Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Kings 1:1

Then Moab rebelled against Israel after the death of Ahab.

THE

SECOND BOOK OF THE KINGS,

commonly called,

THE FOURTH BOOK OF THE KINGS

Ch. 2Ki 1:1-18. Sickness of Ahaziah, King of Israel. His messengers sent to enquire of Baalzebub are destroyed by Elijah. Ahaziah dying is succeeded by his brother Jehoram (Not in Chronicles)

1. Then [R.V. And ] Moab rebelled against Israel ] The conjunction is the simple copulative. The less severance that is made between the portion of Ahaziah’s history in 1 Kings and that which is given in this chapter the better. The so-called two books of Kings are but one, and the division has been made quite arbitrarily and in the middle of a reign.

We have no record in Scripture how Moab came to be subject to Israel; but the inscription on the Moabite stone shews us that Israel and Moab were in conflict in the days of Omri, Ahab’s father. Of their previous subjugation by David we read 2Sa 8:2, after which we have no mention of them till this passage. It is by no means improbable that on the secession of the ten tribes, the Moabites became subjects of Israel, as the tribes on the east of Jordan all appertained to the northern kingdom. The death of Ahab, and the national prostration of the Israelites after their defeat at Ramoth Gilead would be counted a good opportunity for the Moabites to strike a blow for their freedom. The heavy burden laid upon them is seen from 2Ki 3:4 where their tribute is specified as ‘an hundred thousand lambs and an hundred thousand rams with their wool’. Cf. also Isa 16:1. We know from the history of the settlement of the Israelites (Num 32:1-4) how well suited for cattle rearing were some parts of the Transjordanic country. From the nature of the Moabite tribute it is very likely that their whole wealth was in their flocks and herds.

after the death of Ahab ] Ahab’s death was quite unexpected, and perhaps no long time elapsed between that event and Ahaziah’s fall. Affairs were sure to be out of joint, and would invite subjects who felt their yoke heavy to try and cast it off.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

The Moabites, who had once lorded over Israel Jdg 3:12-14, were reduced to subjection by David, and treated with extreme severity (marginal reference). In the time of Ahab they were dependent on the kingdom of Israel, to which it has been generally supposed that they fell at the separation of Israel from Judah. The Moabite monument (see 2Ki 3:4), discovered in 1869, has now given reason to believe that they then recovered their independence, but were again reduced by Omri, who, with his son Ahab, is said (in round numbers) to have oppressed them for forty years. Ahabs death was seized upon as an occasion for revolt, and Moab (perhaps owing to Ahaziahs sickness) easily regained her independence.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

2Ki 1:1-6

And Ahaziah fell down through a lattice.

Worldly royalty and personal godliness

I. Worldly royalty in a humiliating condition.

1. A king in mortal suffering.

2. A king in mental distress.

3. A king in superstitious darkness.

II. Personal godliness divinely majestic. Elijah is an example of personal godliness, though, in a worldly sense, he was very poor, and his costume seemed to be almost the meanest of the mean. But see the majesty of this man in two things.

1. In receiving communications from heaven. But the angel of the Lord said to Elijah the Tishbite.

2. In reproving the king. Which is the better–a throne or a godly character? Fools only prefer the former. (Homilist.)

Ahaziah

I. That men in calamity naturally seek a refuge. Whatever was the character of the accident which befell Ahaziah, it awakened in his mind the greatest concern, so that he was apprehensive of his life, and he wanted to know the issue of his affliction. And, so like Ahaziah, all men seek shelter when the storm gathers around them, that they may be shielded from its violence.

II. That the refuges of the wicked are often vain. Ahaziah sent his messengers to Baal-zebub, as his only hope in distress, but they were not permitted even to reach the shrine of that deity. So that the god of Ekron was of no help to the King of Israel.

III. That calamity or affliction alone is not sufficient to lead men to repentance. Sometimes it is thought that by means of adverse circumstances men can be brought to God; but it was not so in the ease of Ahaziah.

IV. That God will vindicate His own honour against the rebellion of the wicked. Ahaziah, by seeking to consult Baal-zebub, ignored Jehovah, and thus dishonoured Him in the eyes of the people. In whatever way men may refuse to acknowledge God, and rebel against Him, He, in His own time, will bring them to nought, and vindicate His character as a God of honour, majesty, mercy, and love. (T. Cain.)

False religious appeals

Ahaziah, the man of whom this chapter speaks, was the son of Ahab and of Jezebel. He was badly born. Some allowance must be made for this fact in estimating his character. Ahaziah fell through the lattice, and in his helplessness he became religious. Man must have some God. Even atheism is a kind of religion. When a man recoils openly from what may be termed the public faith of his country, he seeks to apologise for his recoil, and to make up for his church absence by creating high obligations of another class: he plays the patriot; he plays the disciplinarian–in some way he will try to make up for, or defend, the recoil of his soul from the old altar of his country. It is in their helplessness that we really know what men are. The cry for friendship is but a subdued cry for God. Sometimes men will invent gods of their own. It is said of Shakespeare that he first exhausted worlds, and then invented new. That was right. It was but of the liberty of a poet so to do. But it is no part of the liberty of the soul. Necessity forbids it, because the true God cannot be exhausted. Who can exhaust nature? Who can exhaust natures God? Still, the imagination of man is evil continually. He will invent new ways of enjoying himself. He will degrade religion into a mere form of interrogation. This is what Ahaziah did in this instance: Go, inquire of Baal-zebub (2Ki 1:2). All that we sometimes want of God is that He should be the great fortune-teller. If He will tell us how this transaction will turn out, how this speculation will fructify, how this illness will terminate, how this revolution will eventuate–that is all we want with Him; a question-answering God; a God that will specially take care of us and nurse us into strength, that we may spend that strength in reviling against His throne. How true it is that Ahaziah represents us all in making his religion into a mere form of question-asking; in other words, into a form of selfishness! Nothing can be so selfish as religion. (J. Parker, D. D.)

Elijah and the god of Ekron

The 5th of February 1685 witnessed a sad scene in the palace of Whitehall. The second Charles lay in the last agony, while, amid the courtly circle around his bed, stood Sancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Ken, the Bishop of Bath and Wells. The king is really and truly a Catholic, whispers the Duchess of Portsmouth to the French ambassador; and yet his bed-chamber is full of Protestant clergymen. The fact had been long suspected, and gave additional earnestness to the holy men who desired to prepare the dying monarch for his inevitable and solemn change. It is time to speak out, sir, exclaims Sancroft; for you are about to appear before a Judge who is no respecter of persons. Will you not die in the communion of the Church of England? anxiously asks Ken; the king gives no response. Will you receive the sacrament? continues the bishop.; the king replies, There is no hurry, and I am too weak. Do you wish pardon of sin? rejoins the favourite prelate, whose hymns are still sung in our Christian churches; the dying man carelessly adds, It can do me no hurt–on which, says Macaulay, the bishop put forth all his eloquence, till his pathetic exhortation awed and melted the bystanders to such a degree, that some among them believed him to be filled with the same spirit which in the old time, had, by the mouths of Nathan and Elias, called sinful princes to repentance. To complete the parallel we propose, we must notice another incident in this dying scene. If it costs me my life, exclaims the Duke of York, afterwards James II., I will fetch a priest. With some difficulty he is found, He is smuggled into the royal presence, and the chamber of death. He is welcome, says Charles. The monarch who refused to listen to Sancroft and Ken, had an open ear for Father Huddleston. The monarch who was unwilling to die in the Church of England, is perfectly willing to die in the Church of Rome, For three-quarters of an hour he confesses, adores the crucifix, receives the mysterious virtues of extreme unction, and at length, with an apology to his attendants that he has been a most unconscionable time dying, he breathes his last, an apostate from the faith inseparable from Englands throne, and for his abandonment of which his own successor died an exile on the charity of a foreign land. Let Ahaziah take the place of Charles II.; let his idolatry be represented in the Popery of the British monarch; let the application to the god of Ekron be symbolised in the welcome given to the Romish monk; and, last of all, let Elijah by the bedside of the King of Israel, dealing faithfully with the soul departing there, be the type of good Sancroft and Ken by that other couch, using all their entreaties to make the sufferer think of his approaching end–and the parallel is well-nigh complete. The mention of Ekron and Baal-zebub introduces the subject of the heathen oracles, which played such an important part in all the nations of antiquity. Even among the Jews, it is believed by many, a true oracle existed–namely, the Urim and Thummim (lights and perfections, as the words denote), on the high priests breastplate; and that, when the Divine response was to be given, it was manifested either in an audible voice from the twelve precious stones, or in their appearance changing in keeping with the answer–brighter for an affirmative, and duller for a negative reply. What are usually known, however, as the heathen oracula were very different. They were also very numerous: the small province of Boeotia, in Greece, having twenty-five, and the Peloponnesus as many; but the most celebrated were Delphi, Dodona, and Jupiter Ammon in the deserts of Lybia. We get a glimpse of one of the oracular priestesses in the life of Paul, where the reference, we think, abundantly proves that the heathen oracles were under Satanic control. Such being admitted, we need not add they were only a system of imposture and falsehood, a lying in wait to deceive, cunningly devised fables, as Peter expresses it, where the allusion is unmistakable. There was more than mere fury about the Pythia; and it may be that the commonplace expression about there being method in madness has been literally borrowed from her. Never did ambiguity find itself of such use as on the consecrated tripod, or beneath the decayed oak-tree. Croesus., King of Lydia, asks what will be the issue of a war with Persia, and he receives as reply, If you war with them, you will destroy a great kingdom. Pyrrhus, King of Epirus, desires to know what will be the result, if he assists the Tarentines against the Romans, and the response may either mean that he is to conquer the Romans, or that the Romans are to conquer him. In both instances, Croesus and Pyrrhus were defeated and ruined, but of course the oracle was right, and its credit maintained. Many lessons might be drawn from that darkened chamber, where lies the son of Ahab, arrayed in the last robe he will ever need. We mention only one–the folly of men when they forsake the ways of God to pay homage to idols of any kind, or in hopeless attempt to unveil the future. As to the former all the Ekrons of earth–whether pride of reason, or personal merit, or the general mercy of God–are only vanity and a snare; there is but one Rock of hope, security, and strength, and that Rock is Christ. As to the latter–the attempt to unveil the future, we know what Saul made of it in his visit to Endor, and we have seen what Ahaziah made of it in his proposed message to Ekron. Just men made perfect have other occupation than to be the tools of the clairvoyant; and lost spirits, we may be sure, are in no mood for such work. Away with your mediums, their bandaged eyes and pencilled messages, hands waving in the air, and all the dark arts of this latest charlatanry, the most wretched and profane of all modem shams. God is His own interpreter; and neither to shrines at Ekron nor Boston, neither to Baal-zebub nor Daniel Home, will He give the power of unlocking the destinies of men. (H. T. Howat.)

Religion only needed in trouble

It is the habit of some people only to seek spiritual support in times of trouble and difficulty. When the clouds have passed they think no more of the truths that comforted them in sorrow. Dr. Moule, the Bishop of Durham, in his recently published book, From Sunday to Sunday, relates the following incident: A friend told me the tale a few years ago as we paced together the deck of a steamship on the Mediterranean, and talked of the things unseen. The chaplain of a prison, intimate with the narrator, had to deal with a man condemned to death. He found the man anxious, as well he might be; nay, he seemed more than anxious–convicted, spiritually alarmed. The chaplains instructions all bore upon the power of the Redeemer to save to the uttermost; and it seemed as if the message were received and the man were a believer. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the chaplain had come to think that there was ground for appeal from the death-sentence. He placed the matter before the proper authorities, and with success. On his next visit, very cautiously and by way of mere suggestions and surmises, he led the apparently resigned criminal towards the possibility of a commutation. What would he say, how would his repentance stand, if his life were granted him? The answer soon came. Instantly the prisoner divined the position; asked a few decisive questions, then threw his Bible across the cell, and, civilly thanking the chaplain for his attentions, told him that he had no further need of him nor of his book. The Bible, like prayer, was never meant exclusively for the hours of darkness. It has a message for every time and every occasion of life.

Prayer through fear

When I was at school in France, an English boy who was sleeping in the next bed to mine in a large dormitory said, There will be thunder and lightning to-night! When I asked, How do you know? he replied, Because So-and-so, referring to a French boy who seldom prayed, is saying his prayers. He meant that this boy only said his prayers when he was frightened, or by fits and starts. Ah! that is what we are all liable to do, and that is the very danger I want to guard you against. Beware that you do not pray by fits and starts. (Quiver.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

THE SECOND BOOK OF THE KINGS,

OTHERWISE CALLED THE FOURTH BOOK OF THE KINGS

-Year from the Creation, according to the English Bible, 3108.

-Year before the birth of Christ, 892.

-Year before the vulgar era of Christ’s nativity 896.

-Year since the Deluge, according to Archbishop Usher and the English Bible, 1452.

-Year of the Cali Yuga, or Indian era of the Deluge, 2206. Chronologers vary very considerably in their calculations of the time which elapsed between the flood and the birth of Abraham, the difference of the two extremes amounting to nine hundred years! Archbishop Usher’s computation is from the common Hebrew text, with the single exception of fixing the birth of Abraham in the one hundred and thirtieth year of the life of his father, instead of the seventieth, in order to reconcile 2Kgs 11:26; 2Kgs 11:32, with Ac 7:4. But these passages are better reconciled, in the opinion of Dr. Kennicott, by stating (with the Samaritan Pentateuch) the whole life of Terah to have been one hundred and forty-five years, instead of two hundred and five, as in our common Bibles.

-Year from the destruction of Troy, according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 289.

-Year from the foundation of Solomon’s temple, 115.

-Year since the division of Solomon’s monarchy into the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, 79.

-Year before the era of Iphitus, who re-established the Olympic Games, three hundred and thirty-eight years after their institution by Hercules, or about eight hundred and eighty-four years before the commencement of the Christian era, 12.

-Year before the conquest of Coroebus at Elis, usually styled the first Olympiad, (being the 28th Olympiad after their re-establishment by Iphitus,) 120.

-Year before the Varronian or generally received era of the building of Rome, 143.

-Year before the building of Rome, according to Cato and the Fasti Consulares, 144.

-Year before the building of Rome, according to Polybius, the historian, 145.

-Year before the building of Rome, according to Fabius Pictor, who lived about two hundred and twenty-five years before the Christian era, 149.

-Year before the commencement of the Nabonassarean era, 149. The years of this epoch contained uniformly 365 days, so that 1461 Nabonassarean were equal to 1460 Julian years. This era commenced on the fourth of the calends of March, (Feb. 26,) B.C. 747; which was the year in which Romulus laid the foundation of Rome, according to Fabius Pictor.

-Year of the Julian Period, 3818.

-Year of the Dionysian Period, 94.

-Cycle of the Sun, 10.

-Cycle of the Moon, 18.

-Year of Megacles, the sixth perpetual archon of the Athenians, 26.

-Ocrazeres, the immediate predecessor of Sardanapalus, was king over the Assyrians about this time, according to Strauchius: but when this king reigned is very uncertain, Scaliger fixing the fall of Sardanapalus, which ended the Assyrian empire, in the year of the Julian Period, 3841; Langius, in 3852 of the same epocha; and Eusebius, in the year before Christ, 820.

-Year of Agrippa Silvius, the eleventh king of the Latins, 20.

-Year of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, 18.

-Year of Ahaziah, king of Israel, 2.

-Last year of the Prophet Elijah.

-Tenth year of Elisha.

CHAPTER I

Ahaziah, being hurt by a fall, sends messengers to Baal-zebub

to inquire whether he shall recover, 1, 2.

They are met by Elijah, who sends them back with the

information that he shall surely die, 3-8.

The king sends a captain and fifty men, to bring Elijah to

Samaria, on which fire comes down from heaven, and destroys

both him and his men, 9, 10.

Another captain and fifty men are sent, who are likewise

destroyed, 11, 12.

A third is sent, who behaves himself humbly, and Elijah is

commanded to accompany him; he obeys, comes to the king,

reproves his idolatry, and announces his death, 13-16.

Ahaziah dies and Jehoram reigns in his stead, 17, 18.

NOTES ON CHAP. I

Verse 1. Moab rebelled] The Moabites had been subdued by David, and laid under tribute, 2Kg 3:4, and 2Sa 8:2. After the division of the two kingdoms, the Moabites fell partly under the dominion of Israel, and partly under that of Judah, until the death of Ahab, when they arose and shook off this yoke. Jehoram confederated with the king of Judah and the king of Edom, in order to reduce them. See this war, 2Kg 3:5.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Moab; which had been subdued by David, 2Sa 8:2, as Edom was; and upon the division of this kingdom into two Moab was adjoined to that of Israel, and Edom to that of Judah, each to that kingdom upon which it bordered. And when the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were weak and forsaken by God, they took that opportunity to revolt from them; Moab here, and Edom a little after it.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

1. Then Moab rebelledSubduedby David (2Sa 8:2), they had, inthe partition of Israel and Judah, fallen to the share of the formerkingdom. But they took advantage of the death of Ahab to shake offthe yoke (see on 2Ki 3:6). Thecasualty that befell Ahaziah [2Ki1:2] prevented his taking active measures for suppressing thisrevolt, which was accomplished as a providential judgment on thehouse of Ahab for all these crimes.

2Ki1:2-8. AHAZIAH’SJUDGMENT BY ELIJAH.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Then Moab rebelled against Israel after the death of Ahab. Which had been in subjection to them from the times of David, 2Sa 8:2 refusing to pay a tribute as they had done; taking advantage of Ahab’s ill success with the king of Syria, and of his death, and the condition and circumstances of his successor.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

After the death of Ahab, Moab rebelled against Israel (2Ki 1:1). The Moabites, who had been subjugated by David (2Sa 8:2), had remained tributary to the kingdom of the ten tribes after the division of the kingdom. but when Israel was defeated by the Syrians at Ramoth in the time of Ahab, they took advantage of this defeat and the weakening of the Israelitish power in the country to the east of the Jordan to shake off the yoke of the Israelites, and very soon afterwards attempted an invasion of the kingdom of Judah, in alliance with the Edomite and other tribes of the desert, which terminated, however, in a great defeat, though it contributed to the maintenance of their independence. For further remarks, see at 2Ki 3:4.

2Ki 1:2

Ahaziah could not do anything to subjugate the Moabites any further, since he was very soon afterwards taken grievously ill. He fell through the grating in his upper room at Samaria. , the grating, is either a window furnished with a shutter of lattice-work, or a door of lattice-work in the upper room of the palace, but hardly a grating in the floor of the Aliyah for the purpose of letting light into the lower rooms, as the Rabbins supposed. On account of this misfortune, Ahaziah resorted to the Ekronitish Baalzebub to obtain an oracle concerning the result of his illness. , i.e., Fly-Baal, was not merely the “averter of swarms of insects,” like the , of Elis (Ges., Winer, Movers, Phniz. i. p. 175), since “the Fly-God cannot have received his name as the enemy of flies, like lucus a non lucendo ,” but was (lxx, Joseph.), i.e., God represented as a fly, as a fly-idol, to which the name Myiodes, gnat-like, in Plin. h. n. xxix. 6, clearly points, and as a god of the sun and of summer must have stood in a similar relation to the flies to that of the oracle-god Apollo, who both sent diseases and took them away (vid., J. G. Mller, Art. Beelzebub in Herzog’s Cycl. i. p. 768, and Stark, Gaza, pp. 260,261). The latter observes that “these (the flies), which are governed in their coming and going by all the conditions of the weather, are apparently endowed with prophetic power themselves.” This explains the fact that a special power of prophecy was attributed to this god.

(Note: The later Jews altered the name Beelzebub into , i.e., probably lord of the (heavenly) dwelling, as a name given to the (Mat 10:25, etc.); and the later Rabbins finally, by changing into , made a fly-god into a dung-god, to express in the most intense form their abomination of idolatry (see Lightfoot, Horae hebr. et talm. in Mat 12:24, and my Bibl. Archol. i. pp. 440,441).)

Ekron, now Akir, the most northerly of the five Philistine capitals (see at Jos 13:3).

2Ki 1:3-4

But the angel of the Lord, the mediator of the revelations made by the invisible God to the covenant nation (see Comm. on the Pentateuch, vol. i. pp. 185-191, transl.), had spoken to Elijah to go and meet the king’s messengers, who were going to inquire of Baalzebub, and to ask them whether it was from the want of a God in Israel ( as in Exo 14:11; see Ewald, 323, a.) that they turned to Baalzebub, and to announce to them the word of Jehovah, that Ahaziah would not rise up from his bed again, but would die. “And Elijah went,” sc. to carry out the divine commission.

2Ki 1:5-8

The messengers did not recognise Elijah, but yet they turned back and reported the occurrence to the king, who knew at once, from the description they gave of the habitus of the man in reply to his question, that it was Elijah the Tishbite. : “what was the manner of the man?” is used here to denote the peculiarity of a person, that which in a certain sense constitutes the vital law and right of the individual personality; figura et habitus (Vulg.). The servants described the prophet according to his outward appearance, which in a man of character is a reflection of his inner man, as , vir pilosus, hirsutus . This does not mean a man with a luxuriant growth of hair, but refers to the hairy dress, i.e., the garment made of sheep-skin or goat-skin or coarse camel-hair, which was wrapped round his body; the (2Ki 2:8; 1Ki 19:13), or (Zec 13:4, cf. Mat 3:4; Heb 11:37), which was worn by the prophets, not as mere ascetics, but as preachers of repentance, the rough garment denoting the severity of the divine judgments upon the effeminate nation, which revelled in luxuriance and worldly lust. And this was also in keeping with “the leather girdle,” , (Mat 3:4), whereas the ordinary girdle was of cotton or linen, and often very costly.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

Ahaziah’s Sickness.

B. C. 896.

      1 Then Moab rebelled against Israel after the death of Ahab.   2 And Ahaziah fell down through a lattice in his upper chamber that was in Samaria, and was sick: and he sent messengers, and said unto them, Go, enquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron whether I shall recover of this disease.   3 But the angel of the LORD said to Elijah the Tishbite, Arise, go up to meet the messengers of the king of Samaria, and say unto them, Is it not because there is not a God in Israel, that ye go to enquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron?   4 Now therefore thus saith the LORD, Thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die. And Elijah departed.   5 And when the messengers turned back unto him, he said unto them, Why are ye now turned back?   6 And they said unto him, There came a man up to meet us, and said unto us, Go, turn again unto the king that sent you, and say unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Is it not because there is not a God in Israel, that thou sendest to enquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron? therefore thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die.   7 And he said unto them, What manner of man was he which came up to meet you, and told you these words?   8 And they answered him, He was a hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins. And he said, It is Elijah the Tishbite.

      We have here Ahaziah, the wicked king of Israel, under God’s rebukes both by his providence and by his prophet, by his rod and by his word.

      I. He is crossed in his affairs. How can those expect to prosper that do evil in the sight of the Lord, and provoke him to anger? When he rebelled against God, and revolted from his allegiance to him, Moab rebelled against Israel, and revolted from the subjection that had long paid to the kings of Israel, v. 1. The Edomites that bordered on Judah, and were tributaries to the kings of Judah, still continued so, as we find in the chapter before (v. 47), till, in the wicked reign of Joram, they broke that yoke (ch. viii. 22) as the Moabites did now. If men break their covenants with us, and neglect their duty, we must reflect upon our breach of covenant with God, and the neglect of our duty to him. Sin weakens and impoverishes us. We shall hear of the Moabites, ch. iii. 5.

      II. He is seized with sickness in body, not from any inward cause, but by a severe accident. He fell down through a lattice, and was much bruised with the fall; perhaps it threw him into a fever, v. 2. Whatever we go, there is but a step between us and death. A man’s house is his castle, but not to secure him against the judgments of God. The cracked lattice is a fatal to the son, when God pleases to make it so, as the bow drawn at a venture was to the father. Ahaziah would not attempt to reduce the Moabites, lest he should perish in the field of battle: but he is not safe, though he tarry at home. Royal palaces do not always yield firm footing. The snare is laid for the sinner in the ground where he thinks least of it, Job 18:9; Job 18:10. The whole creation, which groans under the man’s sin, will at length sink and break under the weight, like this lattice. He is never safe that has God for his enemy.

      III. In his distress he sends messengers to enquire of the god Ekron whether he should recover or no, v. 2. And here, 1. His enquiry was very foolish: Shall I recover? Even nature itself would rather have asked, “What means may I use that I may recover?” But as one solicitous only to know his fortune, not to know his duty, his question is only this, Shall I recover? to which a little time would give an answer. We should be more thoughtful what will become of us after death than how, or when, or where, we shall die, and more desirous to be told how we may conduct ourselves well in our sickness, and get good to our souls by it, than whether we shall recover from it. 2. His sending to Baal-zebub was very wicked; to make a dead and dumb idol, perhaps newly erected (for idolaters were fond of new gods), his oracle, was not less a reproach to his reason than to his religion. Baal-zebub, which signifies the lord of a fly, was one of their Baals that perhaps gave his answers either by the power of the demons or the craft of the priests, with a humming noise, like that of a great fly, or that had (as they fancied) rid their country of the swarms of flies wherewith it was infested, or of some pestilential disease brought among them by flies. Perhaps this dunghill-deity was as famous then as the oracle of Delphos was, long afterwards, in Greece. In the New Testament the prince of the devils is called Beel-zebub (Matt. xii. 24), for the gods of the Gentiles were devils, and this perhaps grew to be one of the most famous.

      IV. Elijah, by direction from God, meets the messengers, and turns them back with an answer that shall save them the labour of going to Ekron. Had Ahaziah sent for Elijah, humbled himself, and begged his prayers, he might have had an answer of peace; but if he send to the god of Ekron, instead of the God of Israel, this, like Saul’s consulting the witch, shall fill the measure of his iniquity, and bring upon him a sentence of death. Those that will not enquire of the word of God for their comfort shall be made to hear it, whether they will or not, to their amazement.

      1. He faithfully reproves his sin (v. 3): Is it not because there is not (that is, because you think there is not) a God in Israel (because there is no God, none in Israel, so it may be read), that you go to enquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron, a despicable town of the Philistines (Zech. ix. 7), long since vanquished by Israel? Here, (1.) The sin was bad enough, giving that honour to the devil which is due to God alone, which was done as much by their enquiries as by their sacrifices. Note, It is a very wicked thing, upon any occasion or pretence whatsoever, to consult with the devil. This wickedness reigned in the heathen world (Isa 47:12; Isa 47:13) and remains too much even in the Christian world, and the devil’s kingdom is supported by it. (2.) The construction which Elijah, in God’s name, puts upon it, makes it much worse: “It is because you think not only that the God of Israel is not able to tell you, but that there is no God at all in Israel, else you would not send so far for a divine answer.” Note, A practical and constructive atheism is the cause and malignity of our departures from God. Surely we think there is no God in Israel when we live at large, make flesh our arm, and seek a portion in the things of this world.

      2. He plainly reads his doom: Go, tell him he shall surely die, v. 4. “Since he is so anxious to know his fate, this is it; let him make the best of it.” The certain fearful looking for of judgment and indignation which this message must needs cause cannot but cut him to the heart.

      V. The message being delivered to him by his servants, he enquires of them by whom it was sent to him, and concludes, by their description of him, that it must be Elijah, 2Ki 1:7; 2Ki 1:8. For, 1. His dress was the same that he had seen him in, in his father’s court. He was clad in a hairy garment, and had a leathern girdle about him, was plain and homely in his garb. John Baptist, the Elias of the New Testament, herein resembled him, for his clothes were made of hair cloth, and he was girt with a leathern girdle, Matt. iii. 4. He that was clothed with the Spirit despised all rich and gay clothing. 2. His message was such as he used to deliver to his father, to whom he never prophesied good, but evil. Elijah is one of those witnesses that still torment the inhabitants of the earth, Rev. xi. 10. He that was a thorn in Ahab’s eyes will be so in the eyes of his son while he treads in the steps of his father’s wickedness; and he is ready to cry out, as his father did, Hast thou found me, O my enemy? Let sinners consider that the word which took hold of their fathers is still as quick and powerful as ever. See Zec 1:6; Heb 4:12.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Second Kings – Chapter 1

Ahaziah’s Accident- Verses 1-8

Ahaziah, the first of his sons to succeed Ahab, lived only two years after his father’s death. In the previous study it was learned that he had a treaty with Jehoshaphat concerning the furnishing of a navy, but that it was destroyed by the Lord. The first verse of this chapter notes the rebellion of Moab against Israel, also in Ahaziah’s short reign. This notice sets the stage for the eventual campaign, to be noted later, to reconquer Moab. It is likely that the move against Judah and Jehoshaphat, in alliance with Ammon and Edom, related in the foregoing commentary, was a part of Moab’s rebellion against the northern kingdom. The overrunning of Judah would have laid open the approach to Israel from the south had it succeeded.

Before Ahaziah could make a move against the rebels, however, he suffered a fatal accident. The account does not specify why Ahaziah fell through the lattice of the upper story of his palace in Samaria, nor does it tell the exact nature of his injury. It was serious enough that he was confined to his bed from the beginning. It is likely he may have suffered a rupture, or a flesh wound which became infected. Whatever it was Ahaziah was aware that it might well cost him his life. He decided to inquire of his future by Baal-zebub, the god of the Philistine city of Ekron.

It is at this time Elijah makes a reappearance in the political life of Israel. What he had been doing in the meantime, since he last appeared, is unknown. The Lord informs Elijah of the mission on which King Ahaziah has sent his messengers, and gives him a message to them. Elijah is to go to meet the messengers and give them the Lord’s message. It consists of a rebuke, to start, for the godless condition of the land. Jezebel, who was still living, had killed and driven underground all the true worshippers of the Lord. The Baal worship of Israel had been re-instituted, but does not seem to have regained its former power as is was before Elijah had denounced and slain the prophets (1Ki, chapter 18). So, the fact that the king is sending to a god of Philistia to learn the outcome of his illness indicated there was no God in Israel. The true God had been turned away from Israel. The king was to be told that, because of this move of his, he would not recover from his sick bed, but would certainly die.

Thus the messengers did not continue to Ekron and surprised the king by an early return from their mission. They reported to him what Elijah had told them, but they had not recognized the prophet. Immediately Ahaziah appears to have sensed the identity of the one who had sent the message. He asked for his description, and they described a hairy man, wearing a leather girdle, the insignia of Elijah, just as Ahaziah suspected.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

THE SICKNESS AND DEATH OF AHAZIAH

CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.

2Ki. 1:1. Then Moab rebelledSince the time of David the Moabites had been tributary to Israel (2Sa. 8:2; 2Sa. 23:20) On the death of Ahab and accession of Ahaziah (1Ki. 22:51) they revolted and cast off the yoke.

2Ki. 1:2. And Ahaziah fell down, &c.This accident prevented his attempting to suppress the revolt. Through the latticeEither the wooden parapet (or fence) running round the flat roof, and which probably gave way as Ahaziah leaned over it; or a latticed skylight in the roof itself, and which broke under him when he heedlessly stepped upon it. The latter is most probable (and the Rabbins so regard it), for he fell into his upper chamber. The lattice may have been the roof window of this chamber. Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron No other mention in the Old Testament of Baal-zebub. The name means the fly-Baal. Sept. . The fly-god, regarded by expositors either as the defender against flies, and also the fly-god, an idol in the form of a fly. Ekronprobably the present Akir, nearest Samaria, of the five northern Philistian cities (Jos. 13:3).

2Ki. 1:3. But the angel of the Lord saidSuch consultation of a god violated a fundamental law of the theocracy (Exo. 20:3; Deu. 5:7), and deliberately repudiated Jehovah.

2Ki. 1:6. There came a man up to meet usThe messengers did not recognize Elijah yet they were so impressed by his wordshis authoritative tone, commanding attitude, and affecting message (Jameison)as to return instantly to the king.

2Ki. 1:8. He was a hairy manNot meaning that he wore long locks and a flowing beard; nor that his whole person was, as Esaus, hairy; but that he was robed in a coarse hair garment (of sheep or goat skin, or of camels hair). Elijah originated this distinctive attire, which became henceforth the mark of the prophets as preachers of repentance. This stern, rough garb was worn not as an act of mere asceticism, but as a symbol of sorrow over the peoples iniquities and the impending judgments of God. A girdle of leatherThis was the (Mat. 3:4) of John the Baptist. The leather girdle was symbolic of self-denial and contempt for indugencies; the ordinary girdle of Hebrews being fine linen or more costly materials elegantly embroidered.

2Ki. 1:9. Captain of fifty with his fiftyThe army was divided into sections of 1,000, 100, and 50, and each had its own leader (Num. 31:14; Num. 31:48; 1Sa. 8:12). He sat on the top of an hillprobably on Carmel (see 2Ki. 2:25; 1Ki. 18:42). Thou man of God!This name was used in contemptuous irony, and thus the captains abetted the insolence of the king towards Jehovah, whose prophet Elijah was.

2Ki. 1:10. If I be a man of God, then let fire, &cElijah invoked proof of his having Divine authority for his message in the form of a judgment upon them from the God they dared to insult. The destructive fire was both proof and punishment in one.

2Ki. 1:11. Come down quicklyGreater audacity still in this demand as if he were fortified with irresistible authority.

