man limits the goodness of God. Though Joash did the prophets bidding, it was without any zeal or fervour; and probably without any earnest belief in the efficacy of what he was doing. Compare Mar 6:5-6. God had been willing to give the Israelites complete victory over Syria 2Ki 13:17; but Joash by his non-acceptance of the divine promise in its fulness had checked the outflow of mercy; and the result was that the original promise could not be fulfilled.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Quest. Wherein was Jehoashs fault, or why was the prophet angry with him?
Answ. The prophet himself did not yet know how many victories Jehoash should obtain against the Syrians, but God had signified to him that he should learn that by the number of the kings strokes. And he was angry with him, not simply because he smote only thrice, but because by his unbelief and idolatry he provoked God so to overrule his heart and hand that he should smite but thrice, which was a token that God would assist him no further; although his smiting but thrice might proceed either from his unbelief or negligence. For by the former sign, and the prophets comment upon it, he might clearly perceive that this also was intended as a sign of his success against the Syrians, and therefore he ought to have done it frequently and vehemently.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
14-19. Elisha was fallen sick of hissickness whereof he diedEvery man’s death is occasioned bysome disease, and so was Elisha’s. But in intimating it, there seemsa contrast tacitly made between him and his prophetic predecessor,who did not die.
Joash the king of Israel camedown unto him, and wept over his faceHe visited him where hewas lying ill of this mortal sickness, and expressed deep sorrow, notfrom the personal respect he bore for the prophet, but for theincalculable loss his death would occasion to the kingdom.
my father, my father!&c.(See on 2Ki 2:12).These words seem to have been a complimentary phrase applied to onewho was thought an eminent guardian and deliverer of his country. Theparticular application of them to Elisha, who, by his counsels andprayer, had obtained many glorious victories for Israel, shows thatthe king possessed some measure of faith and trust, which, thoughweak, was accepted, and called forth the prophet’s dying benediction.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And the man of God was wroth with him,…. Because he ceased smiting, and smote no oftener; for it was revealed to the prophet, by an impulse upon his mind, that by the number of times he smote on the ground, it would be known how often he should get the victory over his enemies; but this was to be left to the king’s own will, how often he would smite, and thereby the prophet would know also with what spirit he would pursue his victories, and the advantages he would gain:
and said, thou shouldest have smitten five or six times, then hadst thou smitten Syria until thou hadst consumed it; as a nation, as well as routed their several armies:
whereas now thou shalt smite Syria but thrice; beat them only three times in battle, according to the number of his smitings on the ground.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(19) The man of God was wroth with him.Because his present want of zeal augured a like deficiency in prosecuting the war hereafter. The natural irritability of the sick man may also have had something to do with it. Thenius well remarks on the manifestly historical character of the entire scene. It may be added that, to appreciate it fully, we must remember that , or soothsaying by means of arrows, was a practice of unknown antiquity in the Semitic world. Shooting an arrow, and observing where and how it fell, was one method of trying to fathom the secrets of that Power which overrules events and foreknows the future. The proceedings of David and Jonathan, recorded in 1Sa. 20:35, seq., appear to have been an instance of this sort of divination, which in principle is quite analogous to casting lots, a practice so familiar to readers of the Bible. The second processthat described in 2Ki. 13:18seems equally to have depended upon chance, according to modern ideas. The prophet left it to the spontaneous impulse of the king to determine the number of strokes; because he believed that the result, whatever it was, would betoken the purpose of Jehovah. The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord (Pro. 16:33). Elishas anger was the natural anger of the man and the patriot, disappointed at the result of a divination from which he had hoped greater things. In conclusion, it cannot be too often or too forcibly urged upon students of the true religion that the essential differences which isolate it from all imperfect or retrograde systems are to be found not so much in matters of outward organisation, form, and ritual, such as priesthoods and sacrifices, prophets and modes of divination, which were pretty much the same everywhere in Semitic antiquity; but in the inward spirit and substance of its teaching, in the vital truths which it handed on through successive ages, and, above all, in its steady progress from lower to higher conceptions of the Divine character and purposes, and of the right relations of man to God and his fellow-creatures.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
19. Thou shouldest have smitten five or six times And therefore his smiting but three times symbolized that lack of determination and perseverance whereby he would fail to overthrow, effectually, the Syrian power.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Ki 13:19. And the man of God was wroth Whether Joash before this interview with Elisha was acquainted or not with the nature of those parabolic actions, whereby the prophets were accustomed to represent future events, he could not but perceive, by the comment which Elisha made upon the first arrow that he shot, which he calls the arrow of deliverance from Syria, 2Ki 13:17 that this was a symbolical action, and intended to prefigure his victories over that nation; and therefore, as the first action of shooting was a kind of prelude to the war, he could not but understand further, even though the prophet had said nothing to him, that this second action, of striking the ground with the arrow, was to portend the number of victories he was to obtain; but then, if we may suppose with the generality of interpreters, that the prophet had apprised him beforehand that such was the symbolical intent of what he now put him upon, that the oftener he smote upon the ground, the more would be the victories which his arms should obtain; that this was the decree of heaven; and that thus, in some measure, his success in war was put into his own power; the king’s conduct was utterly inexcusable, if, diffident of the prophet’s promise, and considering the great strength of the kings of Syria more than the power of God, he stopped his hand after he had smote thrice; supposing that the prediction would never have been fulfilled, had he gone on, and smote upon the earth oftener. Upon the whole therefore, the prophet had just reason to be offended at the king for not believing in GOD, who had done so many signal miracles in favour of the Israelites; for not believing in Him, who, according to his own acknowledgment, had been a constant defender of the state, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof, 2Ki 13:14 and now, in his dying hours, was full of good wishes and intentions for his country. See Le Clerc and Patrick.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
2Ki 13:19 And the man of God was wroth with him, and said, Thou shouldest have smitten five or six times; then hadst thou smitten Syria till thou hadst consumed [it]: whereas now thou shalt smite Syria [but] thrice.
Ver. 19. Thou shalt smite Israel but thrice. ] And this for a punishment of the king’s slackness and slothfulness in pursuing the execution of God’s vengeance on the enemies, which the prophet might foresee.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
man of God. See App-49.
God. Hebrew. Elohim.with Art. App-4.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
the man of God: 2Ki 1:9-15, 2Ki 4:16, 2Ki 4:40, 2Ki 6:9
was wroth: Lev 10:16, Num 16:15, Mar 3:5, Mar 10:14
now thou shalt: 2Ki 13:25, Mar 6:5
Reciprocal: Gen 31:36 – was wroth Num 31:14 – wroth 2Ki 4:3 – borrow not a few 2Ki 4:6 – And the oil
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
13:19 And the man of God was {k} wroth with him, and said, Thou shouldest have smitten five or six times; then hadst thou smitten Syria till thou hadst consumed [it]: whereas now thou shalt smite Syria [but] thrice.
(k) Because he seemed content to have victory against the enemies of God two or three times but did not have the zeal to overcome them continually, and to destroy them completely.