2Ki. 1:13. A captain of the third fiftyThe second captain learned no awe from the fate of his predecessor, but showed more obstinacy and daring; but the third, though commissioned by the still wilful and wicked king, came with a changed attitude and tone.

2Ki. 1:15. And he arose, and went down with him unto the kingHe knew how Ahaziah would greet him with malice, and that his appearance before the king exposed him to perils, yet he fearlessly obeyed Gods command.

2Ki. 1:17. And Jehoram reignedThis Israel-Jehoram is here said to have commenced his reign in the second year of the Judah-Jehoram; but in chap. 2Ki. 3:1 he is said to have come to the throne in the 18th year of Jehoshaphat. It would therefore appear that Ahaziah reigned as regent during the seventeenth and the larger portion of the eighteenth years of Jehoshaphat, and that Jehoram (or Joram), Ahaziahs brother, succeeded to the throne in the end of Jehoshaphats eighteenth year.W. H. J.

HOMILETICS OF 2Ki. 1:1-18

THE EXPOSURE AND PUNISHMENT OF IDOLATRY

WE have seen that Ahaziah imbibed and adopted the idolatrous principles of his father; and we are now to learn that he also possessed the ferocious and God-defying spirit of his mother. A whole chapter is here devoted to the reign of Ahaziah; not because of its importance, for it was both brief and disastrous, but to expose the utter imbecility of the idolatry in which he trusted, and to show by what terrible judgment the honour of the insulted and forgotten God of Israel would be vindicated. The incidents of this chapter are also full of interest, as they are connected with the last public exercises of Elijahs prophetic office. The stern, fearless prophet is to the last what he has been from the beginning of his careerthe messenger of wrath, the rebuker of iniquity, the prophet of fire. Observe

I. That idolatry is a pitiable infatuation and a great crime.

1. It is an atrocious insult to the one only true God. By Ahaziah sending to a foreign divinity to seek help and counsel, he transgressed not only the general and chief commandment (Exo. 20:3), but also the special commandment (Lev. 14:31; Lev. 20:6; Lev. 20:27; Deu. 18:10-11), which threatened with extermination those who questioned soothsayers and wizards. It was a public and practical declaration that he esteemed the fly-god of the Philistines above the living God of Israel, and it was a formal degradation and contempt of, and an insult to, Jehovah. Such a crime had not previously been committed by a king, and, if ever, then certainly now, the time was come for the zealous defender of the name of the God of Israel to emerge from his concealment and announce to the bold scoffer the Divine retribution. All idolatry is an insult to the majesty of heaven, and will not be allowed to pass unchallenged or unpunished.

2. It is powerless to help in extremity. Idolatry is purely a human creation, and is, therefore, imperfect and limited. While all goes well, the infatuated worshipper may be amused and satisfied with the delusion; but when trouble comes, then does he discover the vanity and helplessness of the imagination in which he had misplaced his confidence. The man who has forsaken God is without refuge in his distress.

3. It is persisted in, notwithstanding affliction and threatened death. Even the terrible announcement of Divine vengeance was not sufficient to humble the dying man, or to bring him to repentance; it rather embittered and filled him with anger, and even with plans of murder. All this he does while on his death bed, face to face with death, so completely has all reverence for what is sacred abandoned him, and been supplanted by a stubbornness and wilfulness which extend even to madness. Ahab humbled himself when Elijah announced to him the judgment of God (1Ki. 21:27). Even Jeroboam sent, when his son was sick, to the prophet Ahijah (1Ki. 14:2); but Ahaziah perseveres in his senseless perversity, and so falls far below both of these. There is no infatuation so hopeless and insensate as the infatuation of idolatry.

II. That the vanity of idolatry is repeatedly exposed.

1. By its own failures. The scene on Mount Carmel, and the public failure there, could not be forgotten. In all ages and under all circumstances idolatry has been a gigantic failure, notwithstanding its bombastic pretensions and colossal and imposing proportions. It fails to meet the deepest needs of man, and retards the development and progress of the race.

2. It is exposed by Divinely commissioned messengers. Its enormities have been confronted and denounced by an Elijah. Such work needed a man divinely endowed with fiery strength and with a fiery tongue. His weighty irresistible personality, and his forcible, energetic speech, made such an impression on the messengers of the king that they did not dare to carry out the orders of their despotic master, but turned back without further action. As always, so here also, when they sought to seize him and make him a prisoner, he was not to be reached: the emissaries came to disgrace. Without fear, courageous and unterrified, he appears before the king himself, as he had done before his father, and announces to the proud and stubborn man his approaching death. Elijah is the representative and instrument of the jealousy of the Divine Judge, the herald of the Divine retributive justice, and on that account the prototype of all the forerunners of the great and terrible day of judgment (vide Lange).

III. That idolatry is punished with terrible vengeance.

1. By personal affliction (2Ki. 1:2). The same hand that guided Ahabs shaft cracks Ahaziahs lattice. How infinite variety of plagues hath the just God for obstinate sinners! Whether in the field or in the chamber, He knows to find them out. How fearlessly did Ahaziah walk on his wonted pavement! The Lord hath laid a trap for him whereinto, while he thinks least, he falls irrecoverably. No place is safe for the man that is at variance with God. Affliction has brought many to reflection and prayer who might have gone down to the grave impenitent and unforgiven. Suffering that does not soften, hardens the heart the more.

2. By fearful and signal destruction (2Ki. 1:9-12). Fire comes down from heaven and consumes the insolent and idolatrous soldiers. What madness is it for him whose breath is in his nostrils to contend with the Almighty! The conduct of Elijah has been frequently censured. It is forgotten, however, that such censure is, in reality, directed, not against the inferior agent, but against God Himself. The facts were these, and it is important to ponder them well: As Israels king, Ahaziah was bound by Israels laws; in religion especially, the God of Abraham was the only divinity he should ever have known; to send to Baal-zebub was to this jealous God a great affront; to apprehend His prophet was open rebellion; nay, utter excision was stated, in the plainest language, to be the fate of all idol servers (Deu. 6:14-15). In harmony with this, therefore, our wonder should be, not that so many of the idolaters were slain, but that any one in the guilty land was ever suffered to go free. It was the last warning Elijah was permitted to give to the house of Ahab; and in every way it was rendered memorable. Even then it was not too late for Ahaziah to return; there was mercy wrapped in the dark sentence of doom. It was unheeded; and, stubbornly, fiercely clinging to his wretched idolatry, Ahaziah died! Some live long that they may aggravate their judgment; others die soon, that they may hasten it.

LESSONS:

1. It is the crime of idolatry that it ignores God.

2. Idolaters are sufficiently warned, and are therefore without excuse.

3. The wrath of God is directed, not against the idols, but against the idolaters.

GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES

2Ki. 1:1-4. The judgment of idolatry.

1. Revolt (2Ki. 1:1).

2. Affliction (2Ki. 1:2).

3. Warning (2Ki. 1:3).

4. Death (2Ki. 1:4).

2Ki. 1:2-17. The folly of godlessness.

1. In the dark valley in which he must journey, he seizes, not upon the staff and support which could comfort him, but upon a stalk of straw; he makes a work of mans hands his consolation in life and in death: that is the height of folly.

2. He will hear nothing of death, and hates and persecutes him who reminds him of death: death comes, however; it is inevitable. To avoid every thought of death, and to escape from everything which may remind us of it, is the greatest folly, for we must all depart sometime (Psa. 39:5), and appear before Him who will give to each according to his deeds (Rom. 2:6).

3. He sends soldiers against the prophet who announces to him the judgment of God, and thinks that he can thereby set aside the judgment itself. But to attempt to do away with the truth of God, and to accomplish something perforce against the decision of God by means of human power and might, is the greatest folly.Krummacher.

2Ki. 1:2. By such mischance, besides diseases, men may be taken as a bird with a bolt, while he gazeth at the bow; which made Augustine say that he would not, for the gain of a million worlds, be an Atheist for one half hour, lest, in that time, death should seize him.

Let us pause for a moment, and read, from the case of Ahaziah, the impressive lesson that all our care, forethought, and caution cannot ward off accident, calamity, and inexorable death. He who escaped the Syrians venturous aim was laid low by an accidental fall from the platform of his palace in Samaria. He had probably been leaning against the screen or balustrade common on the tops of Eastern dwellings, when, overbalancing himself, the slender rail or latticework had given way. He fell on the tesselated pavement below, stunned and mangled, and he was carried to a couch from which he was never to rise. Age, character, rank, position, station can afford no exemption from such casualties, and from the last terminating event of all, the universal doom of dust. These royal robes encircled a body perishable as that of the meanest subject of his realm. The hand grasping that ivory sceptre, as well as the brawny arm of the strongest menial in his palace, must moulder to decay. Trust not in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth. He returneth to his earth. In that very day his thoughts perish. Poor and rich, the beggar and the prince, the slave and his master, Dives with his purple and gold, and Lazarus with his crumbs and rags, are on a level here. The path of glory and royalty, of greatness and power, leads but to the grave. The lattice on which the strong man leansthe iron balustrade of full health and unbroken energymay in a moment give way. Sudden accident or fever may, in a few hours, write Ichabod on a giants strength. The touch of the old slave in the conquerors triumphant car is never more needful than when we are moving through life, charioted in comforts, wreathed with garlands, regaled with music: Remember thou art mortal. And when accident or evil does overtake, it is our comfort to know that it is by Gods permission. It is He who puts the arrow on the bowmans string. It is He who loosens the balustrade in its sockets. It is He who makes the lightning leap from the clouds on its mortal errand. It is He who commissions the coral builders to rear the fatal reef. It is He who guides the roll of that destroying billow that has swept a loved one from the deck into a watery grave. Saddest of all is it when accident or sudden death overtake, without due preparation for the great change. How much nobler, wiser, happier, to anticipate the necessities of that inevitable hour, that whether our summons shall come by the fall from the lattice, or the gradual sinking and wasting of strength, we may be ready, in calm composure, to breathe the saying of the dying patriarch: I have waited for thy salvation, O God!Macduff.

Enquire of the God of Ekron whether I shall recover of this disease. Augury of the future.

1. Possible only to God.
2. Leads men to presumption and extravagance.
3. Highly offensive to God.

Many lessons might be drawn from that darkened chamber where lies the son of Ahab, arrayed in the last robe he will ever need. We mention only onethe folly of men when they forsake the ways of God, to pay homage to idols of any kind, or in hopeless attempt to unveil the future. As to the former, all the Ekrons of earthwhether pride of reason, or personal merit, or the general mercy of Godare only vanity and a snare; there is but one rock of hope, security, and strength, and that rock is Christ. As to the latterthe attempt to unveil the futurewe know what Saul made of it in his visit to Endor, and we have seen what Ahaziah made of it in his proposed message to Ekron. The present is ours, the future is Gods; let us be thankful and content. No doubt, at times, in anxious suspense, we should like a glimpse of the issue of certain affairs; but enough for our guidance, sufficient horoscope for all, that the great Bible principle is broadly set down: He that soweth to the flesh, &c. There is only one God who can answer the question, whether put by Ahaziah or any one else, Shall I recover of this disease? And yet we live still in an age of divination. It were useless, it were false to deny it. Happily, not so much in this country, but in France to some, and in America to a fearful extent, we are told of all manner of ways whereby to communicate with the other world, and, from the revelations received, to regulate in this our conduct, present and future. Spiritualism is pursued as a science, believed as a creed. It has its learned societies, its weekly journals, its priestesses and priests, its thousands of educated and rapt devotees. I would as soon think of doubting my own existence as call in question the facts of spiritualism, said a Unitarian minister from America. Why, through means of it we have brought hundreds of infidels to believe in another world. We shall not go into the subject at length, but must be permitted to say, that we can never understand why spiritual revelations are made only in the dark, and why the presence of a determined sceptic is always unfavourable to the manifestations. We feel constrained to add, that while we believe, from the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, that departed spirits do not forget their earthly history, that very parable assures us there is no possible mode for spirits, either good or bad, to communicate with the world they have left. Dives found it impossible, and hence desired Lazarus to send to his fathers house; Abraham spoke of it as both unprecedented and impossible: Neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead. Just men made perfect have other occupation than to be the tools of the clairvoyant; and lost spirits we may be sure are in no mood for such work. This revival of Pagan superstition would neither deserve mention nor serious refutation, were it not for the hold it is taking of the popular mind, especially in the United States, where we are amazed that a nation, so acute and quick-sighted in most other matters, should be juggled out of the truth of their English Bibles by raps upon tables, or the ridculous presagings of idle girls. Away with your mediums, their bandaged eyes and pencilled messages, hands waving in the air, and all the dark arts of this latest charlatanry, the most wretched and profane of all modern shams. God is His own interpreter; and neither to shrines at Ekron nor Boston, neither to Baal-zebub nor Daniel Home, will He give the power of unlocking the destinies of men.Howat.

If a man has once torn himself away from the living God and His word, he does not, as infidelity pretends, become wiser and more enlightened, but only too often he becomes the prey of the most insipid and foolish superstition. How many do not believe in a holy, omniscient, and just God, to whom they must give an account of all they do and leave undone, but, on the contrary, in ghosts, or in the word of a gypsy, and seize upon the most senseless means in need and sickness. It is possible to so lose God that one does not find Him even when face to face with death.Krummacher.

In a literal sense, the parallel to Ahaziahs folly can in vain be sought now in the changed aspects of the church and the world. The heathen oracles are dumb. The prince of darkness, who seems in former ages to have wielded, by means of these incantations, a mysterious power, has now changed his ground. But yet how many in another form have their Ekrons still? There is the Ekron of self-righteousnessthe pride of what they themselves have done, grounding their peace and confidences, alike for a living and dying hour, on some miserable fragmentary virtue of their own; their charities and alms-deeds and morallivesthe beggar proud of wearing some tinsel on his rags, the bankrupt proud of paying by farthings a debt which is accumulating by pounds and talents. There is the Ekron of proud reason. Men will not trust the simple word of the living God. The Bible doctrines, or, it may be, subordinate facts, do not square with their predilections and prepossessions, their preconceived notions and prejudices, and they send their imperious intellectual messengers to this haughty oracle. Happy are they who, spiritually enlightened, are not curious to know the process of cautery or cure, but who, gazing on the glorious uncurtained beauties of the moral world, before hidden from their view, can tell in the utterance of a simple faith: This one thing I know, that whereas once I was blind, now I see.Macduff.

2Ki. 1:3. The word of God is the sole, true, and correct oracle which we are to question and to take counsel of in every circumstance of life, and in all darkness and doubt. This generation, however, seeks light, wisdom, and truth amongst the Philistines, the wise and prudent of this world, who give out that the Word of the Lord is an old and unreliable book which no longer satisfies the existing grade of cultivation. They that will not enquire of the Word of God for their comfort shall be made to hear it, whether they will or no, to their amazement.Comprehensive Comm.

2Ki. 1:4-8. If the messenger had brought to the king a declaration of the fly-god, he would have accepted it with faith; but he rejected the word of the prophet because it did not conform to his wishes; nay, it even filled him with anger and plans of murder. Men value the falsehood which flatters their inclinations and wishes, higher than the truth which corrects them and demands sacrifices and penitence of them.Lange.

2Ki. 1:7-12.With the fall of Ahab a series of new characters appears on the eventful scene. Elijah still remained for a time, but only to make way for successors. In the meeting of the four hundred prophets at Samaria he was not present. In the reign of Ahaziah and of Jehoram he appears but for a moment. There was a letter, the only written prophecy ascribed to him, and the only link which connected him with the history of Judah, addressed to the young prince who reigned with his father Jehoshaphat at Jerusalem. There was a sudden apparition of a strange being, on the heights of Carmel, to the messengers whom Ahaziah had sent to consult an oracle in Philistia. They were passing, probably, along the haunted strand, between the sea and the mountain; they heard the warning voice; they returned to their master. Their description could apply only to one man; it must be the wild prophet of the desert whom he had heard described by his father and grandfather. Troop after troop is sent to arrest the enemy of the royal house, to seize the lion in his den. On the top of Carmel they saw the solitary form. But he was not to be taken by human force; stroke after stroke of celestial fire was to destroy the armed bands. They retired, and he disappeared. It was to this act, some centuries afterwards, not far from the same spot, that the two ardent youths appealed and provoked that Divine rebuke which places the whole career of Elijah in its fitting place, as something in its own nature transitory, precursive, preparatory.Stanley.

2Ki. 1:8. The faithful prophet. I. Has an unmistakable reputation. II. Is easily identified. III. Has great influence over the minds of others. IV. Is a guarantee of truthfulness in either threatening or promise.

2Ki. 1:9-14. The judgment by fire. I. A token of the indignation of heaven against idolatry. II. An answer to the stubborn daring of a godless king, and the insolence of his troopers. III. May be avoided by prayer and submission.

We have here not the act of revenge of a prophet who was instigated by personal jealousy, but an act of divine judgment, and a revelation of Gods wrath against all godlessness and wickedness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness. All judgments of God are represented in the Old Testament as a consuming fire (Num. 11:1; Num. 16:35; Deu. 32:22; Psa. 21:9; Isa. 26:11; Eze. 15:6-7; Job. 20:26). He Himself, even in His retributive justice, is called a consuming fire (Deu. 4:24; Deu. 9:3; Heb. 12:29; Heb. 10:27). It is therefore perfectly in accordance with the concrete and literal character which the Old Testament economy bears throughout, that this actual fire should be the form of revelation of the divine wrath, so that in many places we can hardly distinguish whether it is intended to be taken literally or figuratively. Just as once the rebellious host of Korah was consumed by fire, and so Moses authority as the servant of God was ratified (Num. 16:35); so the scoffing band of the idolatrous Ahaziah perished, and thereby the second Moses was corroborated as the man of God. As an act of divine judgment this catastrophe is rather a revelation of the highest moral intensitya testimony to the unchangeable justice and holiness of God. Whoever finds it shocking, must be still more shocked at the prophetic declaration, God is jealous, and the Lord avengeth; the Lord revengeth and is furious; the Lord will take vengeance on His adversaries, and He reserveth wrath for His enemies. Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of His anger? His fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by Him (Nah. 1:2-6).Lange.

2Ki. 1:9-12. Wherein consisted the grievous crime of these captains and their men, who merely executed the command of their master? According to the simple words of the text in the address, man of God. Most interpreters say, the captains had used this designation in a contemptuous or ironical sense. But this is not satisfactory. Two cases are conceivable: either the captains held Elijah to be no true prophet, and then their address, as an insult to the prophetic office in the person of a man whom God had acknowledged by so many miracles as His servant, was a direct insult to the Lord; or they held Elijah to be a true prophet, and then the summons to surrender himself, in order to be led bound to the king, was a direct and still more daring contempt of the prophet as well as of the Lord his God. In either case, therefore, the punishment was just. The captains did not merely what they as servants of the king were bound to do, but shared in the ungodly disposition of their sovereign, and with reckless audacity insulted the Almighty God in the person of the prophet. This wicked opposition to God the Lord is punished, and certainly not by the prophet, but by the Lord Himself, who realizes the word of his servant. Whoever, therefore, on account of this act charges the prophet with cruelty, does not reflect that this charge falls not on the prophets, but much rather on God the Lord.Kiel.

The time was when two zealous disciples would fain have imitated this fiery revenge of Elijah, and were repelled with a check; the very place puts them in mind of the judgment; not far from Samaria was this done by Elijah, and wished to be done by the disciples. So churlish a rejection of a Saviour seemed no less heinous than the endeavour of apprehending a prophet. Lord, wilt Thou that we command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, as Elias did? The world yielded but one Elias; that which was zeal in him might be fury in another: the least variation of circumstance may make an example dangerous; presently, therefore, do they hear, Ye know not of what spirit ye are. It is the calling that varies the spirit: Elijah was Gods minister for the execution of so severe a judgment; they were but the servants of their own impotent anger; there was fire in their breasts which God never kindled. Far was it from the Saviour of men to second their earthly fire with this heavenly. He came, indeed, to send fire upon earth, but to warm, not to burn; and if to burn, not to persons of men, but their corruptions. How much more safe is it for us to follow the meek prophet of the New Testament, than that fervent prophet of the Old! Let the matter of our prayers be the sweet dews of mercy, not the fires of vengeance.Bp. Hall.

2Ki. 1:9. Every servant of the Lord who is really earnest in his office must make up his mind that rude, low, and godless men will scorn him and name him Man of God in mockery. Although no fire from heaven falls down to destroy them, yet the Word of the Lord stands firm for all time: He that despiseth you, &c. (Luk. 10:16); and the Lord will not leave those unpunished who despise Him in His servants, and exercise their art upon the calling of reconciliation (Isa. 11:10-11).

Great rulers always find people who will lend themselves as instruments of their perverted will, who execute with exactness and without scruple what the king says; but do not trouble themselves at all about what God says.Lange.

Behold the true son of Jezebel! The anguish of his disease, the expectation of death, cannot take off his persecution of Elijah; it is against his will that his deathbed is not bloody. Had Ahaziah meant any other than a cruel violence to Elijah, he had sent a peaceable messenger to call him to the court. He had not sent a captain, with a band of soldiers, to fetch him; the instruments which he useth carry revenge in their face. If he had not thought Elijah more than a man, what needed a band of fifty men to apprehend one? and if he did think him such, why would he send to apprehend him by fifty? Surely Ahaziah knew of old how miraculous a prophet was; what power that man had over all their base deities; what commands of the elements, of the heavens! And yet he sends to attack him. It is a strange thing to see how wilfully godless men strive against the stream of their own hearts, hating that which they know good, fighting against that which they know divine. What a gross disagreement is in the message of this Israelitish captain! Thou man of God, the king hath said, Come down. If he were a man of God, how hath he offended? And if he hath justly offended the anointed of God, how is he a man of God? And if he be a man of God, and have not offended, why should he come down to punishment? Here is a kind confession, with a false heart, with bloody hands. The world is full of these windy courtesies, real cruelties. Deadly malice lurks under fair compliments, and, while it flatters, killeth.Bp. Hall.

2Ki. 1:10. This was a miracle of Divine judgment, and in perfect keeping with the spirit of the old dispensation. In this respect the new dispensation widely differs from the old (Luk. 9:51-56). But it must not be understood that when our Lord rebuked the two disciples, and showed them the difference between the Law and the Gospel as to the spirit of each, He thereby blamed this act of Elijahs. He blamed the two disciples who dishonoured Elijah by endeavouring to pervert his act into a precedent for a proposal which was altogether dissimilar to that act of Elijah in all the circumstances of the case. Elijah was Gods minister for executing His Divine judgment. The two disciples were but the servants of their own anger.Wordsworth.

2Ki. 1:12. Ahaziah could not fail by this time to be fully cognisant of these appalling judgments. He might possibly have ventured to put an Atheist construction on the death of the first fifty; that they had been victims of unhappy and untoward accident; that the lightnings, the capricious shafts from the quiver of nature, had by sad mishap fallen on the slopes of Carmel, where his soldiers were. But now that the very same catastrophe had overtaken the second relay, there could surely be little debate that a Higher Hand had put the bow on the string, and made ready the arrows. Blinded indeed must that dying monarch be, if he still refuse to desist from his mad, impotent rage. Alas! how much it takes to humble the proud heart! It is the saddest picture of moral apostasythe saddest exponent of the enmity of the unregenerate heartwhen even the king of terrors brings no terror to the seared conscience and indurated soul; the banner of proud defiance against God and His Christ waved, even when the awful gloom of mortal darkness is closing in all around!Macduff.

2Ki. 1:13-14. What marble or flint is harder than a wicked heart? As if Ahaziah would despitefully spit in the face of heaven, and wrestle a fall with the Almighty, he will needs yet again set a third captain upon so desperate an employment. How hot a service must this commander needs think himself put upon? Who can but pity his straits! There is death before him, death behind him. If he go not, the kings wrath is the messenger of death: if he go, the prophets tongue is the executioner of death. Many a hard task will follow the service of a prince wedded to his passion, divorced from God. Unwillingly, doubtless, and fearfully, doth this captain climb up the hill to scale that impregnable fort; but now, when he comes near to the assault, the battery that he lays to it is his prayers; his surest fight is upon his knees. This was the way to offer violence to the prophet of God, to the God of that prophet, even humble supplications. We must deprecate that evil which we would avoid; if we would force blessings, we must entreat them. There is nothing to be gotten from God by strong hand; anything by suit.Bp. Hall.

2Ki. 1:15-17. A memorable deathbed scene. I. A dying monarch faithfully warned. II. The fearless prophet alone in the midst of dangerous enemiessees no peril in duty. III. A baffled and disappointed king, unsubdued by suffering, dying in silence, in impenitence, in darkness.

The fifth of February, sixteen hundred and eighty-five, witnessed a sad scene in the palace of Whitehall. The second Charles lay in the last agony, while, amid the courtly circle around his bed, stood sancroft, archbishop of Canterbury, and Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells. The king is really and truly a Catholic, whispered the Duchess of Portsmouth to the French Ambassador, and yet his bed-chamber is full of Protestant clergymen. The fact had been long suspected, and gave additional earnestness to the holy men who desired to prepare the dying monarch for his inevitable and solemn change. It is time to speak out, sir, exclaims Sancroft, for you are about to appear before a Judge who is no respecter of persons. Will you not die in the communion of the Church of England? anxiously asks Ken. The king gave no response. On which the Bishop put forth all his eloquence, till his pathetic exhortation awed and melted the bystanders to such a degree, that some among them believed him to be filled with the same Spirit which in the old time had, by the mouths of Nathan and Elias, called sinful princes to repentance. To complete the parallel, we must notice another incident in the dying scene. If it costs me my life, exclaims the Duke of York, afterwards James II., I will fetch a priest. With some difficulty he is found. He is smuggled into the royal presence and the chamber of death. He is welcome, says Charles. The monarch who refused to listen to Sancroft. and Ken, has an open ear for Father Huddleston. The monarch who was unwilling to die in the Church of England, is perfectly willing to die in the Church of Rome. Apologising to his attendants that he has been an unconscionable time dying, he breathes his last, an apostate from the faith inseparable from Englands throne, and for his abandonment of which his own successor died an exile on the charity of a foreign land. Let Ahaziah take the place of Charles II.; let his idolatry be represented in the popery of the British monarch; let the application to the god of Ekron be symbolized in the welcome given the Romish monk; and, last of all, let Elijah by the bedside of the king of Israel, dealing faithfully with the soul departing there, be the type of good Sancroft and Ken by that other couch, using all their entreaties to make the sufferer think of his approaching endand the parallel is well-nigh complete.Howat.

2Ki. 1:15-16. A minister of God must not fear to hold up their sins before sinners and scoffers upon their death bed, and to draw their attention to the judgment of God, in order that, if possible, even in the last hour they may come to a knowledge of that which belongs to their peace, for to offer eternal blessedness to the rich and great, instead of calling them to repentance, is the worst trangression of a prophet; to conceal the approach of his end from one who is sick unto death, and to hold all thoughts of it from him, or even to console him with false hopes of recovery, is no genuine love; for no man can be properly prepared for death who does not think of it often and much.Lange.

2Ki. 1:17. His death, like that of the two companies of fifties, was a judgment from heaven. It would not do to punish these messengers of the king for insolence towards Jehovah and his prophet, and let the king himself go clear. So this impious monarch is made to drag out his last days under a consciousness of being an object of Jehovahs wrath.Whedon.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

B. THE ILLNESS OF AHAZIAH (2Ki. 1:1-8)

TRANSLATION

(1) Now Moab rebelled against Israel after the death of Ahab. (2) And Ahaziah fell through a lattice in his upper chamber which was in Samaria, and he was sick. And he sent messengers, and said unto them, Go inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron whether I shall recover from this sickness. (3) But the angel of the LORD said unto Elijah the Tishbite, Arise, go up to meet the messengers of the king of Samaria, and speak unto them, Is it because there is no God at all in Israel that you are going to inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron? (4) Now therefore thus says the LORD, You shall not go down from the bed to which you have gone up because you shall surely die. And Elijah departed. (5) When the messengers returned unto him, he said unto them, Why have you returned? (6) And they said unto him, A man came up to meet us, and he said unto us, Go, return unto the king who sent you, and speak unto him, Thus says the LORD: Is it because there is no God at all in Israel that you are sending to inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron? Therefore you shall not go down from the bed to which you have gone up because you shall surely die. (7) And he said unto them, What was the manner of the man who went up to meet you, and spoke unto you these words? (8) And they said unto him, He was a hairy man, and girt about with a leather girdle. And he said, He was Elijah the Tishbite.

COMMENTS

The division of the Book of Kings in the middle of the reign of Ahaziah is most unfortunate. The history of Ahaziahs reign began in 1Ki. 22:51 and is carried forward without any real break in the sense to 2Ki. 1:18. The division into two books at this point separates what the author obviously intended to be connected, viz., the crimes of this monarch and the consequent punishment which fell upon him. Because of his sins, calamity befell Ahaziah almost from the outset of his reign. A political calamitythe revolt of Moabis only briefly narrated, but the author has amplified the personal calamity which also befell this king.

After the death of Ahab the vassal state of Moab rebelled against Israel. The Moabites had been brought under subjection by the warlike Omri some forty years earlier. Under Ahab, they had been forced to pay to Israel exorbitant taxes. When Ahab was slain in the battle of Ramoth-gilead, Mesha king of Moab was encouraged to revolt. The clause then Moab revolted suggests that this rebellion came subsequent to and in consequence of the sinful disposition of Ahaziah (2Ki. 1:1).

A second calamity also befell the new king of Israel. Ahaziah accidentally fell through the lattice which enclosed his upper chamber. This shutter of interlaced woodwork would have been easily broken. As a result of this fall, the king was so injured that he lingered upon his bed hovering between life and death. In this desperate condition, the king sent messengers to Baalzebub, the god of the Philistine city of Ekron, to inquire as to whether or not he would recover. The king, of course, wanted more than just information; a favorable oracle from a deity would mean that the god would intervene on his behalf and raise him up. While it is no surprise to find the son of Jezebel preferring to consult Baal rather than Yahweh, it is somewhat surprising to find him sending to Ekron to consult this particular Baal god. Just why he chose Baal-zebub is unclear. Perhaps Baalzebub had a reputation for granting favorable oracular verdicts. On the other hand, perhaps Ekron was the nearest of the ancient Baal shrines. The name Baal-zebub means lord of flies. Apparently this particular Baal was thought to prevent plagues of flies, or else was thought to send such plagues against his enemies.[513]

[513] Gray (OTL, p. 463) feels that the proper name of the deity was Baal-zebulBaal the Princeand that the orthodox Jewish author deliberately changed the spelling to ridicule this deity.

For the second time (cf. 1Ki. 19:5; 1Ki. 19:7) an angel of God visited Elijah the prophet, instructing him to intercept the delegation which had been dispatched to Ekron. It is not clear where Elijah was at the time these instructions came to him, but from the fact he was told to go up, it has been inferred that he was probably down in the plain of Sharon, or perhaps the plateau between those plains and the mountains of Samaria. The actions of Ahaziah were a complete and absolute denial of the lordship of Yahweh. To consult a foreign oracle was tantamount to saying that the voice of God was wholly silent. By means of a penetrating rhetorical question, Elijah was to reflect the gravity of the royal apostasy to the messengers and ultimately to the king himself (2Ki. 1:3). The God of Israel did have a word for Ahaziah, albeit an unsolicited one. Because he had so grievously apostatized, God sentenced this king to die from the effects of his fall. Having received these divine instructions, Elijah departed to carry them out (2Ki. 1:4).

When the messengers returned so soon to the chamber of the sick king, Ahaziah knew that they had not completed their mission to Ekron. He therefore inquired of them as to the reason for their hasty return (2Ki. 1:5). Whether the messengers did not actually recognize Elijah or were merely withholding his name to be diplomatic cannot be ascertained. In either case the messengers reported to their master the message which the prophet had delivered to them (2Ki. 1:6). Ahaziah may have suspected already that this one who had been so bold as to announce the impending death of the king was that same man of God who had predicted the doom of his father (cf. 1Ki. 21:20-22). Fearing the worst, he inquired further concerning the man (2Ki. 1:7).

The messengers described the man of God as a hairy man (lit., a lord of hair). Some take this to mean that he was rough and unkempt with his hair and beard long. Others picture him as wearing a shaggy coat of untanned skin with the hair outward. The second unusual thing noted by the messengers was that this man of God wore a leather girdle as opposed to the more customary girdle of soft material. This brief description was enough for the king. The dreaded adversary of his father had suddenly reappeared (2Ki. 1:8).

Just why Elijah dressed the way he did has been the subject of no little discussion. Perhaps he was attempting to show contempt for earthly things. On the other hand, this garb may have been indicative of the sorrow of the prophet over the deplorable condition of his nation.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

1.

THE REIGN OF AHAZIAH CONTINUED.

EPISODE CONCERNING ELIJAH.

(1) Then.And.

Moab rebelled against Israel.David reduced Moab to vassalage (2Sa. 8:2; comp. 2Ki. 23:20). After that event, Scripture is silent as to the fortunes of Moab. It probably took occasion of the troubles which ensued upon the death of Solomon, to throw off the yoke of Israel. The famous Moabite stone suplements the sacred history by recording the war of liberation which Mesha, king of Moab, successfully waged against the successors of Ahab. The inscription opens thus: I am Mesha, son of Chemosh-gad, king of Moab the Dibonite. My father reigned over Moab thirty years, and I reigned after my father. And I made this bamah (high place, pillar) for Chemosh in Korha, a bamah of salvation, for he saved me from all the assailants, and let me see my desire upon mine enemies . . . Omri, king of Israel, and he oppressed Moab many days, for Chemosh was angry with his land. And his son (i.e., Ahab) succeeded him, and he, toe, said, I will oppress Moab. In m days he said (it), but I saw my desire upon him and his house, and Israel perished utterly for ever. And Omri occupied the land of Medeba, and dwelt therein, and (they oppressed Moab he and) his son forty years. And Chemosh looked (?) on it (i.e., Moab) in my days. From this unique and unhappily much injured record it appears that Omri had reduced Moab again to subjection, and that Ahab, who, like his father, was a strong sovereign, had maintained his hold upon the country. The death of Ahab and the sickness of Ahaziah would be Moabs opportunity. The revolt of Moab is mentioned here parenthetically. The subject is continued in 2Ki. 3:4-27. (See the Notes there.)

(216) A new and (according to Ewald and Thenius) later fragment of the history of Elijah.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

AHAZIAH’S SICKNESS AND REPROOF BY ELIJAH, 2Ki 1:1-8.

1. Moab rebelled The Moabites had been subjected to Israel in the time of David, (2Sa 8:2,) and until the death of Ahab were a tributary nation. 2Ki 3:4. This notice of the rebellion seems to be introduced here with an implied reference to the sickness of Ahaziah, which is immediately mentioned, as if it were one reason why no effort was made during this monarch’s reign to subdue the rebellion. The history of this revolt of Moab is resumed again at 2Ki 3:4.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

A Summary Of Ahaziah’s Life ( 1Ki 22:51 – 2Ki 1:1 ).

‘ And Moab rebelled against Israel after the death of Ahab.’

One of the consequences of this was that Moab, parts of which had been tributary to Israel for ‘forty years’ (per the Moabite Stone), since the time of Omri, rebelled and obtained their freedom. The news of Ahaziah’s accident might well have been the spur to Mesha of Mob to make the attempt, although preparations for the rebellion may well have commenced during the last days of Ahab. Ahab may well have intended to crush the rebellion after he had reclaimed Ramoth-gilead. Details of this rebellion by Mesha of Moab are also found in the Moabite Stone (from his point of view).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Reign Of Ahaziah King of Israel c. 853-852 BC ( 1Ki 22:51 – 2Ki 1:18 ).

Ahaziah, Ahab’s son and king of Israel, only had a short reign of a few months (two part years) but he amply succeeded during that short time in displeasing YHWH and bringing his wrath on him. He did this by walking in Ahab’s ways, and especially by consulting Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron, instead of YHWH, after he had had an accident. His attitude resulted in two of Elijah’s fiercest miracles. This is the reason why his short reign is given so much space in the account.

Analysis.

a Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria in the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and he reigned two years over Israel, and he did what was evil in the sight of YHWH, and walked in the way of his father, and in the way of his mother, and in the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, by which he made Israel to sin (1Ki 22:51-52).

b And he served Baal, and worshipped him, and provoked to anger YHWH, the God of Israel, according to all that his father had done, and Moab rebelled against Israel after the death of Ahab (1Ki 22:53 –2Ki 1:1).

c And Ahaziah fell down through the lattice in his upper chamber which was in Samaria, and was ill. And he sent messengers, and said to them, “Go, enquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron, whether I will recover of this illness” (2Ki 1:2).

d But the angel of YHWH said to Elijah the Tishbite, “Arise, go up to meet the messengers of the king of Samaria, and say to them, “Is it because there is no God in Israel, that you go to enquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron?” (2Ki 1:3).

e “Now therefore thus says YHWH, ‘You shall not come down from the bed to which you have gone up, but will surely die’ ” (2Ki 1:4 a).

f And Elijah departed. And the messengers returned to him (Ahaziah), and he said to them, “Why is it that you have returned?” (2Ki 1:4-5).

e And they said to him, “There came up a man to meet us, and said to us, Go, turn again to the king who sent you, and say to him, Thus says YHWH, Is it because there is no God in Israel, that you send to enquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron? Therefore you will not come down from the bed to which you have gone up, but will surely die” ’(2Ki 1:6).

d And he said to them, “What manner of man was he who came up to meet you, and told you these words?” And they answered him, “He was a hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins.” And he said, “It is Elijah the Tishbite” (2Ki 1:7-8).

c Three military units in succession were then sent to arrest Elijah and haul him before the king. But the first two were engulfed with fire at Elijah’s word. To the third, which humbled itself before him, he responded more compassionately, going with them to meet the king (2Ki 1:9-15).

b And he said to him, “Thus says YHWH, Forasmuch as you have sent messengers to enquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron, is it because there is no God in Israel to enquire of his word? Therefore you will not come down from the bed to which you have gone up, but will surely die” (2Ki 1:16).

a So he died according to the word of YHWH which Elijah had spoken. And Jehoram began to reign in his stead in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, because he had no son. Now the rest of the acts of Ahaziah which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (2Ki 1:17-18).

Note that in ‘a’ Ahaziah began his reign, and did evil in the sight of YHWH, and in the parallel he died according to the word of YHWH. In ‘b’ he served Baal and worshipped him, provoking the wrath of YHWH and in the parallel he is criticised for consulting Baal-ekron instead of YHWH. In ‘c’ the king sent his messengers to consult Baal-ekron, and in the parallel he received a threefold reply from Elijah. In ‘d’ YHWH sent a message through Elijah the Tishbite, and in the parallel the king recognises that his message has come from Elijah the Tishbite. In ‘e’ he was told that he would surely die, and in the parallel he was told the same. Centrally in ‘f’ Elijah stalked away from the messengers, while they returned and reported back to the king.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Reign of Ahaziah Over Israel (continued from 1Ki 22:51-53 ) (853-852 B.C.) 1Ki 22:51-53 records the story of Ahaziah reigning over Israel. This story is continued in 2Ki 1:1-18. We have the story of Elijah’s ascent to heaven added at the end in 2Ki 2:1-25.

2Ki 1:9-17 Elijah Calls Down Fire 2Ki 1:9-17 records the event of Elijah calling down fire upon the soldiers sent from the king to seize him. Elijah had seen the fire come down from heaven and consume the sacrifice on Mount Carmel. This event was fresh in his mind, his faith in God was strong, and He believed God could do it again.

The calling down of fire by Elijah’s actions was a defensive measure. In contrast, Jesus’ disciples wanted to call down fire from heaven in an offensive act (Luk 9:51-56), which is a different motive from what Elijah’s had.

2Ki 1:17 So he died according to the word of the LORD which Elijah had spoken. And Jehoram reigned in his stead in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah; because he had no son.

2Ki 1:17 Comments – Jehoram was the brother of Ahaziah and son of Ahab. Because Ahaziah did not have a son, his brother was appointed king over Israel in his stead.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Elijah Prophesies Ahaziah’s Death

v. 1. Then Moab rebelled against Israel, after having been tributary since the time of David, 2Sa 8:2, after the death of Ahab. The success of the Syrians, not only in regaining their independence, but in administering a severe defeat to the forces of Israel, had probably encouraged the Moabites to take this step.

v. 2. And Ahaziah fell down through a lattice in his upper chamber that was in Samaria, through a latticed window-opening such as were common in the Orient, and was sick, being severely injured by his fall. And he sent messengers, and said unto them, Go, enquire of Baal-zebub (Fly-god), the god of Ekron, the northernmost of the five Philistine city-states, whether I shall recover of this disease. So Ahaziah, probably at the advice of his wicked mother Jezebel, turned to the heathen idol for information and help, just as people in our days reject the truth of Scripture, but eagerly believe every form of superstition.

v. 3. But the Angel of the Lord, the son of God as He revealed himself in the Old Testament, said to Elijah the Tishbite, who was still active in his prophetic office, Arise, go up to meet the messengers of the king of Samaria and say unto them, Is it not because there is not a God in Israel that ye go to enquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron? It was a sharp question of earnest reproof for this new evidence of wickedness in the king.

v. 4. Now, therefore, thus saith the Lord, as a punishment upon the king for this new exhibition of idolatry, Thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die. And Elijah departed, namely, to carry out the command of the Lord.

v. 5. And when the messengers turned back unto him, the king of Israel, he, knowing that they could not have made the trip to Ekron in this short time, said unto them, Why are ye now turned back?

v. 6. And they said unto him, There came a man up to meet us, a man unknown to the messengers, and said unto us, Go, turn again unto the king that sent you, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Is it not because there is not a God in Israel that thou sendest to enquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron? The blame which was placed upon them all by the prophet they now lay upon the king alone. Therefore thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die.

v. 7. And he said unto them, What manner of man was he which came up to meet you, literally, “What was the manner,” the peculiarity, “of the man,” what special mark of distinction did you note in his dress or bearing, and told you these words?

v. 8. And they answered him, He was an hairy man, wearing a rough garment of camel’s hair, and girt with a girdle of leather, instead of the customary one of linen or cotton, about his loins. His entire dress and appearance thus proclaimed the preacher of repentance, reproving the luxury of the people of his days. And he said, It is Elijah the Tishbite, he recognized him at once from the description given. The position of preachers of repentance is not a pleasant occupation, but they are needed in every age of the world’s existence, especially also in these last days of sore distress.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

2Ki 1:1-18

THE REVOLT OF MOAB. THE ILLNESS, IMPIETY, AND DEATH OF AHAZIAH The narrative of the Second Book of Kings follows on that of the First Book in the closest possible sequence. The history of Ahaziah’s reign begins in 1Ki 22:51, and is carried on, without any real break or pause in the sense, to 2Ki 1:18. How the two books came to be divided at this point is quite inexplicable. The division is most unhappy. Not only does it, without apparent reason, draw a strong line of demarcation in the middle of a reign; but it separates what it was evidently the intention of the writer most closely to connectviz. the sins of the monarch and their punishment. Ahaziah began his reign by openly showing himself a devotee of Baalby “walking in the way of his father and in the way of his mother,” the wicked Jezebel: therefore calamity immediately smote himfirst Moab rebelled, threw off the Israelite yoke, and re-established its independence; and then, within a short space, Ahaziah himself met with an accident which produced a dangerous illness. The writer relates barely the former fact, but enlarges on the latter, which gave occasion for one of the most remarkable of the miracles of Elijah.

2Ki 1:1

Then Moab rebelled; literally, and Moab rebelled, but with an idea, not merely of sequence, but of consequence. The “Moabite Stone,” discovered in 1869, throws considerable light on the character and circumstances of this rebellion. Moab had, we know, been subjected by David (2Sa 8:2), and had been very severely treated. Either in the reign of Solomon, or more probably at his death, and the disruption of his kingdom, the Moabites had revolted, and resumed an independent position, which they had maintained until the reign of Omri. Omri, who was a warlike monarch, the greatest of the Israelite monarchs after Jeroboam, after settling himself firmly upon the throne of Israel, attacked the Moabite territory, and in a short time reduced it, making the native king, Chemosh-gad, his tributary. At the death of Omri, Ahab succeeded to the suzerainty, and maintained it during his lifetime, exacting a tribute that was felt as a severe “oppression”. The death of Ahab in battle and the defeat of his army encouraged Mesha, who had succeeded his father, Chemosh-gad, to raise the standard of revolt once more, and to emancipate his country after a period of subjection which he estimates roughly at “forty years.” The “Stone” is chiefly occupied with an account of the steps by which he recovered his territory. After the death of Ahab. Probably, as soon as he heard of it. In Oriental empires the death of a brave and energetic monarch is constantly the signal for a general revolt of the subject peoples. They entertain a hope that his successor will not inherit his vigor and capacity.

2Ki 1:2

Ahaziah fell down through a lattice; rather, through the lattice. It is implied that the upper chamber had a single window, which was closed by a single lattice, or shutter of interlaced woodwork. The shutter may have been insufficiently secured; or the woodwork may have been too weak to bear his weight, Compare the fall of Eutychus (Act 20:9), where, however, there is no mention of a “lattice.” Was sick; i.e. “was so injured that he had to take to his bed.” Inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron. As a worshipper of Baal, bent on walking in the evil way of his father and of his mother (1Ki 22:52), Ahaziah would naturally inquire of some form of the Baal divinity. Why he chose “Baal-zebub the god of Ekron,” it is impossible to say. Perhaps Baal-zebub had at the time a special reputation for giving oracular responses. Perhaps the Ekron temple was, of all the ancient sites of the Baal-worship, the one with which he could most readily communicate. Philistia lay nearer to Samaria than Phoenicia did, and of the Philistine towns Ekron (now Akir) was the most northern, and so the nearest. “Baal-zebub” has been thought by some to be equivalent to “Beel-samen,” “the lord of heaven”a divine title well known to the Phoenicians; but this view is etymologically unsound, since zebub cannot possibly mean “heaven.” “Baal-zebub” is “the lord of flies “either the god who sends them as a plague on any nation that offends him (setup. Exo 8:21-31), or the god who averts them from his votaries and favorites, an equivalent of the Greek , or the Roman “Jupiter Myiagrus,” flies being in the East not infrequently a terrible plague. The Septuagint translation, , though inaccurate, shows an appreciation of the true etymology. Of this disease; rather, of this illness ( , LXX.).

2Ki 1:3

The angel of the Lord. It would be better to translate, with the LXX; an angel (, not ). An angel had appeared to Elijah on a previous occasion (1Ki 19:5, 1Ki 19:7). Elijah the Tishbite. Arise, go up. Elijah was, apparently, in the low tract of the Shefelah, or in Sharon, when the messengers started, and was thus commanded to go up and meet them, or intercept them on their journey before they descended into the plain. God would not have the insult to his majesty, carried out. Is it not because there is not a God in Israel? rather, Is it that there is no God at all in Israel? The double negative is intensitive, and implies that the king’s consultation of Baal-zebub, god of Ekron, is a complete and absolute denial of the Divinity of Jehovah. To consult a foreign oracle is equivalent to raying that the voice of God is wholly silent in one’s own land. This was going further in apostasy than Ahab had gone (see 1Ki 22:6-9).

2Ki 1:4

Now therefore. The word translated, “therefore” () is emphatic, and means “for this reason,” “on this account.” Because Ahaziah had apostatized from Cod, God sentenced him to die from the effects of his fall, and not to recover. It is implied that he might have recovered if he had acted otherwise. And Elijah departed; i.e. quitted the messengers, showing that his errand was accomplishedhe had said all that he was commissioned to say.

2Ki 1:5

And when the messengers turned back; rather, when the messengers returned; i.e. when they reached the presence of Ahaziah, he perceived at once that they could not have been to Ekron and come back in the time. He therefore inquired of them, Why are ye now turned back? “Why have ye not completed your journey?”

2Ki 1:6

There came a man. It is not likely that the messengers did not know Elijah by sight. He was too prominent a person in the history of the time, and too remarkable in his appearance, not to have been recognized, at any rate by some of them. But they thought it best to keep back the prophet’s name, and to call him simply “a man” (ish)perhaps actuated by good will towards Elijah, perhaps by a fear for their own safety, such as had been felt by Obadiah (1Ki 18:8-14).

2Ki 1:7

What manner of man was he? literally, what was the manner of the man? What was his appearance? Were there any marks about him by which he might be recognized and known? Ahaziah may have already suspected that the man who had denounced woe on him would be the same who had denounced woe on his father (see 1Ki 21:20-22).

2Ki 1:8

A hairy man; literally, a lord of hair ( ). Some take the meaning to be that he was rough and unkempt, with his hair and beard long; and so the LXX; who give . But the more usual explanation is that he wore a shaggy coat of untanned skin, with the hair outward. Such a garment seems certainly to have been worn by the later prophets (Zec 13:4; Mat 3:4), and to have been regarded as a sign of their profession. But there is no positive evidence that the dress had been adopted by Isaiah’s time. Girt with a girdle of leather. Generally the Israelites wore girdles of a soft material, as linen or cotton. The “curious girdle” of the high priest’s ephod was of “fine twined linen,” embroidered with gold, and blue, and purple, and scarlet (Exo 28:8). Girdles of leather, rough and uncomfortable, would only be worn by the very poor and by the ascetic. Elijah may have adopted his rough and coarse costume, either to show contempt for things earthly, as Hengstenberg thinks; or as a penitential garb indicating sorrow for the sins of the people, as Keil supposes; or simple to chastise and subdue the flesh, as other ascetics. It is Elijah the Tishbite. The description given is enough. The king has no longer any doubt. His suspicion is turned into certainty. There is no living person hut Elijah who would at once have the boldness to prophesy the death of the king, and would wear such a costume as described. Elijah is, of course, his enemy, as he had been his father’s “enemy” (1Ki 21:20), and will wish him ill, and prophesy accordingly, the wish being “father to the thought.” It is not improbable that Elijah had withdrawn himself into obscurity on the accession of Ahaziah, or at any rate on his exhibition of strong idolatrous proclivities (Ewald), as he had done on more than one occasion from Ahab (1Ki 17:10; 1Ki 19:8). Ahaziah may have been long wishing to arrest and imprison him, and now thought he saw his opportunity.

2Ki 1:9

The king sent unto him a captain of fifty. “Captains of fifties” were first instituted in the wilderness by the advice of Jethro (Exo 18:21-25). Though not expressly mentioned in the military organization of David, they probably formed a part of it, and so passed into the institutions of the kingdom of Israel. With his fifty. Some recognition of Elijah’s superhuman power would seem to have led Ahaziah to send so large a body. His doing so was a sort of challenge to the prophet to show whether Ahaziah or the God whom he represented was the stronger. The circumstances recall those of the “band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees” (Joh 18:3), which was sent, “with swords and staves,” to arrest another righteous Person. He sat on the top of a hill; literally, on the top of the hill ( , LXX.). The high ground where Elijah had met the messengers (2Ki 1:3) seems to be intended. When they were gone, the prophet took his seat on the highest point, conspicuous on all sides, so avoiding any attempt at concealment, and awaiting the next step that the king would take, calmly and quietly. He spake unto him; Thou man of God. The captain is thought by some to have spoken ironically; hut there is no evidence of this. The address is respectful, submissive. The miraculous powers of Elijah (1Ki 17:22; 1Ki 18:38) were probably known to the officer, who hoped by the tone of his address to escape the prophet’s anger. In the same spirit he avoids issuing any command of his own, and prefers simply to deliver the king’s commandThe king hath said, Come down.

2Ki 1:10

And Elijah answered let fire come down. The LXX. render, “fire will come down;” and so some moderns, who are anxious to clear the prophet of the charges of cruelty and bloodthirstiness which have been brought against him. But there is no need of altering the translation, Elijah undoubtedly “commanded fire to come down from heaven” (Luk 9:54), or, in other words, prayed to God that it might come down, and in answer to his prayer the fire fell. The narrative may be set aside as an embellishment of later times, having no historical foundation, by those who (like Ewald) deny that miracles are possible; but, if it be accepted, it must be accepted as it stands, and Elijah must be regarded, not as having merely prophesied a result, but as having been instrumental in producing it. We must judge Elijah, not by the ideas of our own day, but by those of the age wherein he lived. He was raised up to vindicate God’s honor, to check and punish idolatry, to keep alive a faithful remnant in Israel, when all the powers of the earth were leagued together to destroy and smother true religion. He was an embodiment of the Lawof absolute, strict, severe justice. The fair face of mercy was not revealed to him. Already, at Carmel, he had executed the Divine vengeance on idolaters after an exemplary fashion (1Ki 18:40). Now, Ahaziah, the son of the wicked Jezebel, had challenged Jehovah to a trial of strength by first ignoring him, and then sending a troop of soldiers to arrest his prophet. Was Elijah to succumb without an effort, or was he to vindicate the majesty and honor of Jehovah? He had no power of himself to do either good or harm. He could but pray to Jehovah, and Jehovah, in his wisdom and perfect goodness, would either grant or refuse his prayer. If he granted it, the punishment inflicted would not be Elijah’s work, but his. To tax Elijah with cruelty is to involve God in the charge. God regarded it as a fitting time for making a signal example, and, so regarding it, he inspired a spirit of indignation in the breast of his prophet, who thereupon made the prayer which he saw fit to answer. The judgment was in accordance with the general tone and tenor of the Law, which assigns “tribulation and anguish to every soul of man that doeth evil” (Rom 2:9), and visits with death every act of rebellion against God. There came down fire. Josephus says that the “fire” was a flash of lightning (), and so the commentators generally.

2Ki 1:11

Again also; rather, and again (see the Revised Version). He answered and said; rather, he spoke and said ( , LXX.). Come down quickly. The king has grown impatient. It is conceivable that the death of the first captain with his band of fifty had been kept from him, and that he was only aware of an unaccountable delay. He therefore changes his order from “Come down” to “Come down quickly.”

2Ki 1:13

A captain of the third fifty; rather, the captain of a third fifty (see the Revised Version). This captain went upi.e. ascended the hill on which Elijah was still seated, and there fell on his knees, or bowed himself down, before the prophet, as suppliants were wont to do, beseeching his compassion. The fate of the two former captains had become known to him by some means or other, and this induced him to assume an attitude, not of command, but of submission. He acknowledged that the prophet held his life and the lives of his fifty men at his free disposal, and begged that they might be precious in his sight, or, in other words, that he would spare them. What response Elijah would have made, had he been left to himself, is uncertain. But he was not left to himself. An angel of God again appeared to him, and directed his course of action.

2Ki 1:15

Go down with him: be not afraid of him; i.e. “descend the hill with himhave no fear of him, accompany him to the presence of the king; do my will, and there shall no harm happen unto thee.” And he arose, and went down. Elijah showed no hesitation, no fear, no undue regard for his own personal safety. He had been contending for God’s honor, not for his own advantage. Now that God bade him contend no more, but yield, he complied promptly, and ceased all resistance.

2Ki 1:16

He said unto him; i.e. Elijah said to the king. Introduced into the royal presence, as a prisoner, perhaps fettered and chained, the prophet in no way lowered his tone or abated from the severity of his speech. Distinctly, in the plainest possible words, he warned the monarch that his end approachedhe would never quit the bed whereon he lay, but, because he had insulted Jehovah by sending to consult the god of Ekron, would surely die. Apparently the king, abashed and confounded, released the prophet, and allowed him to go his way. Thus saith the Lord. Elijah rehearses the words of the message which he had sent by the first of the three captains (see 2Ki 1:6). Thus saith the Lord, Forasmuch as thou hast sent messengers to inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron, is it not because there is no God in Israel to inquire of his word! Therefore thou shalt not come down off that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die. God’s determinations are unalterable.

2Ki 1:17

So he died according to the word of the Lord which Elijah had spoken. Not only did he die in consequence of his fall without once quitting his bed, but his death was, as Elijah had said, a judgment on his sin in sending to consult Baal-zebub.

REIGN OF JEHORAM.

2Ki 1:17

And Jehoramor, Joram LXX; “whom Jehovah exalts;” another evidence that Ahab did not regard himself as having abandoned altogether the worship of Jehovah (see the comment on 1Ki 22:40)reigned in his stead (“his brother,” , has probably fallen out after “Jehoram,” and requires to be inserted in order to give force to the last clause of the verse) in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat King of Judah. In 2Ki 3:1 it is said that Jehoram, the son of Ahab and brother of Ahaziah, began to reign over Israel in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat himself. The apparent discrepancy is reconciled by supposing that Jehoshaphat associated his son Jehoram in the kingdom in his seventeenth year, when he was about to enter upon the Syrian war, so that the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat was also the second year of Jehoram. It is certain that association was largely practiced in Egypt at a date long anterior to Jehoshaphat, and David’s proclamation of Solomon as king was an association, so that the explanation is not untenable. On the other hand, the difficulties of the chronology of 2 Kings are so numerous and so great as to defy complete reconciliation, and to lead to a suspicion that the numbers have either suffered extensive corruption, or have been manipulated by an unskillful reviser. Because he had no son; i.e. because he, Ahaziah, had no son, he was succeeded by his younger brother, Jehoram.

2Ki 1:18

Now the rest of the acts of Ahaziah which he did. These may have included some months of warfare against Mesha, King of Moab, who seems to have rebelled at the very beginning of Ahaziah’s reign (2Ki 1:1 and 2Ki 3:5). Mesha’s war of independence consisted of a succession of sieges, whereby he recovered one by one the various strongholds in his territory, which were occupied by the IsraelitesMedeba, Ataroth, Nebo, Jahaz, Horonaim, and othersexpelling the foreign garrisons, rebuilding or strengthening the fortifications, and occupying the cities by garrisons of his own. On one occasion, at the siege of Nebo, he declares that he killed seven thousand men. He found in the town a place of worship containing vessels, which he regarded as “vessels of Jehovah” (Moabite Stone, line 18); these he took? and dedicated them to Chemosh, the special god of Moab. How much of the war fell into the reign of Ahaziah, and how much into that of Jehoram his brother, is uncertain. Are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the tines of Israel? Mesha’s stone is a striking testimony to the contemporary record of historical events by the Palestinian monarchs of the time, which has sometimes been doubted.

HOMILETICS

2Ki 1:1-18

The short reign of Ahaziah: his sins, and their punishment.

For homiletic purposes we must attach to this chapter the last three verses of the First Book of the Kings. We find in that passage a short but very complete account of the general character of Ahaziah’s sins; we find in this chapter a tolerably full account of one great act of sin, and a clear declaration of the manner in which that act and his other sins were punished. It will be well to consider separately

(1) the sins;

(2) their aggravations; and

(3) their punishment.

I. THE SINS. These were three in number:

(1) walking in the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat (1Ki 22:52), or maintaining the calf-worshipthe hereditary will-worship of the northern kingdom, introduced by Jeroboam, the first non-Davidic king, and thenceforth continued uninterruptedly by each successive Israelite monarch;

(2) walking in the way of his fatherneglecting the worship of Jehovah, persecuting his prophets, practically proscribing the old religion, and probably ruling with harshness and cruelty; and

(3) walking in the way of his mother”serving Baal and worshipping him (1Ki 22:53), maintaining the Phoenician sensualistic cult, which Jezebel had introduced from Zidon (1Ki 16:31), and which was of a most demoralizing and debasing character. It was, primarily, under this third head that the special act of sin fell which forms the main subject of 2Ki 1:1-18.

II. THEIR AGGRAVATIONS. Ahaziah might have been expected to have learnt wisdom by experience, to have taken to heart the warning ‘furnished by his father’s life and death, and at least to have avoided the sins which had brought down upon the king and upon the kingdom so terrible a blow, so signal and severe a punishment. But, on the contrary, he went beyond his father in the great sin for which his lather was punished, viz. apostasy from Jehovah to Baal. Ahab had always been half-hearted in his irreligionhe would, and he would not; he strove to combine an acknowledgment of Jehovah with a practical devotion to his rival; he gave both his sons names which placed them under the protection of Israel’s true God; he at one time “humbled himself before Jehovah” and “fasted, and lay in sackcloth, and went softly” (1Ki 21:27, 1Ki 21:29); he consented to inquire of a prophet of the Lord at the request of Jehoshaphat (1Ki 22:9); he had no dealings, that we know of, with the foreign Baalistic temples or oracles which abounded in Phoenicia and Philistia, and thus did not, at any rate, parade his contempt of Jehovah in the eyes of the adjoining nations. Ahaziah acted differently. He was a consistent, thorough-faced, out-and-out idolater. Jehovah was nothing to him; Baal was everything. We ought, perhaps, to view it as some extenuation of his sin that he would naturally be influenced to some extent by his mother, whatever her character, and that the strong, firm, and fierce character of Jezebel would naturally influence him to a large extent. But men are not mere creatures of circumstances; they have the power to resist influences no less than to yield to them, and are bound to consider the nature of the influences surrounding them, and to resist such as they perceive to be bad. There is no evidence that Ahaziah offered any resistance at all to Jezebel’s influences. He was the weak son of a wicked mother, and simply “walked in her way,” As Ewald says, he “exhibited a far more decided inclination than Ahab had done to all sorts of heathenish superstitions”. He made a parade of his Baalistic leanings. He was obdurate and persistent, and despised warning after warning. A cruel hardness of heart, quite equal to his mother’s, is shown in his exposing to probable death a second and a third body of fifty men, rather than submit to Elijah, and own himself in the wrong. Thus he would appear to have reached, in his comparatively short life, a deeper depth of moral evil than his father in his longer one.

III. THEIR PUNISHMENT. The revolt of the subject kingdom of Moab was the first punishment which befell the apostate king. He had to determine, on ascending the throne, what line he would take in religious matterswhether he would maintain or abolish the Baal-worship, whether he would maintain or abolish the worship of the calves, whether he would persecute or protect the adherents of the Jehovistic religion. He decided to “walk in the way of his father and of his mother,” and at once the first blow fell Moab revolted, and was successful. The mere attempt at revolt might have happened in any case, for Mesha would naturally have seized such an opportunity as the death of Ahab under such circumstances offered. But the God of battles determines success or failure, and Mesha’s unbroken series of victories (Moabite Stone, lines 9-33) were the consequence of Ahaziah’s guilt. As usual, “for the king’s offence the people bled.” Seven thousand Israelite warriors were destroyed in one siege; the women and children were taken prisoners, and “devoted to Ashtar-Chemosh.” There was widespread and extreme suffering. This should not surprise us. There is a solidarity between a king and his people, which unites them almost indissolubly in their fortunes and in their sins. The people follow the king’s example, and, partaking in his guilt, naturally and justly partake in his punishment. The king’s second punishment was personal It was permitted that an accident should befall him. Sitting in an upper chamber, i.e. in one not upon the ground floor, which had a latticed window, opening out probably on a garden, he rashly leant against it, when the fastenings or the woodwork gave way, and he was precipitated to the ground. The hurt received was serious, and forced him to take to his bed, where he lay probably in much pain and discomfort. Here was an opportunity for considering his ways, for asking himself what was amiss in them, for mourning over the sins which he had committed (1Ki 22:52, 1Ki 22:53), and renouncing them and turning away from them. God’s judgments are sent to lead men to repentance. Prolonged lying on a sick-bed is especially favorable to meditation, self-examination, self-condemnation, penitence. But Ahaziah was obdurate. He thought nothing of the goodness of God in sparing his life, for the fall might well have been instantaneously fatal; he thought nothing of God’s mercy in giving him a time for reflection and amendment. He was merely impatient of his affliction, and anxious to have done with it. And in his impatience and obduracy he added sin to sin. Ignoring Jehovah and his prophets, through whom it was always possible to “inquire of the Lord” (1Ki 22:5-28), he makes his appeal to Baal. It is an ostentatious appeal. He sends a public embassy to consult the Baal of a foreign town. Then his final punishment is decreed. Hitherto his life had hung in the balancehis fate had been in the hands of him with whom are the issues of life and death, now his own act had shut the gate of mercy. The sentence went forth from the mouth of God’s prophet, “Thou shalt not come down off that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die.” Cut off in his youth, childless (2Ki 1:17), he pays the fitting penalty of obstinate persistence in sin, and, after weeks or months of suffering, “goes to his own place.” He “whom Jehovah upholds” becomes “he whom Jehovah destroys”destroys after a short reign of little more than a yeara reign disgraceful to himself and disastrous to his country.

2Ki 1:9-16

The spirit we are of-the old dispensation and the new.

I. THE SPIRIT OF THE OLD DISPENSATION. The spirit of the Law was strict, stern, inexorable justice. “Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image . Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his mother . Cursed be he that removeth his neighbor’s landmark,” etc. (Deu 27:15-26); “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death” (Exo 21:17); “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe” (Exo 21:24, Exo 21:25); “He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall surely be put to death” (Exo 21:12); “He that smiteth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death” (Exo 21:15); “He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, shall surely be put to death” (Exo 21:16); “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” (Exo 22:18); “Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death” (Exo 22:19); “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed” (Exo 22:20), etc. Man was so far gone from original righteousness, had so corrupted and depraved himself, that only by the strictest possible system, by the most solemn warnings, the most awful threats, and the sternest possible execution of the threats when the occasion came, could wickedness be repressed, crime prevented from becoming rampant, mankind be reclaimed, society saved. Hence the severity of the Mosaic code, the frequency of the penalty of death, and the strictness with which the penalty was in almost every case exacted. The first idolatry was punished by the death of three thousand by the sword (Exo 32:28). Nadab and Abihu, for offering strange fire, were destroyed by fire from heaven (Le 2Ki 10:1, 2Ki 10:2). When Korah, Dathan, and Abiram rebelled against Moses, the earth gaped and swallowed them up (Num 16:32). The iniquity of Peer was avenged by the slaughter of all the heads of the people (Num 25:4, Num 25:5). The sin of Gibeah cost the lives of twenty-five thousand Benjamites (Jdg 20:46). Elijah, in calling down fire from heaven upon the minions of an idolatrous tyrant sent to arrest him for declaring to their master the sentence of Jehovah, was but acting in the general spirit of the Law, which regarded all opposition to Jehovah as deserving of death, and looked upon the inspired prophets of God as the ministers of an avenging righteousness. From time to time some signal display of Jehovah’s anger against rebels and his power to punish them was requisite to preserve among the people any respect or reverence at all for true religion; and Elijah deemed that the time for such a display was now come. That the fire fell at his word showed that he had judged aright, and that his will reflected the Divine will and was in unison with it.

II. THE SPIRIT OF THE NEW DISPENSATION. The new dispensation opened with the proclamation of “peace on earth, good will toward men” (Luk 2:14). The curses of the Law were replaced by the Beatitudes” (Mat 5:3-10). The gentle and tender Jesus destroyed nothing but a single senseless tree (Mat 21:19). He went about doing good. He was “sent to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that were bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord” (Luk 4:18, Luk 4:19). When men rose up against him, when his life was attempted, before his hour was come, he was content by an exertion of his miraculous power to withdraw himself, to pass through their midst, and go his way. On one occasion he himself pointed the contrast between the two dispensations in the most distinct and remarkable manner. It was when he and his disciples were proceeding on a journey through this very district of Samaria, where Elijah had shown forth the justice of God, that his disciples, James and John, the “Sons of Thunder,” as they were called, desired to repeat the Tishbite’s act for the punishment of some Samaritans who would not permit him to enter their village. “Lord,” they said, “wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?” But they little knew the Master they addressed. Jesus “turned and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village” (Luk 9:51-56). “It was,” remarks Archbishop Trench, “as if he had said, ‘Ye are mistaking and confounding the different standing-points of the old and new covenants, taking your stand upon the oldthat of an avenging righteousness, when you should rejoice to take it upon the newthat of a forgiving love'”. The spirit of the Christian dispensation is seen especially in such commands as the following: “Resist not evil but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Mat 5:39); “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you” (Mat 5:44); “Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honor preferring one another” (Rom 12:10); “Recompense to no man evil for evil” (Rom 12:17); “Avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written; Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom 12:19-21).

HOMILIES BY C.H. IRWIN

2Ki 1:1-4

Seeking after strange gods: its cause and consequence.

We are here introduced to a kingly home. All the pomp of royalty is there. But it is not a happy home. To beta with, there is sickness in that home. Royalty, or rank, or riches cannot keep sickness out. Ahaziah had been looking through the window of his chamber, or, as some think, leaning over the frail baluster of wicker-work which ran round the roof on the inner or courtyard side, when the lattice-work gave way, and he was precipitated into the court beneath and seriously injured. But there are homes of sickness that are nevertheless happy homes. The sufferer is happy; the other members of the family are happy. Why? Because they all know that Jesus is there. They hear his voice saying, “It is I: be not afraid.” They took Christ into their house when all was going well with them, and they find that he does not leave them when sickness comes. But it was not so with Ahaziah. How a man will bear sickness depends a good deal on what his life and character have been when he was in health. This is true physically. It is true also in a moral and spiritual sense. The bad man is generally afraid of sickness. Yes; for he is afraid of death. What about Ahaziah’s previous history? We have it summed up in the closing verses of 1 Kings. “He did evil in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the way of his father, and in the way of his mother, and in the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin: for he served Baal, and worshipped him, and provoked to anger the Lord God of Israel, according to all that his father had done.” Oh, the tremendous influence of a bad example. Ahaziah was in alarm about this illness. He wanted to know if he was to recover. He had forsaken God when in health; perhaps he does not think that God would hear him now. Or perhaps he has been so hardened in sin that he really believes his heathen god can help him. So he sends messengers to inquire of Baal-zebub at Ekron, whether he would recover of his disease.

I. THE CAUSE OF SEEKING AFTER STRANGE GODS. What is the secret of that idolatry which in all ages has taken such a hold of the human heart? Why is it that such a people as the Hebrews, descended from one who lived so entirely under the power of the invisible God as Abraham didthey who in their Passover had a constant reminder of God’s existence and power, and in their ten commandments a constant reminder of his mind and will,why is it that they so far forgot God as to sink into the degrading worship of the heathen deities? Or, to bring it more home to ourselves and our own surroundings, why is it that men and women who know that Christ died for them, who therefore know the priceless worth of their immortal souls, who bear in the very name of Christian a constant reminder of the Son of God, and who have in the precepts of the gospel the highest code of morality ever taught to man,why, is it that they too forget God, reject his mercy, set at naught his counsels, and writ have none of his reproof? Why is it that in our Christian land so many are living in practical heathenism? Why are they so few who read the Bible, and, of those who do read it, so few who obey its teachings? Why so many thousands who never enter the house of God? Why is it that a really religious daily newspaper it is almost impossible to find, while nearly all our daily newspapers largely devote themselves to advance the interests of the theatre, the race-course, and the betting-ring? Truly it may be said that our nation has gone after strange gods. What is the secret of it all? Largely this, the love of what is seen, more than of what is unseen. This is at the root of all idolatry. It is this that makes men such an easy prey to sin. They are absorbed in the interests and pleasures of the body only. They forget the interests of the immortal soul. They live for the present, but neglect the future. They live for self, but neglect God. They lay up treasure on earth, but have no treasure in heaven. We see this love of what is seenthis going after strange godsin much of the philosophy of the present day. Men deny God, the God of the Bible, the intelligent, wise, powerful, provident, holy, loving Creator of the universe. And what do they substitute for him? A mere negation. At best matter or force. Here plainly they are absorbed in what is seen. They make a god of matter. They forget that only mind could produce mind, only soul could produce soul, that only an intelligent Being could produce the order and control the workings of the universe. Strange gods, indeedgods of which they have no certaintythey set up in place of the God of our Christian faith. We see this love of what is seen operating also in the case of the money-lover. It is not wrong to acquire wealth, provided it is rightly won and rightly used. But there are many who make a god of money. It occupies all their thoughts while they are awake. When they are asleep, they dream of it. Even the sabbath, supposed to be devoted to the worship of God, is often devoted to meditations on money and how to get it. Yet even for the present life there are things more precious than money. Men who sacrifice everything for money soon find that they have lost things which money cannot buy.

“The world with stones instead of bread
My hungry soul has always fed:
It promised health; in one short hour
Perished the fair but fragile flower.
It promised riches; in a day
They made them wings and flew away.
It promised friends; all sought their owns
And left my widowed heart alone.”

And then what shall we say of the folly of those who, while making ample provision for this short life, have made none for the life that is to come? “What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” Let us beware of making a god of money. We see the same love of what is seen entering even into the Church of God. There is too much tendency, even in the Christian Church, to worship earthly rank, to attend to the rich and neglect the poor. How often have our Churches made a god of custom, of the traditions of men, of public opinion, of expediency and worldly policy I Images and pictures are set up to aid in the worship of him of whom it is said that “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”

II. THE CONSEQUENCE OF SEEKING AFTER STRANGE GODS. “But the angel of the Lord said to Elijah the Tishbite, Arise, go up to meet the messengers of the King of Samaria, and say unto them, Is it not because there is not a God in Israel, that ye go to inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron? Now therefore thus saith the Lord, Thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die.” The strange deity that Ahaziah sought after had not served him much. Strange gods have never been much help to those who seek after them. They have not helped the heathen nations, but their degrading and demoralizing worship has always been a source of weakness and decay. It is the same with all the strange gods that men serve everywherewith all the passions and desires to gratify which they spend their energies and time. We read of King Ahaz that he turned away from the true God to serve the gods of Damascus, because Syria enjoyed prosperity. He said, “Because the gods of the kings of Syria help them, therefore will I sacrifice to them, that they may help me? But, says the Bible narrative, they were the ruin of him, and of all Israel” (2Ch 28:23). How many a man has done like Ahazturned his back upon God, and found that the strange gods whom he served proved to be his ruin! Many a man has lived without God when in health, who was very glad to seek him when sickness came and death was drawing nigh. It is told of a skeptic called Saunderson, who was a great admirer of Sir Isaac Newton’s talents, but who made light of his religion when in health, that when on his death-bed he was heard to say, in mournful entreaty, “God of Sir Isaac Newton, have mercy on me!” But, as many a one has found, it may be too late then to seek the Lord. Such are the consequences of seeking after strange gods. The same message which was sent to Ahaziah will one day be sent to usthis part at least: “Thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die.” The way to prepare for that message is to accept the messages of life. The way to prepare for sickness is so serve God while in health.C.H.I.

2Ki 1:5-16

Fire from heaven.

Ahaziah’s messengers were intercepted by Elijah. They brought back to Ahaziah the fearless prophet’s announcement of his doom. Elijah’s message was God’s message. He began it by “Thus saith the Lord.” The statement that Ahaziah would surely die was in reality the sentence of him who knows the future of every life, and in whose band is the breath of every human being, be he peasant or be he king. But such a terrible sentence had not brought Ahaziah to his senses. He does not begin to set his house in order. He does not prepare to meet his God as a guilty but penitent sinner. No; but when the messengers tell him of the strange interruption they bad met with, recognizing at once from their description that it was Elijah the Tishbite who had stopped them, he is filled with anger and defiance. He has defied God when in health; now he defies him from a bed of sickness. He sends forth a captain with a company of fifty men to lay hold upon the prophet. It was not the first time Elijah’s life had been threatened by royal sinners. When a man is fearless in rebuking sin, he must expect the hatred of impenitent sinners. Smooth words may win a fleeting popularity, but the friendship of this world is enmity against God. Popularity is dearly bought that is obtained at the sacrifice of truth, of conscience, and of duty. But Elijah’s life is safe in the hands of the Master whom he serves. Once before God had vindicated his own honor and Elijah’s faithfulness by sending fire from heaven to consume his sacrifice. In a similar manner now he defends Elijah and punishes his enemies. The incident is one which presents some difficulties. The study of it suggests many useful lessons.

I. FIRE FROM HEAVEN IS AN ACT OF JUSTICE. It may appear to some that these first two captains and their fifties were hardly dealt with. Some one may say, “It was their duty to obey. They were only executing the king’s orders. They were not responsible for the message which they brought from the king to Elijah. It was hard, then, that they should suffer for doing that which it was their duty to do.” These are very plausible statements. Let us examine them a little more closely. Let us remember that man is not a mere machine. Every man has an immortal soul, coming from God, going back to God, and accountable to God for its actions. There is such a thing as individual personal responsibility. No external circumstances, no position in life, can ever take away that responsibility. These captains and their men were bound to do their duty to their king. Yes; but not in defiance of the Law and power of God. Where the will of man or the word of man comes into conflict with the will or Word of God, then it is the duty of every human being to say, “We ought to obey God rather than men” These officers and soldiers were really encouraging Ahaziah in his guilt. They knew that he was an idolater. They knew that he was a worshipper of Baal. They knew that the man whom he was sending them to arrest was a servant of the most high God, and his foremost living prophet. They knew of the sentence which had already been pronounced against Ahaziah. Yet here, at his bidding, they go forth as the instruments of his defiance against the living God. They were sharers in his guiltparticipes criminis. They were personally guilty before God. We can never shift our own responsibility on to the shoulders of others. It did not make Adam’s guilt less that he accused Eve, or Eve’s guilt less that she accused the serpent. They were intelligent beings, with the power of free choice. Our plain duty is, if we are in any position or business which requires us to violate the Law of God, at once to give it up. God says, “Them that honor me I will honor.” Moreover, they had already been warned of the sin and danger of resisting God. They knew how the prophets of Baal had been slain. They knew how Elijah’s prophecyin other words, God’s sentenceagainst Ahab had come true, that where the dogs licked the blood of Naboth, there they would lick the blood of Ahab, and they knew that a similar doom was foretold against Jezebel. Yet in spite of all these warnings they went forth against the prophet of God. So the sinner has many warnings. How often God’s Word and God’s messenger have called him to repentance! Perhaps by sickness and suffering he has had reminders of approaching death. By sudden bereavement he has been reminded that “in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.” Let him beware of turning a deaf ear to the warning voice. “See that ye refuse not him that speaketh.” Further, when we are considering the justice of this fire from heaven, let us remember that the life of God‘s most useful servant was at stake. It is pretty certain that Ahaziah, when he sent for Elijah, wanted to take his life. It is pretty certain also that, had Elijah gone with either of the first two captains, his life would have been in danger. It was only after the third time of sending that God said to Elijah, “Be not afraid of him.” It was only then, perhaps, that Ahaziah realized the uselessness of fighting against God. We hold by the principle that life should not be recklessly sacrificed. But if we are disposed to speak of this incident as reckless sacrifice of life, let us remember what hundreds of lives have been imperiled and sacrificed more than once, even for the sake of a single British subject. No right-minded person would condemn the sending forth of soldiersmany of them to certain deathin such a case as that of Abyssinia, where the lives of British subjects were in danger, or that of the attempted rescue of General Gordon. Before we can cherish a suspicion of injustice against the dealings of God, let us be sure that we have fight and reason on our side. A full examination of all the circumstances will generally banish even such a suggestion from our minds. But, then, there are many cases where we cannot possibly understand or know all the circumstances. In such a case, is it not the only course we can take to bow in submission to the all-wise will of God? “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” For all these reasons I conclude that the fire which came down from heaven upon these soldiers was an act of justice.

II. FIRE FROM HEAVEN IS AN ACT OF NECESSITY. More than one reason has already been suggested why this fire from heaven was necessary. It may have been necessary in defense of the prophet’s life. It may have been necessary in vindication of the power and honor of God; for it took place at a time of almost universal idolatry and Baal-worship on the part of Israel. This, however, we may be sure of, that, whether we can see the necessity for it or not, fire from heaven is necessary, or God would not send it. There are three uses, which fire serves in the natural world, for which analogies may be found in the spiritual world. These are purifying, destroying, and testing. We need the cleansing fires to purify us in the spiritual life. Perhaps we are becoming too worldly, too much engrossed with the things of this life, laying up for ourselves treasures upon earth. Perhaps we are making an idol of some earthly object of our affection. Perhaps we are becoming spiritually proud. Perhaps we compare ourselves favorably with others, and think how much better we are than they. Then our heavenly Father may think it wise to purify us from such dross as this. And so he calls us to pass through the furnace of affliction, or adversity, or sickness. Thus he humbles us. Thus he keeps us mindful that we are but dust. Thus he keeps us mindful of our dependence upon him. Then the destroying fire is needed in the moral and spiritual world, as well as in the natural world. It was a necessary part of the Divine government that Sodom and Gomorrah should be destroyed. They were a moral plague-spot. The festering limb must be cut off if the body is to be saved. So also Herculaneum and Pompeii were destroyed when they too became a center of moral degradation and corruption. Would it be any wonder, would it be any injustice, if the fire of God would come down from heaven and burn up some of the moral plague-spots of modern times? Would not the world be vastly the better if the gambling-hells and drinking-hells and hells of immorality were burnt up in one vast conflagration? And if they are spared, and if the moral corrupters of others are spared, will it be any better for them in that day when “the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death”? Then there is the testing fire. This also is necessary in the spiritual world. “Wherein ye greatly rejoice,” says the Apostle Peter, “though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations, that the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honor and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ” (1Pe 1:6, 1Pe 1:7). If there were no trials and difficulties, there would be no test, no proof of our faith. And then the time is coming when the firethe searching, testing fire of God’s judgmentshall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If our life is built up on Christ, then out of the purifying fire it will come clearer and brighter, from the destroying fire it will suffer no harm, and from the testing fire it will come forth to honor and glory. “Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father” (Mat 13:43).

III. FIRE FROM HEAVEN IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE DIVINE MERCY. Here we may consider a difficulty which some have raised. When Jesus, on his way to Jerusalem, passed through a village of the Samaritans, the people there would not receive him, “because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.” The disciples, in anger, asked him if they should command fire to come down from heaven, as Elijah did, and consume them. The answer of our Savior was, “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them” (Luk 9:51-56). Now, the question which some have asked is thisDoes not Christ here condemn the action of Elijah? A careful study of the narrative before us would at once dispose of such a question as that. It is said here, “The fire of God came down from heaven.” Even if this were not stated, it is obvious that Elijah of himself had no power to bring down fire from heaven, unless with God’s sanction and assistance. But a great many commentators and preachers, who would not go the length of saying that Christ condemned Elijah, seem to suggest that he condemned his spirit, as unsuited to gospel times. Even for this suggestion I do not think there is any warrant. Our Savior condemned the disciples for a spirit of vindictiveness and revenge, which probably was intensified by the feeling of prejudice and animosity which existed against the Samaritans. He also stated that he was not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. His work, then, was one of salvation. But those who rejected his salvation were certainly to perish. More than once Christ in the clearest manner teaches this. “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” He foretells the doom of Jerusalem. He foretells the terrible agony of lost souls, who shall go away into everlasting fire; “there shall be the wailing and the gnashing of teeth.” The action of retributive justice, therefore, is perfectly consistent with mercy toward the sinner. The consuming fire may be part of a merciful and loving purpose toward the world at large. In the particular case before us, we see that mercy was exhibited as well as justice. The third captain, who showed a humble spirit, and apparently some regret at the work he had to do, was mercifully spared the fate, which had fallen upon the other two. While we speak of the consuming fire of God’s justice, we would speak also of mercy for the penitent, of forgiveness, full and free, for every anxious soul, for every returning wanderer. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.”C.H.I.

HOMILIES BY D. THOMAS

2Ki 1:1-8

Worldly royalty and personal godliness.

“Then Moab rebelled against Israel,” etc. The two Books of Kings, which form but one in the most correct and ancient edition of the Hebrews, whilst they constitute a very strange and significant history, are fraught with much moral and practical suggestion. These verses bring under our notice two subjects of thoughtworldly royalty in a humiliating condition, and personal godliness truly majestic.

I. WORLDLY ROYALTY IN A HUMILIATING CONDITION.

1. Here is a king in mortal suffering. “And Ahaziah fell down through a lattice in his upper chamber that was in Samaria, and was sick.” Nature has no more respect for kings than for beggars; her laws treat them as ordinary mortals.

2. Here is a king in mental distress. On his bed of suffering the king’s mind was most painfully exercised as to what would be the issue of his bodily suffering. He sends messengers to the idols in order to ask whether “I shall recover of this disease.” No doubt the fear of death distressed him, as indeed it distresses most.

3. Here is a king in superstitious darkness. He had no knowledge of the true God, no enlightened religious feeling, and he sent his messengers to an idolthe god of flies-to know whether he should recover or not. What a humiliating condition for royalty to be in! And yet it is a condition in which kings and princes are often found. The other subject of thought here is

II. PERSONAL GODLINESS TRULY MAJESTIC. Elijah is an example of personal godliness, though, in a worldly sense, he was very poor, and his costume seemed to be almost the meanest of the mean. “He was a hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins.” But see the majesty of this man in two things.

1. In receiving communication from heaven. “But the angel of the Lord said to Elijah the Tishbite.” A truly godly man is ever in correspondence with Heaven; his “conversation is in heaven.”

2. In reproving the king. “Is it not because there is not a God in Israel, that thou sendest to inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron?” The thing called religion in many countries is just strong enough to reprove the poor, but too weak to thunder reproof into the ear of the corrupt and pleasure-seeking monarchs. In his reproof he pronounces on him the Divine judgment, “Thou shalt not come down off that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die.”

CONCLUSION. Which is the better, do you thinka throne or a godly character? Fools only prefer the former; the man of sense, thoughtfulness, and reflection would say the latter.D.T.

2Ki 1:9-18

Man in three aspects.

“Then the king sent unto him a captain of fifty,” etc. In this paragraph we have man in three aspects.

I. MAN RUINED THROUGH THE CONDUCT OF OTHERS. The messengers which the king sent to Elijahfifty each time on three different occasionswere all, except the last fifty, destroyed by lightning. This awful judgment came upon them, not merely on their own accountalthough, like all sinners, they had forfeited their lives to eternal justicebut as messengers of the king. Throughout the human race, in all races and times, there are found millions groaning under the trials and sufferings brought on them by the conduct of others. In this world the innocent suffer for the guilty; the “fathers eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.”

II. MAN EMPLOYED AS THE EXECUTOR OF DIVINE JUSTICE. These hundred men, messengers from the king, were struck down by Elijah at the command of God. There was no personal vengeance in the act. Elijah was used as the organ of Heaven. God’s plan in this world is to punish as well as to save man by man. How was Pharaoh punished, and the Canaanites, etc.? By man. Sinful nations are punished, often by worthless kings and ruthless despots.

III. MAN STEPPING INTO THE PLACE OF THE DEAD. The King Ahaziah dies; Jehoram steps into his place. “So he died according to the word of the Lord which Elijah had spoken. And Jehoram reigned in his stead.” “One generation cometh, and another passeth away.” Places, positions, and the various offices of life are no sooner vacated by death than they are stepped into by others. Thus the world goes on, and the dead are soon forgotten. The greatest man on earth today is but a mere bubble on the great river of human life; he sparkles for a moment, and is lost forever in the abyss.D.T.

HOMILIES BY J. ORR

2Ki 1:1

The revolt of Moab.

(On this cf. 2Ki 3:1-27.) Moab, one of the conquests of David (2Sa 8:2), perhaps regained its independence after the death of Solomon, and, if the Moabite Stone can be trusted, was again subdued by Omri, Ahab’s father. Now, on the occasion of the death of Ahab, it renewed the attempt to throw off the Israelitish yoke.

1. The original conquest had been not unstained by cruelty. These things burn into the memory of peoples.

2. The rule of Omri and Ahab had been most oppressive (2Ki 3:4). Nothing else could be expected from these godless monarchs. “The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel” (Pro 12:10). Half the rebellions and revolutions in the world have their origin in oppression and misgovernment.

3. Ahab and Israel had just sustained a severe defeat, that viz. at the hands of the Syrians (1Ki 22:1-53.). This weakened the Israelitish power, and gave a favorable opportunity for revolt. Those whom we hold in subjection by force, not love, cannot be blamed if they take the earliest opportunity to get rid of our yoke.

4. Israel and Moab were divided by religion. This is the deepest ground of severance among peoples, Nationalities based on different religious faiths constantly tend to fall asunder. Any unity in which they are held can be only external. The federation of the race can only be accomplished on the basis of the worship of the One Jehovah, and the one Lord Jesus Christ.

5. God used these revolts as a means of chastisement (cf. 1Ki 11:23). Under David, the greatest theocratic ruler, the kingdom was built up, consolidated, extended. The revolt from God, both in Judah and Israel, was signalized by the revolt of dependencies. Will our own Britain hold its foremost position among the nations, or will its greatness too decay, and its power be shorn by successive breaking off of its colonies? The answer, we believe, will depend very much on its fidelity to God.J.O.

2Ki 1:1-8

Ahaziah’s sickness.

Son of a doomed house (1Ki 21:29), Ahab’s successor on the throne reigned for two inglorious years. His evil character is described in the words, “He walked m the way of his father, and in the way of his mother, and in the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin” (1Ki 22:52). A weak ruler, he was probably the mere tool of his mother Jezebel, whose worst qualities he inherited. In determined idolatry, open defiance of Jehovah, and vindictive persecution of God’s servants, as shown by his attempt on the life of Elijah, he is the true child of the “cursed woman” (2Ki 9:34). Even on his death-bed he shows no such compunction as occasionally visited his father Ahab (1Ki 21:27). Undeterred by examples and warnings, he “hardened his neck’ in a way which led to his being “suddenly destroyed” (Pro 29:1).

I. THE FATAL FALL. The faineant king came to his end in a manner:

1. Sufficiently simple. Idly lounging at the projecting lattice-window of his palace in Samariaperhaps leaning against it, and gazing from his elevated position on the fine prospect that spreads itself aroundhis support suddenly gave way, and he was precipitated to the ground, or courtyard, below. He is picked up, stunned, but not dead, and carried to his couch. It is, in common speech, an accidentsome trivial neglect of a fasteningbut it terminated this royal career. On such slight contingencies does human life, the change of rulers, and often the course of events in history, depend. We cannot sufficiently ponder that our existence hangs by the finest thread, and that any trivial cause may at any moment cut it short (Jas 4:14).

2. Yet providential. God’s providence is to be recognized in the time and manner of this king’s removal. He had “provoked to anger the Lord God of Israel” (1Ki 22:53), and God in this sudden way cut him off. This is the only rational view of the providence of God, since, as we have seen, it is from the most trivial events that the greatest results often spring. The whole can be controlled only by the power that concerns itself with the details. A remarkable illustration is afforded by the death of Ahaziah’s own father. Fearing Micaiah’s prophecy, Ahab had disguised himself on the field of battle, and was not known as the King of Israel. But he was not, therefore, to escape. A man in the opposing ranks “drew a bow at a venture,” and the arrow, winged with a Divine mission, smote the king between the joints of his armor, and slew him (1Ki 22:34). The same minute providence which guided that arrow now presided over the circumstances of Ahaziah’s fall. There is in this doctrine, which is also Christ’s (Mat 10:29, Mat 10:30), comfort for the good, and warning for the wicked. The good man acknowledges, “My times are in thy hand” (Psa 31:15), and the wicked man should pause when he reflects that he cannot take his out of that hand.

3. Irremediable. From the bed to which he had been carried up, the king was never to rise. The injury he had received was fatal. Yet a little space was given himeven himfor repentance. His fall might have produced immediate death. These few remaining days, when the sands were running out, were, however, only to demonstrate further his incorrigibility of nature.

II. THE MESSAGE TO EKRON. A sick-bed, with the possibility of the sickness proving fatal, tests most men. It tested Ahaziah. We note in his behavior the following instructive facts:

1. He was moved to apply to some god. Not, indeed, in hope of a cure, but only to obtain information as to the issue of his illness. He sent to consult an oracle, not to ask a blessing. But even in this there is seen the desire for supernatural help, for direct intercourse with the invisible, which men so often feel in their hour of trouble. It was a dark hour for Ahaziah. Life hung in the balance, and he shrank from death with a great dread. He could not wait for the verdict of events, but would fain wrest the secret from a heathen shrine. Piety can afford to leave the issue in God’s hands. Impiety dare not do this, and can find no comfort save in the assurance of recovery.

2. He did not apply to Jehovah. Was there not a God in Israel to inquire of? Ahaziah knew very well that there was, and that there were prophets, like Micaiah and Elijah, who would tell him the truth. It need not be questioned that it was an evil conscience, and that only, which kept him from applying to Jehovah. He knew how impiously he had behaved towards Jehovah. He perfectly well understood what kind of reception he would receive from the prophets, and in what language they would address him. He anticipated the nature of the sentence they would pronounce. He dared not, therefore, inquire of the Lord. So when men, in their distress, feel impelled to go to God, they are often held back by the remembrance of past wickedness. They know, if they come, it must be with changed hearts and the renouncing of evil deeds, and for this they are not prepared.

3. He applied to the god of Ekron. Baal-zebub”lord of flies,” as the word means. The oracle of this god had probably some local repute, which led him to select it. Here comes in the element of superstition. The craving after the supernatural in human nature is not to be stilled, and, if it cannot be gratified in a lawful, it will seek gratification in some unlawful way. Saul, forsaken of God, turned to the witch of Endor (1Sa 28:6, 1Sa 28:7). “A notorious infidel like Philippe Egalite, though in other respects a man of ability, could yet try to presage his fate by the sort of cup-augury involved in examining the grounds of coffee” The Roman world, in the time of the apostles, was not more characterized by its educated skepticism than by the influx into it of every kind of superstition (cf. Farrar’s ‘St. Paul,’ 2Ki 19:1-37.; Conybeare and Howson, 2Ki 5:1-27.). In our own day, multitudes professing disbelief in God’s revelation turn with eager credulity to the delusions of spiritualism. It was to supersede unlawful modes of consulting the invisible world that God gave “the sure word of prophecy” (Deu 18:9-22).

III. THE UNEXPECTED MEETING. The messengers speed on their way to the shrine of Baal-zebub at Ekron, but their steps are soon to be arrested. Here we notice:

1. A new task for Elijah. “The angel of the Lord said to Elijah the Tishbite, Arise, go up to meet the messengers of the King of Samaria.” The medium of communication is, perhaps, the historical angel of the covenanthe of whom God had said, “Provoke him not, for he will not pardon your transgressions, for my Name is in him” (Exo 23:21). The Divine side of the calamity which had befallen Ahaziah comes to light in this message by the prophet. Ahaziah had forgotten God, but God had not forgotten him. He is the “jealous God” (Exo 20:5), who takes the Vindication of his honor into his own bands.

2. A surprise for the messengers. Elijah’s appearances partake everywhere of the nature of a dramatic surprise. He comes no one knows whence; he departs no one knows whither. His personality was impressive”a hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins” (2Ki 1:8). Suddenly he confronts the messengers, and puts to them the ironic question, “Is it not because there is not a God in Israel that ye go to inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron?” It is rare that, in fleeing from the path of duty, we do not meet God in the way in some form. Balaam on his journey to the King of Moab; Jonah fleeing from the presence of the Lord to Tarshish; Elijah himself when he fled to Horeb, hearing the voice of the Lord, “What doest thou here, Elijah?” (Num 22:22; Jon 1:1-17.; 1Ki 19:9).

3. Evil tidings for Ahaziah. The messengers need go no further. The information they sought at Ekron was given them, unasked, from a surer source. An oracle had spoken, but not the one to which they were sent. Ekron’s reply was anticipated by Jehovah’s: “Now therefore thus saith the Lord, Thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die.” Unhappy monarch I God hath spoken, and no other can reverse it (Num 23:20).

IV. THE RETURN TO THE KING. There was that in the appearance, manner, and language of this man who had crossed their path like an apparition which convinced the messengers that God had spoken through him. They accordingly returned at once to the sick king. A few words of explanation sufficed to put him in possession of the circumstances. A guilty conscience is swift to comprehend in such matters. With unerring precision the king’s thoughts interpreted the riddle of the mysterious prophet. “What manner of man was he which came up to meet you, and told you these words?” “It is Elijah the Tishbite.” Ahaziah knew what that meant. His feelings would be those of his father Ahab when he exclaimed, “Hast thou found me, O mine enemy?” (1Ki 21:20). The appearance of Banquo’s ghost at the banquet was not more terrible to Macbeth than this crossing of his path by Elijah was to Ahaziah at that moment. HIS sins had found him out. However long the lane of wickedness may be, we may be sure the Avenger stands at the end of it.J.O.

2Ki 1:9-16

The prophet of fire.

The act of Elijah, in calling down fire from heaven on his enemies, is thus remarked upon by Dean Stanley, with reference to Christ’s allusion to it in the gospel (Luk 9:51-56). “When the two apostles appealed to the example of Elijah ‘to call down fire from heaven,’ he to whom they spoke turned away with indignation from the remembrance of this act, even of the greatest of his prophetic predecessors”. We cannot endorse this remark. Jesus, indeed, gently rebuked his disciples, telling them they did not know what manner of spirit they were of, and reminding them that the Son of man was not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. But he did not mean to imply that the spirit which Elijah showed was, in its own time and place, wrong. It was a pure and holy zeal for God’s honor, and God sanctioned it by sending the fire. Only there was a better and higher spirit-the spirit of love and grace in Christ; and it was by this the disciples of Christ ought to have been actuated. What was congruous with the old dispensation was not necessarily congruous with the higher spirit of the new. Christ may have intended to suggest also that the disciples were mistaken in thinking that their spirit was exactly that of the Old Testament man of God. He was moved solely by regard for God’s honor; in their case personal anger and resentment probably gave an impure tinge to their passion.

I. BEDCHAMBER REVENGE. It is pitiable to see this sick king, within a few hours of his death, instead of humbling himself in repentance, stretching out his puny arm to do battle with God in the person of his messenger. If he must die, he is resolved that Elijah shall die also. This resolve is:

1. A sign of character. It shows the thoroughly hardened and irreligious nature of the man. There are no limits to a sinner’s madness in warring against God.

2. An act of infatuation. Knowing what he did of the prophet’s history, he might have understood that his enterprise was hopeless. He may have reasoned that, as the blood of prophets had been spilt before (1Ki 18:4), so it might be spilt again. But he was now crossing a prophet in the direct discharge of his duty, and was thus, in a sense, giving a direct challenge to God. “Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth” (Isa 45:9). A knowledge of the perilousness of the task in which he was embarking is shown in the fact that a band of fifty men is sent to arrest one prophet (cf. Joh 18:3). If a band was necessary, it could only be because Elijah had supernatural aid to rely on; and, if he had that aid, no amount of force could overcome him.

3. A trace of evil influence. It is the spirit of Jezebel which breathes in this Heaven-defying resolution. The queen-mother had not forgotten her yet unfulfilled threat, “So let the gods do to me, and more also, if I make not thy life as the life of one of them by tomorrow about this time” (1Ki 19:2). There were old scores to pay off against Elijah, and this wicked woman was no doubt there to strengthen her son in his resolution to pay them.

II. ELIJAH ON THE HILL. The band that was sent to apprehend Elijah found him seated on the top of a hill Observe:

1. The solitary grandeur of his situation. The situation was characteristic. We may say of Elijah what Wordsworth says of Milton, his “soul was like a star, and dwelt apart.” He is a strange, solitary figure from first to laststern, rugged, unconquerable.

2. His moral fearlessness. The appearance of Ahaziah’s soldiers inspired him with no terror. He had apparently waited in the neighborhood where he met the messengers, and did not now retreat. Strong in his sense that God was on his side, he did not fear what man could do to him (Psa 118:6).

3. His invisible protection. The result showed how entirely Elijah was justified in his confidence. “The angel of the Lord,” who had sent him on his mission, “encamped around him” (Psa 34:7), and kept him from all evil. Those who are engaged in Divine work can confidently rely on Divine protection. Not till they had “finished their testimony” was the beast allowed to kill the witnesses (Rev 11:7). The mountain on which Elijah sat was no doubt as “full of horses and chariots of fire” as the hill of Samaria was in after-days for the protection of Elisha (2Ki 6:17). What could bands of fifties avail against one thus defended?

III. THE CAPTAINS AND THEIR FIFTIES.

1. The first captain. Clothed with a little brief authority, this first captain, accompanied by his fifty men, approaches Elijah, and orders him to surrender.

(1) The terms of his summons: “Thou man of God, the king hath said, Come down.” In the same breath in which he acknowledges him to be a servant of Jehovah, he demands his submission to the wicked King of Israel. Le roy le veultthe king wills it. Thus poor, paltry, human authority ventures to assert itself against the authority of the King of kings. No uncommon thing, it must be said, in history. In the extravagance of its conceit, too often has royal authority presumed to set itself above the law of heaven, and to dragoon, imprison, and coerce those who chose to obey God rather than man. Nor have tools ever been wanting to carry out these infamous behests.

(2) A lurking fear. Notwithstanding his bravado, the officer was not without his own fear of Elijah. He does not boldly mount the hill to secure his prisoner, but stands at a respectful distance, and summons him to “come down.” The wicked often inwardly fear the righteous at the very time when they boast most loudly of having them in their power.

(3) The answer of fire. This insolent summons to Elijah, in his character of “man of God,” was a direct challenge to Jehovah to vindicate his own honor, and that of his insulted servant. The insult was wanton and public, and must be as publicly met. Elijah met it by invoking God, if he was truly his servant, to send down fire from heaven to consume this blustering captain and his myrmidons. As before, in the contest with Baal’s prophets, his prayer was granted, and the answer came by fire (1Ki 18:21-39). “Elijah will let him know that the God of Israel is superior to the King of Israel, and has a greater power to enforce his commands” (Matthew Henry). Thus at length, gospel dispensation though it is, will fire descend from heaven to consume the hosts of the ungodly (Rev 20:9).

2. The second captain. One example of this kind should have been enough. But when men are inspired by fury and hate of God, above all, when it is not their own lives they are risking, they are not easily deterred. As if this first defeat but added fuel to the king’s anger, the order goes forth for another band to he equipped, and sent to take the prophet. The captain who received the mandate had no choice but to obey, and military pride may have led him to suppress any outward show of misgiving. But it must have been with no small quaking of heart that he set out on this now doubly perilous service. Still Elijah sits on his hill, and, putting as bold a front on matters as he can, the second captain, in the king’s name, repeats the summons to come down. “O man of God, thus hath the king said, Come down quickly.” Elijah from his height returns the former answer; and once again the thunderbolt descends, and scatters the bodies of this second fifty at the hill’s foot beside the first.

3. The third captain. Not even yet will the king own the folly of resistance. Like Pharaoh in conflict with Moses, each new calamity but seems to harden him the more. A third captain is dispatched with the same peremptory orders to seize the recalcitrant prophet.

(1) But this captain is wiser than his predecessors. He does what few in his position could help doingaccepts a lesson from experience. He abandons the insolent tone of previous captains, and, failing on his knees before Elijah, sues for peace. “O man of God, I pray thee, let my life, and the life of these fifty thy servants, be precious in thy sight.” He sees the folly of flinging away his life, and the lives of his men, to please a foolish king in a contest as wicked as it was vain.

(2) This prayer robs his mission of its offensiveness, acknowledges God’s supremacy, and shows that Elijah’s life is in no danger. The angel of the Lord accordingly says to Elijah, “Go down with him: be not afraid of him.” By this timely humbling of himself, the third captain

(a) saved the lives of himself and his men;

(b) obtained what the former captains could not obtain by their bullying, viz. that Elijah should go with him.

No fire descended from heaven upon him, for God takes no pleasure in the wanton destruction of human life. And not only was his life spared, but he was saved from the king’s anger, by Elijah consenting to accompany him. He was a living example of the truth, “God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble” (Jas 4:6).

IV. THE WORD OF DOOM CONFIRMED. Brought, not as a prisoner, but as a conqueror, to Ahaziah’s bedchamber, Elijah repeated in person the terrible message he had formerly sent by the messengers. “Thou shalt not come down off that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die.” It is the word of doom, and as such Ahaziah cannot but hear it. This is all he has made of his futile attempts to fight against Godto hear that doom confirmed by the very prophet whose head he had vowed to bring to the dust. The counsel of the Lord, it alone stands; the imagination of the sinner perishes. It is from Christ’s own lips that those who now fight against him and despise his gospel will hear their final sentence.J.O.

2Ki 1:17, 2Ki 1:18

Unwritten history.

Ahaziah died, and Jehoram his brother succeeded him. “The rest of his acts” were written “in the book of the chronicles of the Kings of Israel;” but Scripture has not preserved them. Why should it? What was there in the records of that brief and evil existence to entitle the memory of it to live? “The memory of the just is blessed; but the name of the wicked shall rot” (Pro 10:7). Enough is written to hold him up to after-ages as an example of the certainty of retribution. Then Scripture buries him with the epitaph, “So he died according to the word of the Lord which Elijah had spoken.”J.O.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

THE

SECOND BOOK OF THE KINGS

Commonly Called

THE FOURTH BOOK OF THE KINGS

2Ki 1:1-18.

1Then Moab rebelled against Israel after the death of Ahab. And Ahaziah 2fell down through a [window-] lattice in his upper chamber that was in Samaria, and was sick: and he sent messengers, and said unto them, Go, inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron whether I shall recover of this disease. 3But the angel of the Lord1 said to Elijah the Tishbite, Arise, Go up to meet the messengers of the king of Samaria, and say unto them, Is it not [omit not] because there is not a God in Israel, that ye go to inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron? 4Now therefore thus saith the Lord, Thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die. And Elijah departed. 5And when the messengers turned back unto him, he said unto them, Why are ye now turned back? 6And they said unto him, There came a man up to meet us, and said unto us, Go, turn again unto the king that sent you, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Is it not [omit not] because there is not a God in Israel, that thou sendest to inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron? therefore thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die. 7And he said unto them, What manner of man was he which came up to meet you, and told you these words? 8And they answered him, He was a hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins. And he said, It is Elijah the Tishbite.

9Then the king sent unto him a captain of fifty with his fifty. And he went up to him: and, behold, he sat on the top of a hill. And he spake unto him, Thou man of God, the king hath said, Come down. 10And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I be a, man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty. 11Again also he sent unto him another captain of fifty with his fifty. And he answered [lifted up his voice]2 and said unto him, O man of God, thus hath the king said, Come down quickly. 12And Elijah answered and said unto them, [him],3 If [And if] I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And the fire of God came down from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty. 13And he sent again a [third]4 captain of the third [omit the third] fifty with his fifty. And the third captain of fifty went up, and came and fell on his knees before Elijah, and besought him, and said unto him, O man of God, I pray thee, let my life, and the life of these fifty thy servants, be precious in thy sight. 14Behold, there came fire down from heaven, and burnt up the two captains of the former fifties with their fifties: therefore [but]5 let my life now be precious in thy sight. 15And the angel of the Lord said unto Elijah, Go down with him: be not afraid of him. And he arose, and went down with him unto the king. 16And he said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Forasmuch as thou hast sent messengers to inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron, is it not [omit not] because there is no God in Israel to inquire of his word? therefore thou shalt not come down off that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die. 17So he died according to the word of the Lord which Elijah had spoken. And Jehoram reigned in his stead, in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah; because he had no son. 18Now the rest of the acts of Ahaziah which he did, are they not written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel?

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1Ki 22:41. And Jehoshaphat, the son of Asa, &c. 2 Chronicles 17-21 gives a more detailed account of the reign of this king, which our author here treats with remarkable brevity. On 1Ki 22:43, cf. 2Ki 15:9 sq. The statement in the last part of 1Ki 22:43 is not contradictory to 2Ch 17:6, for the latter place refers to the idolatrous worship of Baal and Astarte, on the high places and in the groves, while here the author is speaking of the worship of Jehovah upon the high places, as in 2Ch 20:33. (Cf. notes on 2Ki 2:3). Jehoshaphat had peace (1Ki 22:44) as a result of his matrimonial alliance with Ahab (2Ch 18:1), not only with that king himself, but also with his successors, Ahaziah and Jehoram. On 1Ki 22:45, cf. 2Ki 15:23, and on 1Ki 22:46, cf. 2Ki 14:24, and 2Ki 15:12.

1Ki 22:47. There was then no king in Edom. This observation simply serves to introduce what the author desired to add, in 1Ki 22:48-49, as especially important, from the history of the reign of Jehoshaphat. As Edom at that time had no king of its own, but merely a governor, Jehoshaphat could build a merchant-fleet in the Edomitic port, Ezion-geber, as Solomon had done before (2Ki 9:26). The Edomites had been subjugated by David (2Sa 8:14), but attempted, in the latter part of the reign of Solomon, to regain their independence under the leadership of Hadad (chap 2Ki 11:14 sq.); we have no information whether at all, or to what extent, this attempt succeeded. Keil and Ewald are of the opinion that the Edomites joined themselves to the Ammonites and Moabites in their war with Jehoshaphat (2Ch 20:1 sq.), but were conquered by him, and then placed under a governor. There is not, however, the slightest mention of the Edomites in 2 Chronicles 20. There is just as little foundation for the supposition of Thenius, that Hadads family had died out before the time of Jehoshaphat, and that the latter profited cunningly by the quarrels which arose about the succession to re-establish the sovereignty of Judah over Edom. Only this much is certain, that circumstances had arisen in Edom under Jehoshaphat which brought about the appointment of a governor, and rendered possible the re-establishment of the trade with Ophir, which had existed in the most nourishing period of the kingdom.On Ophir and the Ships of Tarshish, see notes on 2Ki 10:22. The latter wore wrecked, as it seems, before leaving the harbor of Ezion-geber, by a storm. According to 2Ch 20:35 sq., Jehoshaphat caused these ships to be built in company with Ahaziah, and the prophet Eliezer interpreted their destruction to him as a divine punishment for his connection with the apostate Ahaziah (1Ki 22:52) after he had received a warning on account of his alliance with Ahab (2Ch 19:2). Probably he hoped and believed that Ahaziah had better purposes than Ahab, and therefore he did not at first reject his propositions. When, however, Ahaziah made a second proposal to him (1Ki 22:49) he declined to enter into it. In this opinion Keil also now agrees, although he formerly assumed that the ships were twice destroyedfirst, those which, according to the passage before us, were destined for the voyage to Ophir, and then those which, according to 2Ch 20:36, were intended for that to Tarshish (in Spain). The death of Jehoshaphat is somewhat anticipated in 1Ki 22:50, for 2Ch 3:7 sq. relates how he made an expedition against the Moabites with Jehoram, the successor of Ahaziah.

1Ki 22:51. Ahaziah, the son of Ahab, &c. For the chronological statement: The seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat, which does not coincide with the duration of Ahabs reign (1Ki 16:29), and the commencement of Jehoshaphats reign (1Ki 22:41); see below, on 2Ki 8:16On 1Ki 22:52, cf. 1Ki 16:29-33.On the groundlessness of the division, which commences the Second book of the Kings after 1Ki 22:53, see 1 of the Introduction. Particularly the first verse of the second book stands in close connection with the three last verses of the first book, as is evident from the words After the death of Ahab. The death of this king and the accession of Ahaziah were the immediate causes of the attempt of the Moabites, who had been tributary ever since the time of David (2Sa 8:2), to separate themselves from Israel. We must therefore put this attempt before the rest which is related in regard to Ahaziah, especially before the construction of the merchant-fleet, which he attempted in company with Jehoshaphat. War with the revolted Moabites did not break out under Ahaziah, who did not reign for even two full years, but immediately after the accession of his successor, Jehoram (chap. 3). Keil thinks it clear that the revolt of the Moabites followed upon their alliance with the Ammonites, which is narrated in 2 Chronicles 20. This alliance, however, was directed against Jehoshaphat and Judah, and in the entire account there is no trace whatever that Israel took part in the expedition of Jehoshaphat, whereas 2Ki 3:4 sq. treats of a war between Israel and the Moabites. Piscator correctly states the connection between 2Ki 1:1-2 thus: grotavit, ac perinde nihil contra Moabitas tentare potuit.

2Ki 1:2. And Ahaziah fell down through a (window-) lattice, &c. According to Ewald, with whom Thenius agrees, the passage (2Ki 1:2-16) does not come from the same author as the other passages which treat of Elijah, viz., 1Ki 17:18-19, and 2Ki 2:1-18, but is of later origin than these, as is clear from the difference of the language in regard to the descent of fire from heaven in 1Ki 18:38, and 2Ki 1:10-14, not to speak of the difference in the nature of the contents of the two passages. When the narrative is correctly accepted, however, this latter difference disappears. Still less can we conclude, from the fact that is used of the descent of fire in the first passage and in the second, that they have different authors. is lattice-work, also snare (Job 18:8). It can hardly be that we have here to think of the balustrade of the flat roof, but rather of the window-opening, which was provided with a lattice. For this interpretation through is also an argument. We may suppose that he leaned too far out through the low window, although he does not seem to have fallen very far, as it did not cost him his life; possibly only on to one of the galleries of the palace. That this took place on the occasion of a drinking-bout (Krummacher) is a groundless supposition. The Sept. render Baal–zebub [mentioned only in this passage in the Old Testament] by , and Pliny says (Hist. Nat. 10, 28): Cyrenaici Achorem Deum (invocant) muscarum multitudine pestilentiam afferente qu protinus interecunt postquam litatum est illi Deo. He is therefore the Baal who protects against the flies, which cause sickness and other calamities; Defender against vermin, like the , of the Eleans (Pausan. viii. 26, 4). Against this commonly received explanation (Gesenius, Movers, Ewald, Winer, Real-Wrterbuch, i. s. 120), J. G. Mller (Herzog, Encyc. i. s. 768), with whom Keil agrees, maintains that the Fly-god cannot have his name as enemy of flies, but that he was , i.e., the fly as god, and therefore an idol in the form of a fly, who must have stood in a similar relation to flies, being a sun-god and summer-god, as the oracle-god, Apollo, who sent and warded off sickness. Stark (Gaza, s. 260) remarks further: They (the flies) seem, in their appearance and disappearance, which depend entirely upon the weather, to be themselves endowed with some prophetic power. This view, however, cannot be made to agree with the words of Pliny, and Ahaziah was certainly anxious not only for an oracle, but also at the same time and especially for recovery from his illness through the help of the Fly-god.Ekron, probably the present Akir, was the northernmost of the five principal cities of the Philistines (Jos 13:3), and so lay nearest to the royal residence, Samaria. [Cf. Robinsons Biblical Researches, iii. 2225.] Following Ephrem, Vatablus remarks that Ahaziah sent to the Idol at Ekron by the advice of Jezebel.

2Ki 1:3. But the Angel of the Lord, &c. Not an angel but the angel of the Lord who makes known all the revelations of the invisible God to the covenant people. Cf. Hengstenberg, Christologie, I. 1, s. 219232. (Keil.) We have not to think of any external appearances. [ is the varying form under which God reveals himself on the earth, on different occasions. Indeed, in the older books there is often an ambiguity as to which is meant, God himself or some apparition, or the representations vary indifferently. Cf. Gen 16:7; Gen 16:10-11 (yet 2Ki 1:14, God of my sight, i.e., whom I have seen); 2Ki 21:9 sq.; cf. Gen 17:15 sq., and Gen 18:9-16. In Genesis 22. notice Gen 1:12, at the end, from me. See also Gen 31:11 sq., and espec.Gen 1:13; also the story Gen 32:24-32, espec. Gen 32:30. Cf., further, Exo 3:2; Exo 3:16; Exo 3:18; Exo 4:6 sq.; Exo 13:21; Exo 14:19; Jos 6:2; Jdg 6:12 sq., espec. Jdg 1:14; Jdg 1:16; Jdg 1:23; Jdg 13:22-23. The latter passages seem to recognize the distinction more clearly. Jdg 13:16, the angel distinguishes between himself and God. It follows that whenever God appears, he does so in an angel, and whenever an angel appears, it is God who appears in him; so that appearances of the angel and appearances of God are the same. Afterwards this method of revelation gave way to that of the prophets, with their Thus saith the Lord! In the poetical books we find a personification of wisdom, out of, and alongside of God, (cf. Job 28.), and all culminates in the logos-doctrine of St. John.W. G. S.]Where Elijah was then living we do not know. Thenius thinks assuredly upon Mount Carmel; but that is contradicted by the words, Go up to meet the messengers! for Ekron lay to the south and Carmel to the north of Samaria, in entirely opposite directions. We should have to suppose then that Elijah started much sooner, and came to meet the messengers immediately upon their coming out of Samaria.And Elijah departed (2Ki 1:4), i.e., he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded.

2Ki 1:5. And when the messengers turned back unto him, &c. They must have received a powerful impression from the personal presence of Elijah, whom they did not know, since they felt themselves compelled at once to turn back and bring information to their master. The latter asks them in astonishment: Why are ye now turned back? as it was impossible that they could have been in Ekron. On the words that ye go (2Ki 1:3), for which they say in 2Ki 1:6 that thou sendest, Menken remarks, They lay the blame entirely upon the king. The prophet, however, had spoken in such a way that they might observe that they also had incurred guilt, and had made themselves accomplices in anothers crime. (2Ki 1:7) is not exactly figura et habitus (Vulgata), but the law or rule, as that which defines the entire personality, the life-rule of the individual person (Keil), his peculiarity, by virtue of which he is distinguished, and by which he may be recognized. That does not mean long hair covered his head (Ewald), is clear from the description of the later Elijah (Mat 3:4). The vir pilosus, hirsutus is the man who is clothed in a hairy (black) garment. Such was the peculiar dress of the prophets as preachers of repentance, and it was called (cf. Zec 13:4) . It appears that this costume commenced with Elijah, who was the type of all following teachers of repentance, and that he was distinguished among the prophets of his time by means of it. (The 400 prophets of Ahab, 1Ki 22:6, certainly did not wear this dress.) The girdle, generally the most expensive article of dress and the emblem of office, was made of leather only in the case of the poor and low (Winer, R. W. B. i. s. 448). In the case of the prophet the leather girdle signified self-denial and contempt for worldly ornament and grandeur, so that it corresponded perfectly to the coarse garment of hair (cf. the contrast, Mat 11:8), Heb 11:37.

2Ki 1:9. Then the king sent, &c. Elijah had immediately withdrawn again, whether unto Carmel remains uncertain; but certainly Ahaziah must have discovered his place of abode. The hostile intention of the king shows itself in the sending of soldiers; certainly some act of violence was proposed. Perhaps he feared lest the disciples of the prophets, or other adherents of Elijah, might offer resistance. Ewald thinks he was going to have him brought down and then (as, of course, is clear) executed. The army of Israel was divided up into bodies of 1,000, 100, and 50 (Num 31:14; Num 31:48; 1Sa 8:12), each of which had its own leader, (Winer, i. s. 683). The address of the leader has a military sound: Thou man of God, the king hath said, Come down! That the designation, Man of God, was, in his mouth, not conviction, but scorn, is shown by the haughty and dictatorial Come down! (). The and with which the answer of Elijah begins (2Ki 1:10) must not be omitted, as it is in the Vulg. and Luther, since Elijah is thought of in this first answer (otherwise in 2Ki 1:12) as joining his speech immediately to that of the captain (Thenius). The sense of the answer is: Thou callest me contemptuously and scoffingly man of God; but the Lord will show thee, that I am suchthou shalt experience it. [Patrick quotes a gloss of Abarbinel to this effect: If I be a man of God, as thou gayest, but dost not think, then I am not bound to obey the king but God, nor am I subject to his power, but to Gods, who will make thee know that He judges in the earth.][And there came down fire from heaven, &c. These words do not convey an intelligible description of any physical event of which we can conceive. If we try to realize the incident in imagination we find it impossible. It is not the ordinary difficulty which attaches to an ordinary miracle. There we cannot tell how a thing came to pass, though we can see what the record means to assert. We can imagine that a man who never had spoken should open his mouth and speak, though we cannot conceive how he could be enabled to do so. Here, however, the words do not describe any external phenomenon which is conceivable, not to say anything about the difficulty which attaches to every miracle of seeing how it was done. We cannot tell what the author means to assert to have come to pass, for the words by which he refers to it do not give us a sufficient description of it. It is evident, therefore, that they refer back vaguely to a terrible judgment, the accurate literal details of which were lost. It was only thus remembered as something strange, shocking, and supernatural. See Histor. 5, where Bhr seems inclined to take the statement figuratively, as a designation of the vengeance of God.W. G. S.] The second captain who was sent (2Ki 1:11) surpasses the first, instead of taking warning by his fate, in that he adds to the Come down! , quickly, thereby insinuating a threat. How the king received information of the destruction of his two expeditions we cannot determine, as no hint is given of it. The Berleburger Bibel says that the people of the neighborhood acquainted him with it. 2Ki 1:13 cannot mean for the third time (de Wette). If it cannot be referred to the fifty, as Keil explained it in his earlier edition, then we must read as Thenius does, i.e., a third, according to the story which immediately follows.Afraid of him (2Ki 1:15), i.e., not, as Thenius would have it taken, of the captain, but of the king (Seb. Smith, Keil), for it is clear that is opposed to . He goes down with him to the king. One would be glad to learn something more about the meeting of Elijah and Ahaziah, but the account is here (2Ki 1:16-17), as in fact throughout, very brief and even disjointed. On that very account, however, it is the more pregnant, and bears the more distinctly the character of genuineness and originality. In later times events were not narrated in such compressed form. Here, just as in other cases, Elijah reappears suddenly, and disappears again, and no one knows whence he comes or whither he goes. The manner in which Krummacher delineates Elijahs meeting with Ahaziah (Elias der Thisb., s. 347) is indeed captivating, but, nevertheless, entirely arbitrary.In 2Ki 1:17, the Sept., the Syriac version, and the Vulgata and after Jehoram, his brother. (Cf. 2Ki 3:1, where he is called the son of Ahab.) On the date of his succession, In the second year of Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, which it is extremely difficult to fix, see notes on 2Ki 8:16.

HISTORICAL AND ETHICAL

1. The reign of Jehoshaphat was a very successful and prosperous one for Judah, both internally and externally, as is clear from the detailed account of the Chronicles. The author does not enter more particularly into the details of its history, evidently because from the time of the division of the kingdom on, his main object was rather to give a representation of the monarchy in Israel until its downfall. When, however, after a more general description of the reign of Jehoshaphat, he states that that king caused ships to be built which were intended to bring gold from Ophir (1Ki 22:48-50), that is not a disconnected statement which was inserted accidentally or arbitrarily, but it stands in immediate connection with the preceding general characterization, and supplements it in an essential point. One cannot fail to recognize that there is therein a reference back to the time of Solomon, who first established a regular commerce with Ophir, and by that, as a principal means, laid the foundation for the wealth and prosperity of his kingdom (2Ki 9:26-28; 2Ki 10:11; 2Ki 10:22 sq.; 2Ch 9:21 sq.). Jehoshaphats aim, after he had established legal order in his dominions as far as possible, reduced the neighboring peoples to subjection again, and concluded peace with the brother kingdom, was to restore those times of prosperity, and to bring his realm up to the height of that of Solomon once more. The glory of the kingdom, however, as it had existed under Solomon, was, according to the purpose of God, forever gone by (see 1 Kings 12; Histor. 2). Its return was not a part of the divine plan of salvation, and every human attempt to restore it must necessarily fail. The fleet of Jehoshaphat went down in the harbor of Ezion-geber, even before it had sailed out, and that, too, not by human fault, but by a storm, that is to say, by a dispensation of God.

2. As regards his relation to Jehovah, which was the main point for every Israelitish king, Ahaziah was one of the very worst of them. This is marked, in the general description, by the fact that it is said of him, not only that he did evil in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the ways of Jeroboam, but that it is also added, in the way of his father, nay even also (which is observed of no other king), in the way of his mother, the fanatical, idolatrous, and bloodthirsty Jezebel, who was still living, and perhaps controlled him even more than she had controlled his father. All the acts of God during the reign of his father, of which he had been eye-witness and ear-witness, the proofs of Gods power, long-suffering, and justice, even the tragical end of Ahab, had made no impression upon him. All had passed by him, and left no effect behind. For this very reason, then, in the first place, he is worse than Ahab. That he surpassed him in his alienation from Jehovah became apparent at the approach of his early death. So far from being brought to his senses by the unfortunate accident which ultimately caused his death, and seeking refuge in the God of his fathers, he sent messengers to a foreign divinity to seek counsel and help from him. He thereby transgressed not only the general and chief commandment (Exo 20:3), but also the special commandment (Lev 19:31; Lev 20:6; Lev 20:27; Deu 18:10-11), which threatened with extermination those who questioned soothsayers and wizards. That was a public and practical declaration that he esteemed the Fly-god of the Philistines above the living God of Israel; and it was a formal degradation and contempt, even an insult, of the latter. Such a crime had not previously been committed by a king, and, if ever, then certainly now, the time was come for the zealous defender of the name of the God of Israel to break forth like a fire (Sir 48:1) from his concealment, and to announce to the bold scoffer the divine retribution. Even this terrible announcement, however, was not sufficient to humble the dying man or to bring him to repentance; it rather embittered him and filled him with anger, and even with plans of murder. He sends out a band of myrmidons, in order to get possession of the person of the prophet, and when these meet with a frightful fate, he does not even yet recognize in it the hand of the Almighty, but, with a display of impotent stubbornness, sends out a new hand of men. But neither does the destruction of this company also bend his hard and stubborn disposition; he sends out a third time a band of soldiers. All this he does while on his death-bed, face to face with death, so completely has all reverence for what is sacred abandoned him, and been supplanted by a stubbornness and wilfulness which extends even to madness. Ahab even had bowed himself and humbled himself (1Ki 21:27) when Elijah announced to him the judgment of God; Jeroboam even sent, when his son was sick, to the prophet Ahijah (1Ki 14:2); but Ahaziah perseveres in his senseless perversity, and so falls far below both of these. At last, however, he is obliged to hear his condemnation from the mouth of the prophet, when he is, as it were, bound hand and foot, and only death overcomes his stubborn heart.

3. The Prophet Elijah appears in general here, just as he always has up to this point, as the (cf. Luk 24:19). He steps forth suddenly from obscurity, as it were borne on by the storm, with his fiery strength and his fiery tongue (Ewald). His weighty, irresistible personality, and his forcible, energetic speech, make such an impression on the messengers of the king, who do not know him (2Ki 1:8), that they do not dare to carry out the orders of their despotic master, but turn back without further action. As always, so also here, when they sought to seize him and make him a prisoner, he was not to be reached; the emissaries came to disgrace. Without fear, courageous and unterrified, he appears before the king himself, as he had once done before his father, and announces to the fixed and stubborn man his approaching death. Moreover, in this case, where he has to deal with apostasy in its extremest form, one side of his peculiar calling and position in the historical development of the plan of salvation comes into especial relief, namely, the function of avenging judge. As the second Moses, and second founder of the broken covenant, it was his task, before all else, to bear witness, both by word and deed, to the wrath and fiery jealousy of God against anything idolatrous (see above, the Historical notes on 1 Kings 17 1). He is the representative and instrument of the jealousy of the divine Judge, the herald of the divine retributive justice, and on that account the prototype of all the forerunners of the great and terrible day of judgment (Mal 4:5); so that Sirach (Sir 48:10), at the end of his eulogy of him, says: . It is characteristic that Elijah finishes his public activity, which had been directed against apostasy, by an act in the capacity of a judge, and thereby seals, as it were, the position which he occupies in the history of salvation.

4. The two leaders who perish, together with their soldiers, are not to be considered simply as tools of a will which opposed itself to Jehovah; so that the question whether their fate was a just punishment or not is an idle one (Thenius). On the contrary, they participated in the feelings of their master ( , says Theodoret justly), as is seen from the fact that they, as faithful myrmidons of their abandoned master, scoff at the greatest of all prophets, whom they, too, know to be such. They despised in him the holy and almighty God of Israel, whose servant he was. The third captain was also a tool of the king; but he did not share in his feelings, and was spared just on that account. Whereas in his case the address, Man of God, was an expression of conviction and respect, it had been conscious, intentional, and insolent contempt in the mouth of both the others. They are representatives of the apparent power of the apostate, godless monarchy, which seeks to oppose the divine purpose by human power, and which, when it has already experienced the uselessness of opposition, nevertheless still perseveres in its criminal obstinacy, until it proves its own impotence, and then finally perishes. That was destined to hold good here, which Moses once said in a similar case: And in the greatness of thine excellency thou hast overthrown those that rose up against thee: thou sentest forth thy wrath, which consumed them as stubble (Exo 15:7); and also what Isaiah prophesied of the astrologers, &c., of Babylon: Behold they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame.

5. The conduct of Elijah towards the captains has given offence on the supposition of their innocence, and has been made a ground of blame against the prophet. Winer (R.-W.-B. i. s. 318) fails to find the moral of it, and Ewald (Geschichte Israels, iii. s. 546; 3d ed., s. 588) sees in this action a proof that this narrative springs from a much later time than the other ones about Elijah, i.e., from a time when the history of the prophet had been expanded beyond the limits which had been observed earlier, and had been moulded in more and more gigantic proportions, and in a much stiffer manner; so that one might almost say that a Brahminic-Indian legend upon the acts of some Jogin had been produced from it. Even in earlier times it seems to have been believed that Christ, at least indirectly, expressed disapproval of Elijah (Luk 9:55) when he rebuked () his disciples who wished to do , so that these words are omitted in some otherwise important manuscripts, and in the Vulgata, in order not to endanger the reputation of the prophet. This view rests, however, upon an entire misconception of the narrative before us, and of the relation between the economy of the Old and the New Testaments. For we have here not the act of revenge of a prophet who was instigated by personal jealousy, but an act of divine judgment, and a revelation of Gods wrath against all godlessness and wickedness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness [restrain the truth in a spirit of unrighteousness]. (Rom 1:18; Rom 2:5). All judgments of God are represented in the Old Testament as a consuming fire (Num 11:1; Num 16:35; Deu 32:22; Psa 21:9 sq.; Isa 26:11; Eze 15:6-7; Job 20:26, &c). He himself even, in His retributive justice, is called a consuming fire (Deu 4:24; Deu 9:3; cf. Heb 12:29; Heb 10:27). It is, therefore, perfectly in accordance with the concrete and literal character which the Old Testament economy bears throughout, that this actual fire should be the form of revelation of the divine wrath, so that in many places we can hardly distinguish whether it is intended to be taken literally or figuratively. Just as once the rebellious host of Koran was consumed by fire, and so Moses authority, as the servant of God, was ratified (Num 16:35), so the scoffing band of the idolatrous Ahaziah perished, and thereby the second Moses was corroborated as the man of God. As an act of divine judgment this catastrophe lacks moral so little that it is rather a revelation of the highest moral intensitya testimony to the unchangeable justice and holiness of God. Whoever finds it shocking must be still more shocked at the prophetic declarationGod is jealous and the Lord revengeth; the Lord revengeth and is furious; the Lord will take vengeance on His adversaries, and He reserveth wrath for His enemies. Who can stand before His indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of His anger? His fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by Him (Nah 1:2-6). Christ does not blame Elijah, but His disciples, because in their dissatisfaction, which was just enough in itself, they did not distinguish between the time of Elijah and the time which had begun with Him, the promised Son of Man and , and entirely mistook Him, that is to say, His calling and station in the plan of redemption, as contrasted with that of Elijah. Menken remarks on the passage before us: Any one who is acquainted, even in a slight degree, with the theocratical constitution of Israel; any one who sees how necessary such acts of God and of His prophets were, for the confusion and overthrow of idol-worship, and for the foundation and conservation of the knowledge and adoration of the one sole living God; any one who has a genuine love to God, and a zeal that the name of God shall be kept holy upon earth: such an one will not be repelled by this action of God and His prophet. Many, however, with whom this is not the case, who, themselves indifferent towards God and His kingdom, would gladly have all dispositions of men towards God regarded as insignificant, have been repelled by it; they have imputed to the prophet therein a carnal and unholy violence, and an angry-spirited and revengeful jealousy, and have blamed him accordingly.. Elijah might do much which was not becoming for Jesus the suffering Lamb of God.. In his position and in his time he had to be rather terrible and grand than mild and lovely; he had to punish, condemn, and revenge, rather than to teach, forgive, and console.. His calling was to be, not a fire to warm, but a consuming flame against unrighteousness and godlessness.

6. To try to explain and do away with what is miraculous in this narrative is vain labor, as it is in other and similar cases. The naturalistic explanation, which points to lightning or the fiery wind-simoom, or to a forcible scattering of the troops by the numerous sons [disciples] of the prophets (Exeget. Handbuch on the passage), has indeed been abandoned; but, on the other hand, the entire story has been explained as mythical or legendary, and reference has been made to parallel passages in the classics. When the Persians advance against the temple at Delphi, lightnings descend from heaven upon them (Herod. viii. 37); and when the Gauls under Brennus are going to storm Delphi, there occurs an earthquake with storm and hail, whereby great destruction is caused among them (Justin. xxiv. 8). The legend expresses only the general idea that the Divinity protects His favorites at all times, even by unusual means, and hears their prayers even when they ask for what is extraordinary (Knobel, Prophet. der Hebrer, ii. s. 82; Rdiger, Hall. Encyc., i. 33, s. 322). This view fails utterly to perceive, in the first place, that the thing to be accomplished here is a judgment upon the apostate and stubborn king and his emissaries, and that the protection which is given to Elijah is only a subordinate matter. What necessity was there then for just such a judgment, if nothing more was to be expressed by it than this general idea, which might have been affirmed in a hundred other ways? What parallel there is, finally, between the Persians and Gauls who advanced against Delphi, and perished by lightning and earthquake, and the soldiers whom Ahaziah sent out against Elijah, it is difficult to see, for one might as well find parallels to this narrative in all the accidents wherein men have perished, while on the way hither and thither, by lightning or earthquake.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

1Ki 22:41-50. Wrtb. Summ.: All Christian rulers and governors ought to follow the example of the pious king Jehoshaphatto do what is pleasing to God, to walk in His ways without departing from them, to maintain and extend pure religion, to remove and destroy what is evil, and especially not to permit whoredom, but with earnestness to do away with it and punish it, and to guard themselves from having too much intercourse with godless persons, or from entering into any covenant with them, because this leads to no good, as indeed Jehoshaphat got only danger and loss by it. Every one should profit by the life-experience of Jehoshaphat. All that he undertook according to Gods word and will went on fortunately and attained good success, and was attended with blessing; but all that he undertook in conjunction with Ahab and Ahaziah turned out unfortunately: there was no blessing upon that.

1Ki 22:44-47. See notes on 2Ki 15:12; 2Ki 15:14.

1Ki 22:49. The heart of man proposes its own way, but the Lord alone allows it to proceed therein. (Pro 16:9.) He often confounds our purposes and destroys our plans, which reach so far and so high, that we may not become puffed up, but learn to yield to His holy will and to say: It is the Lord; let Him do what seemeth Him good (1Sa 3:18).

1Ki 22:50. What God has clearly destroyed, as a punishment, that let us not build up again at the counsel or demand of any man; for, when He breaks in pieces, it cannot avail to build again (Job 12:14).So Jehoshaphat would not build again. The offers of a man who had departed from God, even if he offer thee ever so much profit and pleasantness, do thou reject with determined will; for what is a man profited, &c. (Mat 16:26.)

1Ki 22:51-53. Starke: It is bad enough indeed when one or the other of ones parents is godless, but how much more when neither fears God? How can we hope for the good nurture of children in that case? The power of example is not greater in any relation than in that of parents to children. The way in which the father or mother walks has more influence upon the children than all the doctrines and teachings which they give them.Wrtb. Summ.: It is not praiseworthy, nor a thing which one can satisfactorily answer for before God, if the parents and ancestors have been godless or the adherents of a false religion, that the children should do the same and follow in their footsteps;. it will not suffice before God to say: I believe what my parents and ancestors believed. They were of this religion, and I will not believe that they have been damned.

2Ki 1:2-8. Wirth: King Ahaziah on his deathbed, (a) The sending to Ekron; (b) the message of the prophet.

2Ki 1:2-4. Krummacher: The journey to Ekron. (a) The seeking for refuge in Ekron; (b) the jealousy of God; (c) Jesus the only refuge (in Him rests our confidence and strength). 2Ki 1:2-17. In Ahaziah we see the folly of godlessness (Psa 14:1-2). (a) In the dark valley, in which he must journey, he seizes, not upon the staff and support which could comfort him (Psa 23:4), but upon a stalk of straw; he makes a work of mans hands his consolation in life and in death; that is the height of folly. (b) He will hear nothing of death, and hates and persecutes him who reminds him of death; death comes, however; it is inevitable. To avoid every thought of death, and to escape from everything which may remind us of it, is the greatest folly, for we must all depart sometime (Psa 39:5), and appear before Him who will give to each according to his deeds (Rom 2:6). (c) He sends soldiers against the prophet who announces to him the judgment of God, and thinks that he can thereby set aside the judgment itself. But to attempt to do away with the truth of God, and to accomplish something perforce against the decision of God by means of human power and might, is the greatest folly.

2Ki 1:1-2. God does not leave himself without a witness even in the case of those who have long ago abandoned Him and turned their backs upon Him. He seeks with all labor and care to call them home. Well is it for them, then, if they understand the testimony, and do not, like Ahaziah, become still more stubborn.

2Ki 1:2. If a man has once torn himself away from the living God and His Word, he does not, as infidelity pretends, become wiser and more enlightened, but only too often he becomes the prey of the most insipid and foolish superstition. How many do not believe in an holy, omniscient, and just God, to whom they must give an account of all they do and leave undone, but on the contrary in ghosts, or in the word of a gypsy, and seize upon the most senseless means in need and sickness. It is possible to so lose God that one does not find Him even when face to face with death.Krummacher: Instead of the oracle at Ekron we have to-day clairvoyants and mesmerists; and even if we do not have soothsayers and persons who foretell by cards (the number of whom, however, among the common people, is far greater than is commonly believed), still there are signs and dreams upon which people trust, and on which they rest the peace of their hearts, as if it were upon oracles from idols. While people smile at the magicians of earlier times, and their arts, with a mien of superiority, they are not ashamed to take refuge in all sorts of amulets, or to expect help now from this and now from that sympathetic cure.. Is that not going to Ekron? [Comprehensive Commentary: The inquiry of Ahaziah was very foolish. We should be more thoughtful of our duty than our fortune, what will become of us after death, than how, or when, or where, we shall die; and more desirous to be told how to conduct ourselves well in sickness, and get good to our souls by it, than whether we shall recover.]

2Ki 1:3. Wrtb. Summ.: All those who make use of formul of blessing or other irregular means, in sickness, seek help from Baal-zebub. God has given an example in the case of Ahaziah, how angry He is at this, and how severely He means to punish such idolatry.Is it then because, &c. Wirth: The men of our time run hither and thither in their dissatisfaction and need of help. Is there then no longer any God in our nineteenth century, that men do not take refuge in Him? Is there then no Gospel, which is the power of God, and a light upon our pathway? Is there then no longer a Saviour Jesus Christ, who calls: behold, I make all things new?The Word of God is the sole, true, and correct oracle, which we are to question, and to take counsel of, in every circumstance of life, and in all darkness and doubt. This generation, however, seeks light, wisdom, and truth among the Philistines, the wise and prudent of this world, who give out that the Word of the Lord is an old and unreliable book which no longer satisfies the existing grade of cultivation. [They that will not inquire of the Word of God for their comfort shall be made to hear it, whether they will or no, to their amazement.]That ye go, &c. Who-soever lends himself to be the messenger and servant of superstition, and of contempt for God, makes himself a participant in the guilt of them; we must obey God rather than man.

2Ki 1:4-8. If the messengers had brought to the king a declaration of the Fly-god, he would have accepted it with faith, but he rejected the word of the prophet because it did not conform to his wishes; nay, it even filled him with anger and plans of murder. Men value the falsehood which flatters their inclinations and wishes, higher than the truth which corrects them and demands sacrifices and penitence of them.

2Ki 1:7-8. He who preaches penitence, conversion, sacrifice, and self-denial, to others, but still shows by all his conduct and external behavior, that he himself loves the world, and what is in the world, and that he is not above the world, such an one belongs to the false prophets, with whom we must be upon our guard.

2Ki 1:9-17. Krummacher: The sermon in fire. (a) Ahaziahs attack upon Elijah; (b) the prophets victory; (c) Ahaziahs end.Wirth: Elijah as messenger of the judgment of God. (a) The annihilation of the two fifties; (b) the sparing of the third fifty; (c) a visit to the sick-bed.The judgment of God upon Ahaziah and his troops an image of the great and terrible day of the Lord (see the Historical section) for the warning of all scoffers and stubborn contemners of God.Elijah in truth a Man of God. (a) How he sustains himself in that position in his relations to God (viz., by faithful obedience and faithful courage); (b) how God sustains him in it in relation to his enemies (viz., by powerful protection, and by the annihilation of his enemies, Psa 91:1 sq.),

2Ki 1:9. Every servant of the Lord who is really earnest in his office must make up his mind that rude, low, and godless men will scorn him and name him Man of God in mockery. Although no fire from heaven falls down to destroy them, yet the word of the Lord stands firm for all time: He that despiseth you, &c. (Luk 10:16), and the Lord will not leave those unpunished who despise Him in His servants, and exercise their wit upon the calling of reconciliation (Isa 41:10-11).Great rulers always find people who will lend themselves as instruments of their perverted will, who execute, with exactness and without scruple, what the king says, but do not trouble themselves at all about what God says.

2Ki 1:11 sq. Hall: It is the sure sign of approaching ruin when men will not allow themselves to be warned. Those deserve only to be made examples of punishment who will not take warning from the example of others.

2Ki 1:13 sq. God does not let anything be forced from Him by pertinacity, but to the humble He grants grace. That which can never be gained by perseverance and resistance, is reached by earnest, humble, and sincere prayer.Osiander: If we perform our duty, God has the hearts of men in His hand in such a way that He leads them whither He will. So it often happens that those who seek to kill us in our absence, in our presence dare not open their mouths (Joh 7:44-46).

2Ki 1:15-16. A minister of God must not fear to hold up their sins before sinners and scoffers upon the death-bed, and to draw their attention to the judgment of God, in order that, if possible, even in the last hour, they may come to a knowledge of that which belongs to their peace, for (Eze 33:8-9), to offer eternal blessedness to the rich and great, instead of calling them to repentance, is the worst transgression of a prophet.To conceal the approach of his end from one who is sick unto death, and to hold all thoughts of it from him, or even to console him with false hopes of recovery, is no genuine love; for no man can be properly prepared for death who does not think of it often and much. He who in days of health has often, in the presence of God, thought upon death, does not shrink before the message: Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live. (Isa 38:1.)

2Ki 1:9-16. Elijah and the Disciples of Jesus who wish to imitate Him (Luk 9:51-57). (a) The reason why He blames and rebukes them; (b) whereto He calls and encourages them (see Historical, 5).

Footnotes:

[1][The correct translation of , rendered in our version by Lord, would be The Eternal. This may be regarded as a standing correction.]

[2]2Ki 1:11.The Sept. [Cod. Alex.] have here , , so that they read for . Thenius and Keil adopt this reading, citing 2Ki 1:9; 2Ki 1:13.

[3]2Ki 1:12.[Sept. for , , a necessary emendation.

[4]2Ki 1:13.[ must be read for with Thenius and Keil.

[5]2Ki 1:15.[ has the form of the accusative sign with suffix, instead of the preposition. The distinction is not observed in the later language. Ewald, Lehrbuch d. hebr. Spr. 264, b. and Ges. 103, 1. R. 1.The suffix in refers to the king.W. G. S.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

This Chapter opens with relating a circumstance of sin in the conduct of Ahaziah. Elijah is commissioned to send an awful message to him. The king, in consequence, commands the prophet to appear before him. His messengers are destroyed. Ahaziah dieth, and Jehoram succeeds him in the kingdom.

2Ki 1:1

The rebellion of Moab is a rod in God’s hand to correct his people. Blessed are those corrections which lead our souls to bear the rod and who hath appointed it. Mic 6:9 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

2Ki 1

[Note. The annotations in this and the following chapters give the results of the best available criticism. ]

1. Then [And] Moab rebelled against Israel [reduced to vassalage by David] after the death of Ahab.

2. And Ahaziah fell down through a lattice in his upper chamber that was in Samaria, and was sick: and [by Jezebel’s advice] he sent messengers, and said unto them, Go, enquire of Baal-zebub [Lord of flies] the god of Ekron whether I shall recover of this disease.

3. But [Now] the angel of the Lord said to Elijah the Tishbite, Arise, go up to meet the messengers of the king of Samaria, and say [speak] unto them, Is it not [omit “not”] because there is not a God in Israel, that ye go [are going] to enquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron?

4. Now therefore thus saith [hath said] the Lord, Thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die. And Elijah departed.

5. And when the messengers turned back unto him, he said unto them, Why [the “why” is emphatic] are ye now turned back?

6. And they said unto him, There came a man up to meet us, and said unto us, Go, turn again unto the king that sent you, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Is it not because there is not a God in Israel, that thou sendest [art sending] to enquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron? therefore thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die.

7. And he said unto them, What manner of man was he which came up to meet you, and told you these words?

8. And they answered him, He was an hairy man [literally, a lord of hair, a term which probably referred to his mantle], and girt with a girdle of leather [the leather was a sign of poverty. Ordinarily the girdle was of linen or cotton] about his loins. And he said, It is Elijah the Tishbite.

9. Then the king [with hostile intentions] sent unto him a captain of fifty with his fifty. And he went up to him: and behold, he sat [was sitting] on the top of an hill [above Samaria. Some think Carmel]. And he [the captain] spake unto him, Thou man of God [man of the true God], the king hath said, Come down.

10. And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume [eat or devour] thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.

11. Again also he sent unto him another captain of fifty with his fifty. And he answered and said unto him, O man of God, thus hath the king said [commanded], Come down quickly.

12. And Elijah answered and said unto them, If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And the fire of God came down from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.

13. And he sent again a captain of the third fifty with his fifty. And the third captain of fifty went up, and came and fell on his knees before Elijah, and besought [begged compassion of him] him, and said unto him, O man of God, I pray thee, let my life, and the life of these fifty thy servants, be precious in thy sight.

14. Behold, there came fire down from heaven, and burnt up the two captains of the former fifties with their fifties: therefore let my life now be precious in thy sight.

15. And the angel of the Lord said unto Elijah, Go down [from the mountain to the city] with him: be not afraid of him [the captain]. And he arose, and went down with him unto the king.

16. And he said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Forasmuch as thou hast sent messengers to enquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron, is it not because there is no God in Israel to enquire of his word? therefore thou shalt not come down off [from] that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die.

17. So he died according to the word of the Lord which Elijah had spoken. And Jehoram [some versions add “his brother”] reigned in his stead in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah; because he had no son.

18. Now the rest of the [history] acts of Ahaziah which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

False Religious Appeals

Ahaziah, the man of whom this chapter speaks, was the son of Ahab and of Jezebel. He was badly born. Some allowance must be made for this fact in estimating his character. Again and again we have had occasion, and shall indeed often have, to remark upon the disadvantages of children born of wicked parents. It is not for us to lay down any final doctrine of responsibility; we must leave that in the hands of a just and gracious God. A terrible spectacle, however, it is to see a man whose father sold himself to work wickedness in the sight of the Lord, who bound himself as for a price to show rebellion on the very floor of heaven. Ahaziah was a prince of evil, a man who said he would defile the sanctuary, and commit his supreme sin within the shadow of the altar, and whose mother planned and all but personally executed the murder of Naboth. What can we expect from such a child of darkness? Who can gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Was he responsible for his own actions? Society is often hard on such men, not unreasonably or unnaturally. Yet society is often very gracious to such men, saying, with an instinctive piety and sense of justice, After all, such men are not to be personally blamed for their antecedents: they may indeed be open to some measure of suspicion, but even they must have their opportunity in life. Let us consider the case of Ahaziah and see how matters stand for our own instruction.

To understand the matter thoroughly we must go to 1Ki 22:49 : “Then said Ahaziah the son of Ahab unto Jehoshaphat, Let my servants go with thy servants in the ships. But Jehoshaphat would not.” Jehoshaphat was right when he acted upon his instinct. By-and-by he came to act upon a basis of calculation, and then a compact was entered into. But who dare set aside the voice of instinct the very first voice that rises in the soul to make judgment and to give direction? Jehoshaphat, on hearing the proposal of the son of Ahab, said: No; I have known thy father too well: I am too familiarly acquainted with thy family history: thou shalt not send thy servants with mine. It would be well for us if we could sometimes act more promptly upon our instincts. When we begin to reason and reckon and calculate, and especially when a little element of selfishness enters into all the consideration, we begin, though acting in the high name of reason, oftentimes to be foolish and to depart from the living and noble way. Is there not a spirit in man? Is there not a voice that instantly responds to circumstances and appeals? How is it that we cannot associate with some men? They darken the day; they make everything crooked which they touch; when they are not frivolous they are censorious; when they are not boisterous they are vulgar; they have no noble ideas, no holy passions, no sublime enthusiasms; their speech makes us little, impairs our own fortitude and whole quality. We shrink from them; we would not take a whole day’s journey with them upon any consideration: they would spoil the summer: they would make noise when we wanted peace. They always take a low view of every case; they suspect every man, and they know exactly what he is going to be about; and they show their penetration by reading, often falsely, the man’s motives. We shrink from such people by a marvellous gift which God has implanted in the enlightened consciousness of man. We decline all compact and partnership and association and sharing: for we would not share a bag with a thief, because surely he would leave us nothing but the bag. Blessed be God for this inward voice, this quick, flashing, lightning-like feeling, which tells us when there is an enemy in the air and when there is one approaching whose aim is only evil. It would have been well for Jehoshaphat if he had acted upon his instinct.

Ahaziah fell through the lattice, and in his helplessness he became religious. Man must have some God. Even atheism is a kind of religion. When a man recoils openly from what may be termed the public faith of his country, he seeks to apologise for his recoil, and to make up for his church absence by creating high obligations of another class: he plays the patriot; he plays the disciplinarian; he will be a Spartan in personal training and drill, in some way he will try to make up for, or defend, the recoil of his soul from the old altar of his country. It is in their helplessness that we really know what men are. Do not listen to the frivolous and irresponsible chatter of men who, being in robust health, really know nothing about the aching, the sorrow, the pain, the need, and the agony of this awful human life. What does our helplessness suggest? Instantly we go out of ourselves to seek friendship, assistance, sympathy. Oh, would some gentle hand but touch my weariness! says the helpless one. All that being fairly and duly interpreted has a religious signification. The cry for friendship is but a subdued cry for God. Sometimes men will invent gods of their own. This is what was done practically by Ahaziah. Men will go out after novel deities. This is what is being done every day, not under that name, but the mere name makes no difference in the purpose of the spirit. Say, new enjoyments, new entertainments, new programmes, new customs, these being interpreted as to the heart of them mean new altars, new helpers, new gods. It is said of Shakespeare that he first exhausted worlds, and then invented new. That was right. It was but of the liberty of a poet so to do. But it is no part of the liberty of the soul. Necessity forbids it, because the true God cannot be exhausted. He is like his own nature, so far as we know it in the great creation; he is all things in one, gleaming and dazzling as noontide, soft and gentle as the balmy wind, strong as the great mountains and rocks, beauteous as the tiny fragrant flowers, musical as the birds that make the air melodious, awful as the gathered thunder which hovers above the earth as if in threatening. Who can exhaust nature? Who can exhaust nature’s God? Still, the imagination of man is evil continually. He will invent new ways of enjoying himself. He will degrade religion into a mere form of interrogation. This is what Ahaziah did in this instance: “Go, enquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron whether I shall recover of this disease” ( 2Ki 1:2 ). All that we sometimes want of God is that he should be the great fortune-teller. If he will tell us how this transaction will turn out, how this speculation will fructify, how this illness will terminate, how this revolution will eventuate, that is all we want with him; a question-answering God, a fortune-telling God; a God that will specially take care of us and nurse us into strength that we may spend that strength in reviling against his throne. We must cross-examine our religion. We must put the knife right into it. We must not take it on trust and say languidly that all will issue rightly, if we will but enjoy ourselves according to our capacity and opportunity. We must search our faith, and try our own prayers before sending them to heaven, that we may not affront the great God by uttering pointless words and speeches that have everything in them but heart and meaning. How true it is that Ahaziah represents us all in making his religion into a mere form of question-asking; in other words, into a form of selfishness! Nothing can be so selfish as religion. Debased and misunderstood or corrupted religion is the most inveterate and pestilent selfishness imaginable. It is almost impossible for some natures to escape the taint of this selfishness. Even their desire for heaven is a desire for self-indulgence, for languid, dreamless, continual rest or peace. The idea of service, discipline, sacrifice, self-expenditure never enters into their conception of religion: hence their religion is irreligion a lie a blasphemy!

The messengers have now come. They have taken their speech from their king, and they are on the road to consult Baal-zebub the god of Ekron. But who is this who meets them, and who says, “Is it not because there is not a God in Israel, that ye go to enquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron?” The men had said nothing about their errand: who is it that reads the heart night and day, to whom the darkness and the light are both alike, and from the fire of whose eye nothing is hid? How do we get the impression that when we have perfected our lie it is in some sense public property? We are sure the man we meet knows it. He looks as if he did. Who has told him? We have not mentioned a word about it, we have covered it up with all possible care, and yet the very first man we meet on the road looks at us as if he were looking through us and reading the whole lie in its black letters and in its deadly purport. Surely there is an angel of the Lord abroad in human life, reading what we are about, and so entering into other men as to make them look as if they knew our plan, and were all the while either smiling at our destined misfortune or frowning upon our palpable wickedness.

Elijah is an abrupt speaker. The “hairy man” and “girt with a girdle of leather,” did not study the scanning of his sentences. He struck with a battering-ram; his interrogations were spears that quivered in the heart; his looks were judgments. What an effect he produced upon these men; why did they not go past him and say, Keep thy speeches to thyself, thou hairy man, nor interfere with the king’s messengers? We cannot do that. We know that some men are not to be turned away so. We may attempt to deceive, or evade, or disappoint them, but they have a magnetic and most marvellous influence upon us. Though they do not speak in the imperative mood they speak with imperative force. The men turned back like whipped children to tell the king what they had heard; and the king was surprised at their early return. God has still prophets and instructors of his own. There are still courageous men abroad men who dare speak the word of judgment and condemnation; men who dare put in a word for the slave and for the man who is oppressed unreasonably. These courageous men are “hairy men, and girt with a girdle of leather,” who want no invitation to the feast, who scorn the soft delights of parlour life; men to whom no favour can be shown, for they would rather sleep in the fissure of the rock than on the softest bed ever made by softest hands. Would God we had more such men! It is because we are exposed to the blandishments of society that sometimes we do not speak with full and final emphasis. But Elijah, a hairy man, with his coat of leather henceforward the symbolical garment of the prophet did not ask for a night’s lodging, nor for a cup of cold water, not for a flattering paragraph in the forthcoming journal. He represented God, eternity, truth, and if men were offended by what he said he was willing to remit the issue to the arbitrament of God. But whilst Elijah is dead, God still has his witnesses in the form of remarkable events. They come and go, full of meaning, and leave behind them impressions which cannot easily be effaced. Nations are upheaved; harvests fail; the air is full of germs of disease; deaths occur suddenly, swiftly, numerously; the east wind blows week after week and month after month, so that no green thing can show itself, and no bud is hardy enough to break through and say O thou bitter wind, I will live, though thou dost blow with all thy cold cruelty. So God keeps affairs in his own hands, now and again interposing with some visitation, and then making men white with fear, and making dumb lips move in abject prayer. Then again there comes a time which may be characterised as a time of awakened conscience. The king cannot sleep. He asks that the book of the chronicles may be brought that he may look up events and see where the loop slipped, where the wrong entry was made, or where the minutes were not carried out in fulness and detail. Men hunt up their own commercial records and say, Was this justly done? Something tells me that sharp practice was indulged here: I cannot sleep: there is a thorn in the pillow; I feel it, I feel it in its length; I have not yet felt it in its sharpness, but I may at any moment lay my head on the very point of the thorn, so I had better arrange and readjust, and indeed extract the thorn, for it will become presently to me like a ghost, and I dare not go to bed at all: I cannot go out in the dark as I used to do: once I had no fear, but now to run through a short plantation only one hundred yards long, I dare not; if I hear a leaf stir, I think it is a thief or a burglar going to spring upon me: I hear creakings in the room at night; I hear scratchings on the window pane: I am sure there is something wrong. All this means that Elijah lives in some form or other, and will meet us, and confront us, and have it out with us. Blessed is he who first begins by falling down and saying God be merciful to me a sinner!

Look at the conflict between Ahaziah and Elijah the Tishbite. Ahaziah is the king, and Elijah is only the prophet, and the king ought to have everything his own way ex officio . Now we shall see what metal Elijah is made of. He handled kings as if they were little children: he took them up, and set them down behind him, and said, Wait there until I return, and stir at your peril. The prophet should always be the uppermost man. Kings are nothing compared to teachers, seers, men who hold the judgments of God on commission. The great men of the nation are the prophets, the teachers, the educators of thought, the inspirers of noble sacrificial enthusiasm. See how Elijah tramps among the kings. He has no favour to ask. If he were driven to ask for one morsel of bread, he would be Elijah no more. Ahaziah sends to him and says, “Come down.” That word sounds very commanding and imperative. Elijah says, “If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty” ( 2Ki 1:10 ). Look at the conflict and its parties: on the one hand, petulance; on the other, dignity: on the one side, anger fretful, fuming, petty anger; on the other, judgment calm, sublime, comprehensive, final: on the one side, threats, little menaces, assurances of coming punishment; on the other, “fire.” Nor is this a mere picture; it is a symbol, a type, an algebraic sign pointing to infinite circles, an index-finger showing the road that leads to death.

Look at the event from a Christian point of view. It is no longer a precedent. All this kind of action ceases in the Old Testament. The disciples were in some degree Old Testament men, and they said: Master, shall we call down fire from heaven to burn these people who have insulted and dishonoured thee? Elijah would have called down fire: may not we? Jesus answered them: “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of:” you do not understand the kingdom of God; you are taking the ages backward; you are not living along the line of spiritual evolution. Elijah called down fire rightly in his day, but his day is gone. In the Christian dispensation this method is replaced by a new spirit, the spirit of love, the spirit of truth, the teaching spirit it is consummated in a new method. What is the attitude towards the Ahaziahs and other rebels of today? It is one of persuasion, entreaty, proclamation, preaching preaching the old “foolish” doctrine of the cross. That is all; a fire would be a readier method. If the preacher could punctuate his appeals with lightning-bolts he might make some progress, within the moment, but not really. This is the method of Christ a striving, persuading, entreating, teaching method, very feeble-looking sometimes, and altogether fruitless in many instances, but it is his method. Is fire then done away with? Is there no more fire in the hand of God and in the judgment of heaven? The answer is, Fire is not done away with, but it is now reserved for a final appeal. Mark, violence is not withdrawn, but is suspended; it is not now active in the divine service, but not one spark is dead, not one flame has gone out. The fire is kept back; still “our God is a consuming fire;” still the final word to the wicked will be, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” Do not presume too far. The fire is not now handled as it used to be handled in Old Testament times, but still it is true that “it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” He will keep back the fire as long as he can

But the thunder is still there, the bolt is still available, and he would be no preacher anointed at the cross and inspired by the Holy Ghost who kept back the terrors of the Lord, or persuaded men that sin is a light and easy and unimportant action.

Selected Note

” Is it not because there is not a God in Israel, that ye go to enquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron?” ( 2Ki 1:3 ). Ekron was one of the royal cities of the Philistines. Its situation is pointed out with considerable minuteness in Scripture. It is described as lying on the northern border of Philistia ( Jos 13:3 ), and of the territory allotted to Judah (xv. 11). It stood on the plain between Bethshemesh and Jabneel ( Id. ). Jerome locates it on the east of the road leading from Azotus (Ashdod) to Jamnia (Jabneel, Orornast, s.v. Accaron). From these notices we have no difficulty in identifying it with the modern village of Akr. Akr stands on the southern slope of a low bleak ridge or swell which separates the plain of Philistia from Sharon. It contains about fifty mud houses, and has not a vestige of antiquity except two large and deep wells, and some stone water-troughs. Wady Surar, which lies below it, and the great plain beyond, are rich and fertile; yet the higher ground around the village and northward has a barren aspect, and may perhaps have suggested the name Ekron, “wasteness”). The houses are built on the accumulated rubbish of past ages; and like their predecessors, if left desolate for a few years, they would crumble to dust. Ekron was within the territory of Judah; but was one of the cities allotted to Dan ( Jos 19:43 ). The most interesting event in its history was the sending of the ark to Bethshemesh. A new cart was made, and two milch kine yoked to it, and then left to choose their own path; “and they took the straight way to the way of Bethshemesh;” the position of which can be seen in a gorge of the distant mountains eastward (1Sa 5 ). The deity worshipped at Ekron was called Baal-zebub; and we may conclude from the story of Ahaziah that his oracle had a great reputation even among the degenerate Israelites (2Ki 1 ). The doom of Ekron was predicted by the prophets in connection with the other cities of Philistia; and Ekron is now “rooted up” every trace of royalty, riches, and power is gone (Amo 1:8 ; Zep 2:4 ). It appears, however, never to have been completely deserted. It was a large village in the days of Jerome; and also in the age of the crusades.

Prayer

Almighty God, how near thou art in thy heaven, yet how far; near unto those whose trust is in thee and whose life is hid with Christ in God, who are branches of the true vine; and far from those who do not know God nor love him nor care for his word and his law. Teach us that our life is in thy hand and not in our own, that there is an appointed time to man upon the earth, that the very hairs of our head are all numbered, that not a sparrow falleth to the ground without thee teach us, therefore, that thou art round about us always, understanding our thoughts, looking into our motives, considering our desires, listening to our sighings and prayers. Thus may we live and move and have our being in God; may God always be the nearest to us, always at hand and not afar off. Help us to consult thee in every movement of our life, to stand still and see the salvation of God, to look up unto the hills whence cometh our help, lo take nothing into our own hands, to wait the disclosure of thy counsel and the indication of thy power, and to walk humbly but steadfastly and with persistence and loyalty in the way thou dost mark for our feet.

Thou hast led us wondrously; behold, if we look back, our yesterdays are full of the fire of heaven. Thou hast led us by a way that was right, thou hast defended us from danger, seen and unseen, thou hast opened doors for us of which we had no key, thou hast sent an angel to throw back the gate and deliver from the prison. Glory and honour and praise and power be unto thy name, thou mighty Deliverer and Saviour of our souls. Now we are in thy house, and it is the gate of heaven: quiet us, fill us with thy peace, make us calm with thy restfulness, shed upon us the Spirit that is holy and eternal, and make the fire of the Lord abound in our hearts, and the wisdom that cometh down from heaven enlighten our understanding. May we feel that thy word is light and life and peace and comfort, the very beginning of heaven, the life of God in the soul, the first throb of our immortality.

May thy word come to us today from ancient time, as new as if but just spoken. May we know that thy word abideth for ever, that its accents and purposes and commandments and injunctions are not measurable by time that it is the ever-spoken word, the ever commanding “Be” and fiat of Jehovah, our present and almighty sovereign. And thus may we come to it as the oldest book and the newest, old as thine own eternity, new as our present need. Thus may thy word be unto us meat and drink, manna in the wilderness, and water out of the rock, a great joy, a perpetual light and satisfaction. If so be we are tempted to think we have read all thy word, show us our mistake; may the wonder of its revelations, the awful suddenness of its surprises, be the outflaming of a fire we have never seen, from heaven be the utterance of a new music, tender as our own sighing, loud as our own triumphing, surrounding us with all the grandeur and force of Almighty God. And if it enter into the heart of man to believe a lie, and to consider that he knows all that is written in thy book, and has fathomed the depths of infinitude and taken into his nostrils the whole breath of eternity, let him be rebuked even to his shame and confusion today, as hearing new tones and seeing new lights and being bowed down by undisclosed presences and unrevealed glory, so that he may say, The word of the Lord abideth for ever: it is the perpetual word, the everlasting testimony, and the incessant challenge to our minds.

O this wonderful life of ours, a truth, a lie, a reality, a delusion: something to be touched and yet never to be approached: here and yet there; luring us as if by mockery, and jeering our disappointment, and yet now and again opening up prospects and stretches of landscapes and visions of heaven and realities of being that astound the imagination and confound all attempts to explain it. O wondrous life it is God in us, it is a spark of the essential fire. It is a voice from the eternal courts. O that we may be stewards of ourselves, that we may feel the responsibility of our own being, that we may find in Christ the only answer to our sin and the only consolation of our sorrow, the only interpretation of our discipline, our All and in all, today and yesterday and tomorrow and for ever the same, the eternal Christ, the eternal Judge.

If now and again we have been straying from thy way, even in our thinking whilst our heart has been right, yet our thoughts have gone out to make new creations of pur own surely thou hast brought us back again, humbled and subdued and broken in pieces, that we might ask for the old way and inquire for the ancient path, and drink again out of the river of God which is full of water. Thou dost not chide us to our destruction, but to our conversion: wherein we have hewn out cisterns, broken cisterns, their brokenness has been thy best correction, the disappointment has been the interpretation of thy purpose, and we have made a sword for our own hurt, and cut ourselves in pieces before the Lord.

O that we may in future cling to thy testimony, be steadfast to thy word, firm and loyal to thy revelation, contented with what thou hast shown unto us and receiving it with all thankfulness and delight, and yet with all the hopefulness of fuller revelation. If it be thy will, oh continue our days a little longer, but make our life as useful as it is continuous; may every day bear some fruit which shall be the development of some new grace: the formation of character, the ennobling of principle, the outwidening and glory of our best purpose and highest aspiration. And when the day is done, the work all closed, it will be our fruition to hear thee say, Well done.

Console the grief-stricken, lift up those that be bowed down; if any be in special perplexity or have a cloud of unusual gloom, Lord, look upon such do thou meet them in all the pain of their need and comfort them with the infinite grace of God. Show us how brief our life is and how vain if it be not rooted in Christ. Lead us along with new penitence, new contrition and brokenheartedness to the cross of the Lamb of God, the Saviour of all mankind. Amen.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

2Ki 1:1 Then Moab rebelled against Israel after the death of Ahab.

Ver. 1. Then Moab. ] Who, being subdued by David, had hitherto served Israel, and paid the yearly tribute of a hundred thousand rams, and a hundred thousand lambs, with their wool. 2Ki 3:4-5

Rebelled against Israel. ] Which was no small judgment upon wicked Ahaziah, whose reign was both short and troublous. So was our Queen Mary’s; – her conceptions failing, extreme dearths raging, harm done by thunder from heaven, and by fire in the royal navy, King Philip keeping from court, as not affecting her, the loss of Calais, as here of Moab, &c.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Moab rebelled. Moab had been subdued by David (2Sa 8:2; 2Sa 23:20); and when the kingdom was divided it passed to Israel. It was greatly oppressed by Omri and Ahab, and, on the death of the latter (Compare 2Ki 3:5), Mesha, king of Moab, rebelled. See the record of the event on “the Moabite stone”. App-54. The verse is introduced here to complete the symmetry of the introversion.

after. The inscription on the Moabite stone leaves the exact date indefinite. Line five, “Israel perished”, may refer to the death of Ahab.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

By Chuck Smith

Now as we finish First Kings, we were dealing with basically the northern kingdom under Ahab with his wicked wife Jezebel who had brought the northern kingdom of Israel into its lowest state morally and spiritually, as they led the people into idolatry and more specifically, the worship of Baal, which was introduced by Jezebel who was from the area of Zidon, and that was one of the major gods of Zidon. And so, she introduced that to the children of Israel in their worship. And thus the… Israel was sinking into a state of great spiritual apostasy.

Now at the end of First Kings, we came to the death of Ahab, and his son Ahaziah ascending to the throne who reigned for over, for only two years over Israel. And during the time of Ahaziah, Moab, which of course is across the Jordan River, the present area known as Jordan, who were vassals and tributaries to the king of Israel, rebelled against Israel.

And Ahaziah fell down through a lattice in his upper chamber that was in Samaria ( 2Ki 1:2 ),

So he had an accident and fell down through this latticework from the upper chamber and was injured. And he ordered his servants to go to Ekron to inquire of the god of Ekron, which was Baalzebub.

Now the word Baal is a word that means lord. And so the people were worshipping the lord, but the lord wasn’t God. It was their lord, and Baalzebub is actually lord of the flies. So these people in Ekron were evidently worshipping flies.

Now, to me it is always strange how otherwise normally intelligent people who, when they reject the worship of God, will believe and do such stupid things. I’m always amazed at the almost lunacy of people in their ideas, in their concepts when they have forsaken the true and the living God. David said, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” ( Psa 53:1 ). And certainly when a person tries to rule God out of their lives, they become guilty of extremely foolish things. Can you possibly imagine worshipping a fly? Calling it your lord? Now in Romans chapter one, Paul gives us a little insight into man “who when he knew God, failed to glorify Him as God, neither was he thankful; therefore his foolish heart was darkened.” And Paul tells us how he “worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forevermore” ( Rom 1:21 , Rom 1:25 ).

Now, there are people today who look at a flower and say that is God. Or they’ll look at a tree and say that is God. So it’s not much different than looking at a fly and saying that is God, for they are worshipping sort of nature. And people say, “Well, I find God in nature,” and they worship nature. As Paul said, “They worship and serve the creature more than the Creator.” Now that is an irrational way to look at creation. You are looking at the creation of God and then you’re worshipping the creation rather than the Creator. The true rational way to look at creation is to marvel at the genius of design, but then worship the Creator rather than the creation.

Now in reality, a fly is designed very ingeniously. They are a pest, but yet, they are remarkable little creatures. I’m amazed at their determination to get into the house and their ability to do so. Just sort of cruising around the door until you open the door and zoom, right past you. And I like to observe flies. I’ve studied many of them under the microscope. I’m intrigued at their vision, the ability to see almost in a 360-degree capacity. You try to sneak up behind them and they see you coming. They have great vision, and I really am intrigued with the many facets within a fly’s eye that gives them the capacity of such tremendous peripheral vision. I’m fascinated with the little gyroscopes under the wings that help him in his equilibrium as he flies. And I’ve always been curious how they can land feet first on the ceiling. Now how close do they get to the ceiling before they flip over so they can land feet first? You ever thought about that? So they are a marvelous little creature. But surely they are not to be worshipped.

And yet man, poor man, so ignorant in his worship once he has ruled God out. Worships things that to look at them with just a rational mind is absolute idiocy. People have created their own concepts of God which they worship. Their own ideas.

And he sent these servants down to Ekron to inquire of the god of Ekron, Baalzebub, to find out if he was going to recover from the injuries he sustained in this accident.

And Elijah the prophet came out to meet the messengers and he said,

Is it not because there is not a God in Israel, that ye go to inquire of Baalzebub the god of Ekron [that the king is sending to Ekron to find out concerning his condition]? Now therefore thus saith the Lord, Thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die. [You go back and tell him that the Lord says he is not going to recover from his illness, but he’s going to die] ( 2Ki 1:3-4 ).

This is only after two years of reigning. The message from the Lord.

And when the messengers [servants] turned back unto him, he [the king] said unto them, Why are ye now turned back? [How come you came back] ( 2Ki 1:5 )?

I ordered you to go to Ekron.

And they said unto him, [Well,] there came a man up to meet us [on our way], and said unto us, Go, turn again unto the king that sent you, and say unto him ( 2Ki 1:6 ),

He told us to return to you with the message from Jehovah that you are going to die.

And he said unto them, What manner of man was he which came up to meet you, and told you these words? [What did the man look like?] And they answered him, He was a hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins. And he said, It is Elijah the Tishbite ( 2Ki 1:7-8 ).

Now, John the Baptist was a rugged kind of character, and no doubt Elijah was a very rugged character, wearing just sort of a leather skirt around his waist and a very hairy guy. Showing up here and there, and yet, a man who was in touch with God in such a mighty way.

Then the king sent unto him [ordered] a captain of fifty [men to go] with his fifty [men down and take Elijah and bring him back to the king]. And he went up to him [so the captain with his fifty men regiment came to Elijah]: and, behold, he sat on the top of a hill. And he spake unto him, Thou man of God, the king hath said, Come down [the king sent me to take you to him]. And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty [men]. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him [the captain] and his fifty. Again also he [the king] sent unto him another [a second] captain of fifty with his fifty [down to take Elijah and to bring him back] ( 2Ki 1:9-11 ).

And Elijah still sitting there on the hill, the second captain said, O man of God, the king has sent for you to come to him.

And Elijah answered and said, If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty [men]. And the fire of God came down from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty. And he sent again a captain of the third fifty with his fifty. And the third captain of fifty went up [out with fifty men], and came and fell on his knees before Elijah, and besought him, and said unto him, O man of God, [have mercy on me] let my life, and the life of these fifty thy servants, be precious in they sight ( 2Ki 1:12-13 ).

I’m only doing my duty. I’m a family man and all of my men here are family men. But the king has requested that you would come down to him, if you don’t mind. We sure wish you’d go.

And the LORD spoke unto Elijah and said, Go with him unto the king. So Elijah came unto this king [who was the son of Ahab]. And he said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Forasmuch as you have sent messengers to enquire of Baalzebub the god of Ekron, is it not because there is no God in Israel to enquire of his word? therefore thou shalt not come down off that bed on which thou art gone up, but you’re surely going to die. And so he died according to the word of the LORD which Elijah had spoken. And Jehoram reigned in his stead in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat the king of Judah; because he had no son. Now the rest of the acts of Ahaziah which he did, are they not written in the book of chronicles of the kings of Israel ( 2Ki 1:15-18 )?

Now watch it here. You’ve got a Jehoram ruling in the north, and a Jehoram ruling in the south. So things are going to get confusing here for a little bit. Ahaziah was young when he started to reign. He did not have any sons. He reigned only for two years and he died. And so his brother Jehoram began to reign over Israel. Because there was no eldest son to pass it on to, then the next oldest son of Ahab took over the throne in Israel. Now he took it over. His name was the same as the name of the king of Judah. So for a little bit here, it’s going to be a little difficult to follow the kingdom of the north in contrast with the kingdom of the south because they are both ruled over at this point by men whose name is Jehoram.

“

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

2Ki 1:1

2Ki 1:1-2

AHAZIAH; KING OF ISRAEL; INQUIRED OF BAAL-ZEBUB

“And Moab rebelled against Israel after the death of Ahab. And Ahaziah fell down through the lattice in his upper chamber that was in Samaria, and was sick: and he sent messengers, and said unto them, Go, inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron, whether I shall recover of this sickness.”

“And Moab rebelled against Israel” (2 Kings 1:1). David had defeated and subjugated the Moabites, putting to death at least two-thirds of their armed services (2 Samuel 8:2); and, of course, they became a part of the great empire of Solomon. From inscriptions upon the Moabite Stone, we learn that Moab rebelled upon the occasion of the division of Solomon’s empire and regained their independence for a time, but that they again lost it to Israel during the reign of Omri. Later in 2 Kings 3:4-27 there is a fuller report of this rebellion of Moab, but apparently this brief mention of it occurs here as a preliminary to the explanation of why Ahaziah was unable to suppress the rebellion due to his injury.

The event that precipitated Moab’s rebellion was the defeat and death of Ahab in the battle of Ramoth-gilead. “In Oriental empires the death of a brave and energetic king was always the signal for a revolt of the subjected peoples.”

“Go, inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron” (2 Kings 1:2). The word inquire here is of special interest. “It is a technical term for seeking divine revelation. It is used almost exclusively for resorting to a place with a religious objective (Amos 5:5; Deuteronomy 12:5; Genesis 25:22; Exodus 18:15; Ezekiel 14:10; etc.).”

The word Baal-zebub, as indicated by Ugaritic tablets was spelled Baal-zebul, meaning “lord of the dwelling,” but as it stands in the Hebrew it means, “lord of the flies.” This change of meaning probably resulted from a Hebrew deliberate misspelling of the name of that detestable god. Later in history, “The Rabbis, by making an additional slight change in the spelling, altered the name to mean, the dung god,” or the “god of the dunghill.”

Ahaziah’s sending messengers to inquire of Baalzebub was designed as a public insult to the true God of Israel, a maneuver which required the direct intervention of God Himself to checkmate it for the sake of the chosen people. God moved at once to destroy Ahaziah and to demonstrate before all men the stupid futility of Ahaziah’s insulting preference for the Canaanite Baal over the true God of Israel.

E.M. Zerr:

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

The history of the second Book of Kings is a continuation of that contained in the first Book. There everything ended with the dark days immediately following the death of Ahab and the passing into comparative obscurity of Elijah. This book centers first around Elisha.

The condition of things is evident from the opening statement of this chapter. Israel was at war with Moab. Ahaziah, the son of Alah, was on the throne; he was an evil man, and unable to govern because of sickness. He sought counsel from Baal-zebub, the god of Ehon. Elijah, who had been in seclusion, suddenly appeared, protesting against this action of the king. Twice Ahaziah attempted to capture him, and in each case the answer of God on behalf of His servant was a swift judgment of fire. At last Elijah went to the king and pronounced a sentence on him that was immediately carried out.

Thus, while we see the terrible degradation of the nation, we also observe how the testimony of truth was kept alive, and how over the ruin of His people through apostasy God was still governing and moving carrying out His own purpose.

To all such as are in any way called into fellowship with God in service how great a vision this is. There is nothing more calculated to keep the heart firm and steady than this truth perpetually taught through Old Testament history, that God abides, and retains in His own hand the reins of government.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

a Message from the True God

2Ki 1:1-8

The kings accident was probably due to the giving way of the balustrade that surrounded the roof of his palace. The Law expressly provided that this lattice-work should be made very strong to obviate just such an occurrence, Deu 22:8. Let us be careful to maintain the barriers of good custom, whether of purity, or total abstinence, or the observance of the Lords day. In this manner we shall preserve our children and ourselves from peril. All good habits are strong battlements.

To reach Ekron the messengers must pass Jerusalem. What a direct insult to Jehovah! Even Ahab had some regard for Micaiah, but Ahaziah went beyond his father in openly flouting the religion of David and Moses. In the interests of the whole nation, this insult could not be passed over in silence, and at Gods bidding Elijah appeared upon the scene. He rebuked the messengers for their idolatrous quest and told them that the king would surely die. They returned with the report that a man clad in a hairy garment had met them, and had said that the king would not recover. It was enough. The apprehensions of Ahaziahs guilty conscience were confirmed, and he said, It is Elijah the Tishbite!

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Ahaziah

(Whom Jehovah holds)

1Ki 22:40, 49, 51; 2 Kings 1.

Contemporary Prophet, Elijah.

The fear of the Lord prolongeth days: but the years of the wicked shall be shortened.-Pro 10:27

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. And he did evil in the sight of the Lord, and walked in the way of his father, and in the way of his mother, and in the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. For he served Baal, and worshiped him, and provoked to anger the Lord God of Israel, according to all that his father had done. It is a dark catalogue of iniquity, yet only what might be expected of the offspring of such a couple as Ahab and Jezebel. So matched in wickedness were his parents that nothing short of a miracle of grace could have made him anything better than the description given of him here.

And Ahaziah fell down through a lattice in his upper chamber, that was in Samaria, and was sick: and he sent messengers, and said unto them, Go, enquire of Baal-zebub [ lord of flies] the god of Ekron, whether I shall recover of this disease. Ekron was the northernmost of the five chief Philistine cities, and contained the shrine and oracle of the vile abomination called Baal-zebub (the Beelzebub of the New Testament). Men love the gods that are most like unto themselves, so it is not surprising to see Ahaziah sending to this miserable Philistine god. But the sick kings messengers never reached the oracle. The God of Israel Himself, sending His prophet to intercept the kings messengers, answered His question. But the angel of the Lord said to Elijah the Tishbite, Arise, go up to meet the messengers of the king of Samaria, and say unto them: Is it not because there is not a God in Israel, that ye go to enquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron? Now, therefore, thus saith the Lord, Thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die.

The messengers returned to their royal master, and related what had taken place. There came a man to meet us, they say, and said unto us, etc. What manner of man was he which came up to meet you, and told you these words? the king enquired. And they answered him, He was a hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins. And he said, It is Elijah the Tishbite. In his perverse folly, Ahaziah orders him at once to be apprehended. But now the strong hand of Jehovah must be felt by the perverse king and his haughty captains: twice over the captains with their fifties are consumed by fire from heaven. But, as the third captain humbly pleads for his own life and of his fifty men sent forth to arrest Jehovahs prophet, the angel of the Lord bids Elijah, Go down with him: be not afraid of him. And he arose, and went down with him unto the king. There, in the presence of the king, Jehovahs judgment is unflinchingly repeated to himself.

So he died according to the word of the Lord which Elijah had spoken. And Jehoram reigned in his stead in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah; because he had no son. This Jehoram was another son of Ahab (2Ki 3:1) and therefore brother of Ahaziah.

Now the rest of the acts of Ahaziah which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? Yes, and they, with the wicked acts recorded here, are written in Gods books above; not of the chronicles of the kings of Israel merely, but of the deeds and doings of every mans life, whether it be good or evil. Solemn facts for us all!

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

2Ki 1:3

I. The step from the ultra-local worship set up by Jeroboam to a foreign Phoenician worship seems a very long one. Yet it was natural and easy. The conscience of the idolater becomes at once stupefied and sensitive, more and more incapable of appreciating moral distinctions, more and more alive to terrors. The thought of a righteous Being is appalling; from an object of trust He passes into an object of horror. Other nations which seem happier and more prosperous have other gods and sacrifices. It might be well to try them. The most powerful neighbour must be most worthy of imitation.

II. A king like Ahab meets the demand of a people in this state. The Scripture leaves the impression upon our minds that he was intellectually superior to his predecessors, of a higher ambition, less narrow in his notions. He had not the dread which Jeroboam felt of intercourse with Jerusalem; he cultivated the friendship of Jehoshaphat. At the same time, he took to wife Jezebel, the daughter of Ethbaal, king of the Sidonians. With her he naturalized the worship of Baalim.

III. The Baal worship was essentially the worship of mere power as distinguished from righteousness. The most serious services, the sacrifices and libations of blood, must be presented to some malevolent nature which would destroy unless it were soothed. Thus the worship of power becomes literally the worship of evil. By a regular and awful process Baal, or Baalzebub, became in the minds of his devout servants what his name imported to Jews of later time-the prince of the devils.

IV. There are those who think that Elijah exceeded his commission when he destroyed the priests of Baal. I have not seen any occasion to depart from the ordinary view of the subject. But though I do not read in Elijah’s deep despondency the condemnation of his last act, I do see in it the natural effects of any great exercise of destructive power-perhaps of power at all-upon the mind of him to whom it has been entrusted. The sense of exhaustion, the cry, “I am not better than my fathers, though I have done such wonders,” the hopelessness of the future becoming all the more deep from the apparently useless triumph that had been won already-surely every prophet must have these bitter experiences if he is not to sink into a Baal-worshipper and after all to regard the God of truth and righteousness merely as a God of might.

F. D. Maurice, Prophets and Kings of the Old Testament, p. 125.

References: 2Ki 1:1-16.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. iv., p. 354. 2Ki 1:2-8.-J. R. Macduff, The Prophet of Fire, p. 253. 2Ki 1:9.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. xiii., p. 16. 2Ki 1:9-18.-J. R. Macduff, The Prophet of Fire, p. 267. 2Ki 1:10-12.-J. Hammond, Expositor, 1st series, vol. iii., p. 454. 2Ki 1-W. M. Taylor, Elijah the Prophet, p. 185; Parker, vol. viii., p. 68.

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

Analysis and Annotations

I. ELIJAHs FINAL MINISTRY AND TRANSLATION

1. Elijah and Ahaziah

CHAPTER 1

1. Moabs rebellion (2Ki 1:1)

2. The illness of Ahaziah (2Ki 1:2)

3. Elijahs message (2Ki 1:3-8)

4. Ahaziahs messengers and their fate (2Ki 1:9-15)

5. Elijah before the king and Ahaziahs Death (2Ki 1:16-17)

6. Jehoram becomes king (2Ki 1:18)

The rebellion of Moab is here briefly mentioned. Both Omri and Ahab had oppressed Moab, and after Ahabs death this rebellion took place. The complete report is found in the third chapter. That ancient monument known by the name of the Moabite stone contains a most interesting record of this revolt and the oppression by Omri and his son Ahab. This record is as follows: Omri (was) King of Israel, and he oppressed Moab many days, for Chemosh (Moabs idol-god) was angry with his land. His son (Ahab) followed him, and he also said, I will oppress Moab. (See Appendix for a complete translation of the record on this monument.) However, if it were not for the Bible no one would know that the inscription on the Moabite stone is truthful. The Bible proves the record genuine, and not the record the genuineness of the Biblical account. The Bible does not need such confirmation.

Ahaziah, the wicked son of a wicked father, had an accident and sent his messenger to inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron. Baal-zebub means lord of flies. According to rabbinical tradition, he was worshipped in the form of a fly; and so addicted were the Jews to this cult that they carried a small image in their pockets, kissing it from time to time. Vile practices were also connected with its worship. What awful blasphemy the Pharisees uttered when they accused our Lord of using Beelzebub, the prince of demons! (Mat 12:24. _Beelzebub is given in the Greek as _Beelzebul, which means lord of idolatrous sacrificing.)

The messengers of Ahaziah never reached Ekron. The Lord had heard the charge to the kings messengers and He sent a messenger (angel means in Hebrew a messenger) to Elijah the Tishbite. The angel of the LORD commanded the prophet to meet the men the king had sent forth to inquire of Baal-zebub and to announce the coming death of Ahaziah. The message is faithfully delivered; the messengers return to Ahaziah and he heard the words of Elijah from their lips. He knew at once who the mysterious person was who had turned back his messengers. The king sent therefore a captain with his fifty men to arrest the prophet. The captain addressed Elijah as a Man of God and commanded him in the name of the king to come down from the hill. But Elijah, fearless as he was, took up the word of the captain and appealed to his God to let fire come down from heaven. It was at once carried out and the captain with his fifty men were consumed by fire. The same fate overtook the second expedition, whose captain urged the prophets obedience more than the first, for he said, Come down quickly. The judicial character of Elijahs ministry is here once more in evidence. Critics have more than once condemned his action and called him arrogant and merciless, while others deny the historicity of the event altogether. Terrible as this answer was, we can perceive its suitableness, nay, its necessity, since it was to decide, and that publicly and by the way of judgment (and no other decision would have been suitable in a contest between man and God), whose was the power and the kingdom–and this at the great critical epoch of Israels history (History of Israel). Compare this fire judgment with Luk 9:54-56. When this present dispensation of grace is ended, judgment by fire will be meted out to the enemies of God (Rev 11:5). During the great tribulation (Mat 24:22) the fiery judgments will be on the earth (Rev 8:5), preceding the visible manifestation of the Lord, who shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (2Th 1:7-8).

Elijah could consistently command fire to come down from heaven and consume those who dishonored and despised in him the prophet and servant of God. But when the disciples of Jesus, in a similar case (Luk 9:54-56) desired to imitate that example, the Lord restrained them, and said: Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. Elijah here acted as the representative of the law, which showed no indulgence, but the disciples of Christ were the representatives of the gospel which proclaims the remission of sins. The old covenant necessarily alarmed and subdued the enemies of the kingdom of God by minatory language and punitive measures, while the new covenant designed to disarm and, if possible, to win them by forgiving love (J.H. Kurts).

A third company was sent out by Ahaziah. Mercy was shown to this captain and his fifty men, for the captain feared God and honored Elijah as His representative. His words breathe humility and his prayer showed that he owned the power of God. Such mercy is also in store for those who humble themselves when the coming judgments are in the earth. Then Elijah appeared before Ahaziah in person and delivered the God-given message and the wicked King died according to the Word of the LORD.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

Moab: Num 24:7, 2Sa 8:2, 1Ch 18:2, Psa 60:8

after the: 2Ki 3:4, 2Ki 3:5, 2Ki 8:20, 2Ki 8:22

Reciprocal: 2Pe 3:16 – speaking

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

ELIJAHS TRANSLATION

HIS LAST COMMISSION (2 Kings 1)

The story of Ahaziahs reign in the last chapter of 1 Kings and the first verse of this lesson is a close link between the two books. It indicates that the death of Ahab and the accession of his son gave occasion to the Moabites for this uprising, the first since their conquest by David (1Sa 8:2).

Baalzebub (2Ki 1:2), the lord of the fly, was the name under which the sun-god Baal was worshipped at Ekron, the city of the Philistines lying nearest to Ahaziahs capitol, Samaria. Probably the name comes from the supposition that he produced the flies and was consequently able to protect against them as a pest. The name is not to be confounded with Beelzebub of Matthew 10, although there may be a relation between the two. Observe the phrase at the beginning of 2Ki 1:3, and recall what we have learnt about the Christophanies of the Old Testament.

In 2Ki 1:9-12 Elijah, as the representative of God, is speaking in judgment against malefactors, for such the soldiers and the king behind them must be regarded. Had Elijah been apprehended of them it would have meant his death and a victory of the kingdom of darkness over the kingdom of light. How the fire came down and consumed the soldiers is not stated.

HIS LAST JOURNEY (2Ki 2:1-11)

The localities in the first five verses (Gilgal, Bethel, Jericho) were doubtless where schools of the prophets had been established, as far back as Samuels time (1Sa 7:15-17). These schools were for the training of godly youth in the law of God and the experience of a holy life. Elisha seems to have been among them while Elijah was their head at this period (2Ki 2:3). The awesome event about to transpire seems to have been revealed to them to some extent, explaining their communications to Elisha as well as his determination not to separate from Elijah till the end. Elijahs indisposition to have himself accompanied is difficult to explain, some attributing it to his purpose of testing the fidelity of Elisha as qualifying him for his succession.

Of what earlier events does verse 8 remind you? How would you interpret Elishas request in 2Ki 2:9? Shall we say that it refers to Deu 21:17, where the law of the firstborn is recorded? Elisha would have Elijah regard him as a firstborn son, and give him, as compared with the other sons of the prophets, a richer measure of his prophetic spirit. He did not ask twice as much of the Holy Spirit as Elijah had which even on natural grounds Elijah could not have granted him. It is as a prophet that Elijah replies in 2Ki 2:10. The translation in 2Ki 2:11 suggests that of Enoch, that of Christ Himself, and that of the Church yet to occur (Gen 5:24; Heb 11:5; Act 1:9; 1Th 4:17).

HIS LAST TOKEN (2Ki 2:12-18)

Elishas expression (2Ki 2:12) means that Elijah had been the true defense of Israel rather than its military strength in chariots and horsemen. That defense was seen in his combating of idolatry which was Israels real and only enemy. How otherwise does Elisha express his grief in this verse?

Compare the reference to Elijahs mantle (2Ki 2:13) 1Ki 19:19, and observe that its possession by Elisha is a token that his petition is answered and he has been endued for the prophetic office.

Is his question (2Ki 2:14) an expression of doubt or a prayer of faith? What does the result show (2Ki 2:15)?

The desire of the sons of the prophets (2Ki 2:16) is difficult to explain on the supposition that they had any clear idea that Elijah had gone into heaven. Into heaven, might be rendered toward heaven, and it may be questioned whether the prophet really went into heaven. In My Fathers house are many mansions, and Elijah, for the time being, may have been located at some other happy stopping place.

HIS SUCCESSORS INAUGURAL (2Ki 2:19-25)

The concluding verses furnish two other tokens of Elishas official character and power which may be considered in this lesson.

Of course it was neither the new bowl nor the salt that healed the water and made it usable (2Ki 2:19-21), but the power of God. They were symbols. The new bowl was necessary because every vessel used for a religious act in the service of Jehovah must be as yet unused, i.e. uncontaminated. The salt symbolized the purifying, restoring power God would put in the spring.

The second evidence of Elishas power (2Ki 2:23-24), has its difficulties. Little children in the margin of the Revised Version is young lads, and there is good authority for so considering it.

Lange suggests that the young people recognized him as a prophet and opponent of the popular idolatrous worship centered at Bethel. Therefore they called to him in mockery, What dost thou want here among us?

The epithet bald head was a standing insult for old or reverend people whether they were bald or not. It was not so much scorn of Elisha as of Jehovah Himself (compare Exo 16:8, Act 5:4, etc.).

She-bears are ravenous, but how two could tear forty-two young people must remain a mystery for the present.

QUESTIONS

1. What is the meaning of Baalzebub?

2. Who commissioned Elijah in this case?

3. How many illustrations of swift judgment on sin does this lesson contain?

4. What may be understood by the schools of the prophets?

5. How has Elijahs desire to be alone been interpreted?

6. How do you understand Elishas request of Elijah?

7. Of how many translations does the Bible speak?

8. What is the meaning of the chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof?

9. Why did Elisha use means in healing the waters?

10. How would you try to explain the cursing of the children?

Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary

2Ki 1:1. Then Moab rebelled against Israel Paid them no more tribute, but utterly disclaimed their authority over them. Moab had been subdued by David, as Edom was; and, upon the division of his kingdom, the former was adjoined to that of Israel, and the latter to that of Judah, each to that kingdom upon which it bordered. But when the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were weak, and forsaken by God, they took that opportunity to revolt from them: Moab here, and Edom a little after.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

2Ki 1:2. Go, enquire of Baal-zebub, whether I shall recover. Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron. The LXX read , the lord of flies, because they swarmed about his bloody temple; but the Philistines called him Baalshemin, lord of heaven. Dr. Lightfoot gives another name of this idol, from the rabbins. Baal-zebul; that is, lord of dung or dunghill. In politer language, lord of idols or idolatry. They regard Satan as presiding over the gentile temples, and uttering the oracles of those places. Augustine fully admits that demons, by their superior knowledge of the state of the atmosphere, did deliver oracles concerning rain, and some other events.

2Ki 1:9. Thou man of Godcome down. This captain was sent by the advice of Jezebel, who wished to feast her eyes with the blood of the prince of prophets. Imbibing the spirit of the court, the captain calls him a man of God by way of contempt; and he instantly received the punishment of his sin, as did those who afterwards mocked Elisha. The second captain, and his guard of fifty men, coming in the same spirit, received the same punishment. But the third, humbled under the mighty hand of God, begged his life. A soldier must never fight against Omnipotence.

2Ki 1:10. If I be a man of God, then let fire come down. If the Lord saved the Hebrews from Pharaoh by water, why might he not save the life of the only surviving prophet by fire?

REFLECTIONS.

When Adam rebelled against his Creator in paradise, the beasts of the earth, as though influenced by high example, rebelled against him. So it was with the house of Ahab, and the king of Moab. After a grievous offence against God, there is often a present, and also a remote, but heavier affliction which follows.

Ahaziah, succeeding his father, walked in all the idolatrous practices of his father and mother, and in all the sins of Jeroboam. Therefore while he was young, and promising himself a happy reign, God, in compassion to his people, permitted him to receive a mortal stroke by a fall from an upper window. How often is danger near when we think ourselves the most secure. What sinner is safe, unprotected by the blood of the everlasting covenant.

This prince, arrested by an invisible hand, discovered a most superstitious mind, and a glaring infidelity of heart against the Lord. In his own gods he had no faith, and in the God of Israel he had no hope; he sent to Baalzebub to know whether he should recover. What an insult to all his idols, and to all his prophets. What a provocation to the Lord!

When this man sought a vestige of hope, while in his sins, the Lord confirmed his despair. Elijah, with the divine message, intercepted the embassy on the road, and not a little reproached them with the folly of their errand, seeing the marvels which had been accorded to the seed of Abraham for a thousand years, that they should think there was no God in Israel; and sent them back with a positive declaration from the Lord, that their master should not recover. The kings suspense therefore was short. His embassy recited the facts, and so described the prophet that the person of Elijah was recognized. And now, behold that guilty and desponding countenance. See those baleful and rolling eyes. He must die, and he seems determined not to die. The anguish of his soul makes him a terror to himself, and to all his domestics. Conceiving their life to be in danger, they tremble, and seek their safety in flight. His prophets, conscious of being obnoxious, dare not approach; and his physicians, embarrassed and afraid, do it only with the forced promises of a positive recovery, while their looks sufficiently contradict all they say. Oh that the wicked, the infidel, the proud would learn wisdom from the numerous and instructive cases which all ages afford of the consummate misery of certain characters in the last moments of desponding life.

But the most lamentable disposition was the enmity of this prince against the prophet Elijah. Yet what harm had this prophet done to the dying king? Nay, what persecutions had he not suffered from the family, because he had told them the truth? Yet if Ahaziah must die; if on God he can inflict no revenge, he will at least be avenged on Elijah. He protests that this prophet shall be among the number which lament his fall. He instantly dispatches a military escort to bring him in chains to Samaria. Oh how terrible for this man to die in war and open contest with Omnipotence! Wicked kings are often surrounded with wicked servants. The captain of this escort, full of his masters spirit, found Elijah contemplating the works of God from an elevated rock in Carmel. Come down, said he, thou man of God. I am come to convince thee that thou art a blind prophet, and unable to foresee thy own destruction. Elijah, finding his mission discredited by this profane man, after so many signal works, proved it yet again by his destruction. He commanded a sheet of the electric fluid to descend and consume both him and his men. A second captain came in the same spirit, and received the same punishment. The third, seeing the visitations of God, prostrated to beg his life, and offered the prophet a safe protection. Being admonished by an angel, Elijah went to the hardened king, not indeed to comfort him, but to clench the nail of his former denunciation. Thus God in some notorious cases permits the church to use her mysterious power of punishment. Act 5:5. 1Co 5:5. St. Paul had power to come with a rod; and he delivered two blasphemers over to Satan. If the church of God, after long praying for the conversion of an oppressor, should be led by the Spirit to pray for his destruction, I would not for the whole world be in his situation.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

2Ki 1:1 to 2Ki 2:25. Last Days and Ascension of Elijah: Elisha Established as his Successor.Here we have perhaps a third Elijah narrative, in which the prophet is represented as playing a part scarcely worthy of the Elijah of 1 Kings 17-19 or 21, who in the first section represents Yahweh against the Tyrian Baal, whereas in the latter he stands for righteousness opposed to legalised violence. Here the kings offence is that he sent to a Philistine oracle instead of inquiring of Yahweh, and his soldiers are punished by fire for summoning the prophet to surrender. The spelling of the prophets name in Hebrew differs from that in the rest of the OT. The story is mentioned in the Gospel (Luk 9:54).

2Ki 1:2. Baal-zebub the God of Ekron.Ekron is the most northern Philistine city, and therefore the nearest to Samaria. This is the only mention of the god in the OT. In the NT he is the prince of demons. The word means lord of flies; Beelzebul, the alternative reading in NT, would mean lord of the house (Mar 3:22*).

2Ki 1:8. The description of Elijah as an hairy man, lit. a possessor (baal) of hair, is repeated in Mar 1:6 of the Baptist. The hairy garment (cf. mg.) was the dress of the ancient prophet (Zec 13:4).

2Ki 1:18 naturally stands before 2Ki 1:17, and the date, the second year of Jehoram, is misleading. There have evidently been some sweeping editorial revisions at this point (see Cent. B.).

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

AHAZIAH’S FALL AND DEATH

(Ch.1:1-18)

Verse 1 reports that after Ahab’s death Moab rebelled against Israel. As to this, chapters 3 and 4:27 give us a full account. Ahaziah, king of Israel, suffered a fall in his own home in Samaria and was badly injured. Because he had no knowledge of the God of Israel, he sent messengers to inquire of Baal-Zebub, the idolatrous god of Ekron, if he would recover from this serious injury (v.2).

But God intervened by sending Elijah to intercept the messengers with the question, “Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going to inquire of Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron?” Then he adds the solemn pronouncement that Ahaziah would not leave his bed, but die (v.4). Elijah simply gave this message and left.

The messengers therefore knew it was futile to go to the god of Ekron and they returned to Ahaziah, telling him of the man who met them and of his message from the God of Israel (v.6). In questioning them, about the man, he realised that he was Elijah the Tishbite (vv.7-8), who had given his father a similar fateful message which had proven true (1Ki 21:19).

Ahaziah therefore sent a captain with fifty men to apprehend Elijah. What he intended to do with Elijah is not clear, but Elijah’s arrest would certainly not avert the death of Ahaziah, who ought to have been concerned about his relationship to God now that death threatened him. Elijah was found sitting oil the top of a hill (v.9), and the captain arrogantly cold him. “Man of God, the king has said, Come down!” But the poor man had to learn that in dealing with God, it is utmost folly to adopt a haughty attitude. Elijah replied, “If I am a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty men” (v.10). This fearful judgment fell immediately and his whole company was destroyed. Such an act of God ought to have been warning enough to Ahaziah, yet he sent another captain with fifty men. This captain was just as arrogant, using the same words, but adding the word “quickly” to his demand (v.11). Elijah answered him just as he had answered the first captain, and with the same disastrous results (v.12).

Ahaziah learned nothing from these two fearful occasions. and he sent another captain with fifty men. This captain at least was more sensible, realising that a humble attitude rather than an arrogant one was the only way to act as before the God of Israel. He fell on his knees before Elijah. pleading for his life and for the life of his men in view of his knowing of the other groups having been burned to death (vv.13-14).

God always honours such an attitude as this, and the angel of the Lord told Elijah to go down with the captain and have no fear. Elijah therefore went, not to prison, but to the king (v.15). Before the king he delivered the same message he had before sent to Ahaziah. Because Ahaziah had recognised no God in Israel, and desired to inquire of a false god, therefore the God of Israel had passed sentence that Ahaziah would die in his bed (v.16).

Ahaziah could certainly not change anything by making Elijah suffer, so Elijah was evidently free to leave after delivering his message. His words were soon fulfilled by the death of Ahaziah. who sadly showed no sign of repentance toward God. He had no son, so his brother, Jehoram, became king of Israel. This took place in the second year of another Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, who ruled in Judah (v.17). Other acts of Ahaziah are said to be recorded in the chronicles of the kings of Israel.

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

B. THE PERIOD OF ALLIANCE 1 Kings 16:29-2 Kings 9:29 [CONT. FROM 1 KGS.] )

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

3. Ahaziah’s evil reign in Israel 1 Kings 22:51-2 Kings 1:18 (continued)

Second Kings begins with Ahaziah’s reign that fell during the 33-year period of Israel and Judah’s alliance (874-841 B.C.; 1Ki 16:29 -2Ki 9:29). This period in turn fits within the larger context of the divided kingdom (931-722 B.C.; 1 Kings 12 -2 Kings 17). [Note: See the diagram of the period of alliance near my notes on 1 Kings 16:29.]

"The typical Syrian upper balcony was enclosed with a jointed wood lattice-work that, while suitable for privacy, could easily be broken." [Note: R. D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel, "1, 2 Kings," in 1 Kings-Job, vol. 4 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 172.]

One of the results of Ahaziah’s decision to follow his father Ahab’s idolatrous example (1Ki 22:52-53) was that during his reign Israel lost some of its control of Moab (2Ki 22:1; 2Ki 3:5). It had held this since Omri’s reign at least. [Note: Gary Rendsburg, "A Reconstruction of Moabite-Israelite History," Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 13 (1981):67.] King Mesha of Moab’s rebellion was not completely effective at first, but later it proved successful.

We can detect Ahaziah’s failure to acknowledge his position under Yahweh, Israel’s true King, in his seeking advice from a false god (2Ki 22:2; cf. 1Ki 22:8). Ekron was on the Philistine border southwest of Samaria. Why would Ahaziah send to Philistia to inquire of Baal since Baalism was rampant in Israel? He may have done so to keep his illness a secret from his political enemies. Furthermore, the Baal religious center at Ekron had a reputation for divination and soothsaying (cf. 1Sa 6:2, Isa 2:6). In addition, Ekron was not far from Samaria.

The angel of the Lord here (2Ki 22:3) was perhaps the preincarnate Christ (Gen 16:9; 1Ki 19:7; 2Ki 19:35; et al.). Premature death was God’s punishment for the king’s insubordination (2Ki 22:4; cf. Saul). The people in the courts of Samaria knew Elijah well, of course (2Ki 22:8).

Ahaziah showed complete contempt for God’s prophet and Yahweh, whom he represented, by sending soldiers to arrest Elijah. He apparently wanted to get a reversal of the prophecy against him and resorted to massive force to secure it. [Note: D. J. Wiseman, 1 & 2 Kings: An Introduction and Commentary, p. 193.] "Man of God" means prophet (2Ki 22:9; et al.). Elijah replied that he was indeed a servant of God. For this reason the king should have submitted to him. Elijah’s position on the top of the hill suggests his superiority over the king and his messengers. [Note: The NET Bible note on 1:9.] The issue in this thrice-repeated confrontation was, who is in charge and has more power, Yahweh or Ahaziah (cf. 1 Kings 18)? Fire from heaven settled the controversy (2Ki 22:10; et al.; cf. 1Ki 18:38; Luk 9:54-56). The third captain took the proper humble approach to God’s prophet (2Ki 22:13-14).

There is wordplay in the Hebrew text that is helpful in appreciating the dialog between Elijah and the first two captains. The first two captains commanded the "man of God" to "come down" (2Ki 22:9; 2Ki 22:11). Elijah replied, "If I am a man [Heb. ’ish] of God, let fire [Heb. ’sh] come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty" (2Ki 22:10; 2Ki 22:12). Sure enough, fire came down on them proving that Elijah was indeed a man of God.

It is probable that Baal-zebub (2Ki 22:6) means "lord of the flies," bringing pestilence to mind. [Note: James R. Battenfield, "YHWH’s Refutation of the Baal Myth through the Actions of Elijah and Elisha," in Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison, p. 26.] "Baal Zebub" may be a deliberate scribal corruption of the name "Baal Zebul" meaning "Baal, the Prince," a title of the idol known from Ugaritic texts. [Note: See M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings, p. 25.] However, it may mean "exalted lord" [Note: Eugene H. Merrill, "2 Kings," in The Old Testament Explorer, p. 271.] or "lord of the flame." [Note: F. Charles Fensham, "A Possible Explanation of the Name Baal-Zebub of Ekron," Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 79 (1967):363.] If it means the latter, God may have been demonstrating His superiority to Baal as He had done previously on Mt. Carmel by sending fire from heaven. This time He did so to consume the soldiers (1Ki 18:38).

"The issue is still the same as at Carmel." [Note: Wiseman, p. 192.]

Ahaziah died, as Elijah had announced, as punishment for his failure to submit to Yahweh’s authority over His people (2Ki 22:17). Since he had no son to succeed him-note the fertility motif-his brother Jehoram became Israel’s next king (2Ki 22:18). There was also a contemporary king of Judah named Jehoram. The NIV translators have kept these two men distinct by spelling the Israelite king’s name "Joram," a variant spelling, and the Judahite king’s name "Jehoram."

God judged Ahaziah for his idolatry economically (1Ki 22:47-48; cf. 2Ch 20:36-37), politically (2Ki 22:1), and personally (2Ki 22:2).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

AHAZIAH BEN-AHAB OF ISRAEL

2Ki 1:1-18

B.C. 855-854

“Ye know not of what spirit are ye.”

– Luk 9:55

“He is the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better promises.”

– Heb 8:6

AHAZIAH, the eldest son and successor of Ahab, has been called “the most shadowy of the Israelitish kings.” He seems to have been in all respects one of the most weak, faithless, and deplorably miserable. He did but reign two years-perhaps in reality little more than one; but this brief space was crowded with intolerable disasters. Everything that he touched seemed to be marked out for ruin or failure, and in character he showed himself a true son of Jezebel and Ahab.

What results followed the defeat of Ahab and Jehoshaphat at Ramoth-Gilead we are not told. The war must have ended in terms of peace of some kind-perhaps in the cession of Ramoth-Gilead; for Ahaziah does not seem to have been disturbed during this brief reign by any Syrian invasion. Nor were there any troubles on the side of Judah. Ahaziahs sister was the wife of Jehoshaphats heir, and the good understanding between the two kingdoms was so closely cemented, that in both royal houses there was an identity of names-two Ahaziahs and two Jehorams.

But even the Judaean alliance was marked with misfortune. Jehoshaphats prosperity and ambition, together with his firm dominance over Edom-in which country he had appointed a vassal, who was sometimes allowed the courtesy title of king (1Ki 22:47 2Ki 3:9 comp. 2Ki 8:20)-led him to emulate Solomon by an attempt to revive the old maritime enterprise which had astonished Jerusalem with ivory, and apes, and peacocks imported from India. He therefore built “ships of Tarshish” at Ezion-Geber to sail to Ophir. They were called “Tarshish-ships,” because they were of the same build as those which sailed to Tartessus, in Spain, from Joppa. Ahaziah was to some extent associated with him in the enterprise. But it turned out even more disastrously than it had done in former times. So unskilled was the seamanship of those days among all nations except the Phoenicians, that the whole fleet was wrecked and shattered to pieces in the very harbor of Ezion-Geber before it had set sail.

Ahaziah, whose affinity with the King of Tyre and possession of some of the western ports had given his subjects more knowledge of ships and voyages, then proposed to Jehoshaphat that the vessels should be manned with sailors from Israel as well as Judah. But Jehoshaphat was tired of a futile and expensive effort. He refused a partnership which might easily lead to complications, and on which the prophets of Jehovah frowned. It was the last attempt made by the Israelites to become merchants by sea as well as by land.

Ahaziahs brief reign was marked by one immense humiliation. David, who extended the dominion of the Hebrews in all directions, had smitten the Moabites, and inflicted on them one of the horrible atrocities against which the ill-instructed conscience of men in those days of ignorance did not revolt. He had made the male warriors lie on the ground, and then, measuring them by lines, he put every two lines to death and kept one alive. After this the Moabites had continued to be tributaries. They had fallen to the share of the Northern Kingdom, and yearly acknowledged the suzerainty of Israel by paying a heavy tribute of the fleeces of a hundred thousand lambs and a hundred thousand rams. But now that the warrior Ahab was dead, and Israel had been crushed by the catastrophe at Ramoth-Gilead, Mesha, the energetic viceroy of Moab, seized his opportunity to revolt and to break from the neck of his people the odious yoke. The revolt was entirely successful. The sacred historian gives us no details, but one of the most priceless of modern archaeological discoveries has confirmed the Scriptural reference by securing and translating a fragment of Meshas own account of the annals of his reign. We have, in what is called “The Moabite Stone,” the memorial written in glorification of himself and of his god Chemosh, “the abomination of the children of Ammon,” by a contemporary of Ahab and Jehoshaphat. It is the oldest specimen which we possess of Hebrew writing; perhaps the only specimen, except the Siloam inscription, which has come down to us from before the date of the Exile. It was discovered in 1878 by the German missionary Klein, amid the ruins of the royal city of Daibon, {Dibon, Num 21:30} and was purchased for the Berlin Museum in 1879. Owing to all kinds of errors and intrigues, it did not remain in the hands of its purchaser, but was broken into fragments by the nomad tribe of Beni Hamide, from whom it was in some way obtained by M. Clermont-Ganneau. There is no ground for questioning its perfect genuineness, though the discovery of its value led to the forgery of a number of spurious and often indecent inscriptions. There can be no reasonable doubt that when we look at it we see before us the identical memorial of triumph which the Moabite emir erected in the days of Ahaziah on the bamah of Chemosh at Dibon, one of his chief towns.

This document is supremely interesting, not only for its historical allusions, but also as an illustration of customs and modes of thought which have left their traces in the records of the people of Jehovah, as well as in those of the people of Chemosh. Mesha tells us that his father reigned in Dibon for thirty years, and that he succeeded. He reared this stone to Chemosh in the town of Karcha, as a memorial of gratitude for the assistance which had resulted in the overthrow of all his enemies. Omri, King of Israel, had oppressed Moab many days, because Chemosh was wroth with his people. Ahaziah wished to oppress Moab as his father had done. But Chemosh enabled Mesha to recover Medeba, and afterwards Baal-Meon, Kirjatan, Ataroth, Nebo, and Jahaz, which he reoccupied and rebuilt. Perhaps they had been practically abandoned by all effective Israelite garrisons. In some of these towns he put the inhabitants under a ban, and sacrificed them to Moloch in a great slaughter. In Nebo alone he slew seven thousand men. Having turned many towns into fortresses, he was enabled to defy Israel altogether, to refuse the old burdensome tribute, and to reestablish a strong Moabite kingdom east of the Dead Sea; for Israel was wholly unable to meet his forces in the open field. Month after month of the reign of the miserable son of Ahab must have been marked by tidings of shame, defeat, and massacre.

Added to these public calamities, there came to Ahaziah a terrible personal misfortune. As he was coming down from the roof of his palace, he seems to have stopped to lean against the lattice of some window or balcony in his upper chamber in Samaria. It gave way under his weight, and he was hurled down into the courtyard or street below. He was so seriously hurt that he spent the rest of his reign on a sick-bed in pain and weakness, and ultimately died of the injuries he had received.

A succession of woes so grievous might well have awakened the wretched king to serious thought. But he had been trained under the idolatrous influences of his mother. As though it were not enough for him to walk in the steps of Ahab, of Jezebel, and of Jeroboam, he had the fatuity to go out of his way to patronize another and yet more odious superstition. Ekron was the nearest town to him of the Philistine Pentapolis, and at Ekron was established the local cult of a particular Baal known as Baal-Zebub (“the lord of flies”). Flies, which in temperate countries are sometimes an intense annoyance, become in tropical climates an intolerable plague. Even the Greeks had their Zeus Apomuios (“Zeus the averter of flies”), and some Greek tribes worshipped Zeus Ipuk-tonos (“Zeus the slayer of vermin”), and Zeus Muiagros and Apomuios, and Apollo Smintheus (“the destroyer of mice”). The Romans, too, among the numberless quaint heroes of their Pantheon, had a certain Myiagrus and Myiodes, whose function it was to keep flies at a distance.

This fly-god, Baal-Zebub of Ekron, had an oracle, to whose lying responses the young and superstitious prince attached implicit credence. That a king of Israel professing any sort of allegiance to Jehovah, and having hundreds of prophets in his own kingdom, should send an embassy to the shrine of an abominable local divinity in a town of the Philistines-whose chief object of worship was

“That twice-battered god of Palestine,

Who mourned in earnest when the captive ark

Maimed his brute image on the grunsel edge

Where he fell fiat, and shamed his worshippers”-

was, it must be admitted, an act of apostasy more outrageously insulting than had ever yet been perpetrated by any Hebrew king. Nothing can more clearly illustrate the callous indifference shown by the race of Jezebel to the lessons which God had so decisively taught them by Elijah and by Micaiah.

But

“Quem vult Deus perdere, dementat Aerius,”

and in this “dementation preceding doom” Ahaziah sent to ask the fly-gods oracle whether he should recover of his injury. His infatuated perversity became known to Elijah, who was bidden by “the angel,” or messenger, “of the Lord”-which may only be the recognized phrase in the prophetic schools, putting in a concrete and vivid form the voice of inward inspiration-to go up apparently on the road towards Samaria, and meet the messengers of Ahaziah on their way to Ekron. Where Elijah was at the time we do not know. Ten years had elapsed since the calling of Elisha, and four since Elijah had confronted Ahab at the door of Naboths vineyard. In the interval he has not once been mentioned, nor can we conjecture with the least certainty whether he had been living in congenial solitude or had been helping to train the Sons of the Prophets in the high duties of their calling. Why he had not appeared to support Micaiah we cannot tell. Now, at any rate, the son of Ahab was drawing upon himself an ancient curse by going a-whoring after wizards and familiar spirits, and it was high time for Elijah to interfere. {Lev 20:6}

The messengers had not proceeded far on their way when the prophet met them, and sternly bade them go back to their king, with the denunciation, “Is it because there is no God in Israel that ye go to inquire of Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron? Now, therefore, thus saith Jehovah, Thou shalt not descend from that bed on which thou art gone up, but dying thou shalt die.”

He spoke, and after his manner vanished with no less suddenness.

The messengers, overawed by that startling apparition, did not dream of daring to disobey. They at once went back to the king, who, astonished at their reappearance before they could possibly have reached the oracle, asked them why they had returned.

They told him of the apparition by which they had been confronted. That it was a prophet who had spoken to them they knew; but the appearances of Elijah bad been so few, and at such long intervals, that they knew not who he was.

“What sort of man was he that spoke to you?” asked the king.

“He was,” they answered, “a lord of hair, and girded about his loins with a girdle of skin.”

Too well did Ahaziah recognize from this description the enemy of his guilty race! If he had not been present on Carmel, or at Jezreel, on the occasions when that swart and shaggy figure of the awful wanderer had confronted his father, he must have often heard descriptions of this strange Bedawy ascetic who “feared man so little because he feared God so much.”

“It is Elijah the Tishbite!” he exclaimed, with a bitterness which was succeeded by fierce wrath; and with something of his mothers indomitable rage he sent a captain with fifty soldiers to arrest him.

The captain found Elijah sitting at the top of “the hill,” perhaps of Carmel; and what followed is thus described:-

“Thou man of God,” he cried, “the king hath said, Come down.”

There was something strangely incongruous in this rude address. The title “man of God” seems first to have been currently given to Elijah, and it recognizes his inspired mission as well as the supernatural power which he was believed to wield. How preposterous, then, was it to bid a man of God to obey a kings order and to give himself up to imprisonment or death!

“If I be a man of God,” said Elijah, “then let fire come down from heaven, to consume thee and thy fifty.”

The fire fell and reduced them all to ashes. Undeterred by so tremendous a consummation, the king sent another captain with his fifty, who repeated the order in terms yet more imperative.

Again Elijah called down the fire from heaven, and the second captain with his fifty soldiers was reduced to ashes.

For the third time the obstinate king, whose infatuation must indeed have been transcendent, dispatched a captain with his fifty. But he, warned by the fate of his predecessors, went up to Elijah and fell on his knees, and implored him to spare the life of himself and his fifty innocent soldiers.

Then “the angel of the Lord” bade Elijah go down to the king with him and not be afraid. What are we to think of this narrative?

Of course, if we are to judge it on such moral grounds as we learn from the spirit of the gospel, Christ Himself has taught us to condemn it. There have been men who so hideously misunderstood the true lessons of revelation as to applaud such deeds, and hold them up for modern imitation. The dark persecutors of the Spanish Inquisition, nay, even men like Calvin and Beza, argued from this scene that “fire is the proper instrument for the punishment of heretics.” To all who have been thus misled by a false and superstitious theory of inspiration, Christ Himself says, with unmistakable plainness, as He said to the Sons of Thunder at Engannim, “Ye know not what spirit ye are of? I am not come to destroy mens lives, but to save.” In the abstract, and judged by Christian standards, the calling down of lightning to consume more than a hundred soldiers, who were but obeying the orders of a king-the protection of personal safety by the miraculous destruction of a kings messengers-could only be regarded as a deed of horror. “There are few tracks of Elijah that are ordinary and fit for common feet,” says Bishop Hall; and he adds, “Not in his own defense would the prophet have been the death of so many, if God had not, by a peculiar instinct, made him an instrument of His just vengeance.”

For myself, I more than doubt whether we have any right to appeal to those “peculiar instincts” and unrecorded inspirations; and it is so important that we should not form utterly false views of what Scripture does and does not teach, that we must once more deal with this narrative quite plainly, and not beat about the bush with the untenable devices and effeminate euphemisms of commentators, who give us the “to-and-fro-conflicting” apologies of a priori theory instead of the clear judgments of inflexible morality.

“It is impossible not to feel,” says Professor Milligan, “that the events thus presented to us are of a very startling kind, and that it is not easy to reconcile them either with the conception that we form of an honored servant of God, or with our ideas of eternal justice. Elijah rather appears to us at first sight as a proud, arrogant, and merciless wielder of the power committed to him: we wonder that an answer should have been given to his prayer; we are shocked at the destruction of so many men, who listened only to the command of their captain and their king; and we cannot help contrasting Elijahs conduct, as a whole, with the beneficent and loving tenderness of the New Testament dispensation.”

Professor Milligan proceeds rightly to set aside the attempts which have been made to represent the first two captains and their fifties as especially guilty-which is a most flimsy hypothesis, and would not in any case touch the heart of the matter. He says that the event stands on exactly the same footing as the slaughter of the 450 prophets of Baal at Kishon, and of the 3000 idolaters by order of Moses at Sinai: the swallowing up of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram; the ban of total extirpation on Jericho and on Canaan: the sweeping massacre of the Amalekites by Saul: and many similar instances of recorded savagery. But the reference to analogous acts furnishes no justification for those acts.

What, then, is their justification, if any can be found? Some would defend them on the grounds that the potter may do what he likes with the clay. That analogy, though perfectly admissible when used for the purpose to which it is applied by St. Paul, is grossly inapplicable to such cases as this. St. Paul uses it simply to prove that we cannot judge or understand the purposes of God, in which, as he shows, mercy often lies behind apparent severity. But, when urged to maintain the rectitude of sweeping judgments in which a man arms his own feebleness with the omnipotence of Heaven, they amount to no more than the tyrants plea that “might makes right.” “Man is a reed,” said Pascal, “but he is a thinking reed.” He may not therefore be indiscriminately crushed. He was made by God in His image, after His likeness, and therefore his rights have a Divine and indefeasible sanction.

All that can be said is that these deeds of wholesale severity were not in disaccord with the conscience even of many of the best Old Testament saints. They did not feel the least compunction in inflicting judgments on whole populations in a way which would argue in us an infamous callousness. Nay, their consciences approved of those deeds; they were but acting up to the standard of their times, and they regarded themselves as righteous instruments of divinely directed vengeance. Take, for instance, the frightful Eastern law which among the Jews no less than among Babylonians and Persians thought nothing of overwhelming the innocent with the guilty in the same catastrophe; which required the stoning, not only of Achan, but of all Achans innocent family, as an expiation for his theft; and the stoning, not only of Naboth, but also of Naboths sons, in requital for his asserted blasphemy. Two reasons may be assigned for the chasm between their moral sense and ours on such subjects-one was their amazing indifference to the sacredness of human life, and the other their invariable habit of regarding men in their corporate relations rather than in their individual capacity. Our conscience teaches us that to slay the innocent with the guilty is an action of monstrous injustice; {Comp. Eze 18:2-30} but they, regarding each person as indissolubly mixed up with all his family and tribe, magnified the conception of corporate responsibility, and merged the individual in the mass.

It is clear that, if we take the narrative literally, Elijah would not have felt the least remorse in calling fire from heaven to consume these scores of soldiers, because the prophetic narrator who recorded the story, perhaps two centuries later, must have understood the spirit of those days, and certainly felt no shame for the prophets act of vengeance. On the contrary, he relates it with entire approval for the glorification of his hero. We cannot blame him for not rising above the moral standard of his age. He held that the natural manifestation of an angry Jehovah was, literally or metaphorically, in consuming fire. Considering the slow education of mankind in the most elementary principles of mercy and righteousness, we must not judge the views of prophets who lived so many ages before Christ by those of religious teachers who enjoy the inherited experience of two millenniums of Christianity. Thus much is plainly taught us by Christ Himself, and there perhaps we might be content to leave the question. But we are compelled to ask, Do we not too much form all our judgments of the Scripture narratives on a priori traditions and unreasoned prejudices?

Can we with adequate knowledge and honest conviction declare our certainty that this scene of destruction ever occurred as a literal fact? If we turn to any of the great students and critics of Germany, to whom we are indebted for the floods of light which their researches have thrown on the sacred page, they with almost consentient voice regard these details of this story as legendary. There is indeed every reason to believe the account of Ahaziahs accident, of his sending to consult the oracle of Baal-Zebub, of the turning back of his messengers by Elijah, and of the menace which he heard from the prophets lips. But the calling down of lightning to consume his captains and soldiers to ashes belongs to the cycle of Elijah-traditions preserved in the schools of the prophets; and in the case of miracles so startling and to our moral sense so repellent-miracles which assume the most insensate folly on the part of the king, and the most callous ruthlessness on the part of the prophet-the question may be fairly asked, Is there any proof, is there anything beyond dogmatic assertion, to convince us that we were intended to accept them au pied de la lettre? May they not be the formal vehicle chosen for the illustration of the undoubted powers and righteous mission of Elijah as the upholder of the worship of Jehovah? In a literature which abounds, as all Eastern literature abounds, in vivid and concrete methods of indicating abstract truths, have we any cogent proof that the supernatural details, of which some may have been introduced into these narratives by the scribes in the schools of the prophets were not, in some instances, meant to be regarded as imaginative apologues? The most orthodox divines, both Jewish and Christian, have not hesitated to treat the Book of Jonah as an instance of the use of fiction for purposes of moral and spiritual edification. Were any critic to maintain that the story of the destruction of Ahaziahs emissaries belongs to the same class of narratives, I do not know how he could be refuted, however much he might be denounced by stereotyped prejudice and ignorance. I do not, however, myself regard the story as a mere parable composed to show how awful was the power of the prophets, and how fearfully it might be exercised. I look upon it rather as possibly the narrative of some event which has been imaginatively embellished, and intermingled with details which we call supernatural. Circumstances which we consider natural would be regarded as directly miraculous by an Eastern enthusiast, who saw in every event the immediate act of Jehovah to the exclusion of all secondary causes, and who attributed every occurrence of life to the intervention of those “millions of spiritual creatures,” who “walk the earth unseen both when we wake and when we sleep.”

If such a supposition be correct and admissible and assuredly it is based on all that we increasingly learn of the methods of Eastern literature, and of the forms in which religious ideas were inculcated in early ages-then all difficulties fire removed. We are not dealing with the mercilessness of a prophet, or the wielding of Divine powers in a manner which higher revelation condemns, but only with the well-known fact that the Elijah-spirit was not the Christ-spirit, and that the scribes of Ramah or Gilgal, and “the men of the tradition” and the “men of letters,” who lived at Jabez, when they used the methods of Targum and Haggadah in handing down the stories of the prophets, had not received that full measure of enlightenment which came only when the Light of the World had shone.

THE ASCENSION OF ELIJAH

2Ki 2:1-18

THE date of the assumption of Elijah is wholly uncertain, and it becomes still more so because of the confusion of chronological order which results from the composite character of the records here collected. It appears from various scattered notices that Elijah lived on till the reign of Jehoram of Judah, whereas the narrative in this chapter is placed before the death of Jehoshaphat.

When the time came that “Jehovah would take up Elijah by a whirlwind into heaven,” the prophet had a prevision of his approaching end, and determined for the last time to visit the hills of his native Gilead. The story of his end, though not written in rhythm, is told in a style of the loftiest poetry, resembling other ancient poems in its simple and solemn repetitions. On his way to Gilead, Elijah desires to visit ancient sanctuaries where schools of the prophets were now established, and accompanied by Elisha, whose faithful ministrations he had enjoyed for ten almost silent years, he went to Gilgal. This was not the Gilgal in the Jordan valley so famous in the days of Joshua, {Jos 4:19; Jos 5:9; Jos 5:10} but in the hills of Ephraim, where many young prophets were in course of training. {2Ki 4:38}

Knowing that he was on his way to death, Elijah felt the imperious instinct which leads the soul to seek solitude at the supreme crises of life. He would have preferred that even Elisha should leave him, and he bade him stop at Gilgal, because the Lord had sent him as far as Bethel. But Elisha was determined to see the end, and exclaimed with strong asseveration, “As Jehovah liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee.”

So they went on to Bethel, where there was another school of prophets, under the immediate shadow of Jeroboams golden calf, though we are not told whether they continued the protest of the old nameless seer from Judah, or not. {1Ki 13:1-34} Here the youths of the college came respectfully to Elisha-for they were prevented by a sense of awe from addressing Elijah-and asked him “whether he knew that that day God would take away his master.” “Yes, I know it,” he answers; but-for this is no subject for idle talk-“hold ye your peace.”

Once more Elijah tries to shake off the attendance of his friend and disciple. He bids him stay at Bethel, since Jehovah has sent him on to Jericho. Once more Elisha repeats his oath that he will not leave him, and once more the sons of the prophets at Jericho, who warn him of what is coming, are told to say no more.

But little of the journey now remains. In vain Elijah urges Elisha to stay at Jericho; they proceed to Jordan. Conscious that some great event is impending, and that Elijah is leaving these scenes forever, fifty of the sons of the prophets watch the two as they descend the valley to the river. Here they saw Elijah take off his mantle of hair, roll it up, and smite the waters with it. The waters part asunder, and the prophets pass over dry-shod. As they cross over Elijah asks Elisha what he should do for him, and Elisha entreats that a double portion of Elijahs spirit may rest upon him. By this he does not mean to ask for twice Elijahs power and inspiration, but only for an elder sons portion, which was twice what was inherited by the younger sons. “Thou hast asked a hard thing,” said Elijah; “but if thou seest me when I am taken hence, it shall be so.”

The sequel can be only told in the words of the text: “And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariots of Israel, and the horsemen thereof! And he saw him no more.”

Respecting the manner in which Elijah ended his earthly career, we know nothing beyond what is conveyed by this splendid narrative. His death, like that of Moses, was surrounded by mystery and miracles, and we can say nothing further about it. The question must still remain unanswered for many minds whether it was intended by the prophetic annalists for literal history, for spiritual allegory, or for actual events bathed in the colorings of an imagination to which the providential assumed the aspect of the supernatural. We are twice told that “Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven,” and in that storm-which would have seemed a fit scene for the close of a career of storm-God, in the high poetry of the Psalmist, may have made the winds His angels, and the flames of fire His ministers. For us it must suffice to say of Elijah, as the Book of Genesis says of Enoch, that “he was not, for God took him.”

Elisha signalized the removal of his master by a burst of natural grief. He seized his garments and rent them in twain. Elijah had dropped his mantle of skin, and his grieving disciple took it with him as a priceless relic. The legendary St. Antony bequeathed to St. Athanasius the only thing which he had, his sheepskin mantle; and in the mantle of Elijah his successor inherited his most characteristic and almost his sole possession. He returned to Jordan, and with this mantle he smote the waters as Elijah had done. At first they did not divide; but when he exclaimed, “Where is the Lord, the God of Elijah, even He?” they parted hither and thither. Seeing the portent, the sons of the prophets came with humble prostrations, and acknowledged him as their new leader.

They were not, however, satisfied with what they had seen, or had heard from Elisha, of the departure of the great prophet, and begged leave to send fifty strong men to search whether the wind of the Lord had not swept him away to some mountain or valley. Elisha at first refused, but afterwards yielded to their persistent importunity. They searched for three days among the hills of Gilead, but found him not, either living or dead, as Elisha had warned them would be the case.

From that time forward Elijah has taken his place in all Jewish and Mohammedan legends as the mysterious and deathless wanderer. Malachi spoke of him as destined to appear again to herald the coming of the Messiah, {Mal 4:4-6} and Christ taught His disciples that John the Baptist had come in the spirit and power of Elijah. In Jewish legend he often appears and disappears. A chair is set for him at the circumcision of every Jewish child. At the Paschal feast the door is set open for him to enter. All doubtful questions are left for decision until he comes again. To the Mohammedans he is known as the wonder-working and awful El Khudr.

Elisha is mentioned but once in all the later books of Scripture; but Elijah is mentioned many times, and the son of Sirac sums up his greatness when he says: “Then stood up Elias as fire, and his word burned like a torch. O Elias, how wast thou honored in thy wondrous deeds! and who may glory like unto thee-who anointed kings to take revenge, and prophets to succeed after him-who wast ordained for reproof in their times, to pacify the wrath of the Lords judgment before it broke forth into fury, and to turn the heart of the father unto the son, and to restore the tribes of Jacob! Blessed are they that saw thee and slept in love; for we shall surely live!”

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary