Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Kings 6:24
And it came to pass after this, that Ben-hadad king of Syria gathered all his host, and went up, and besieged Samaria.
24 31. Benhadad besieges Samaria. The city suffers terribly from famine, and the king threatens to put Elisha to death (Not in Chronicles)
24. Ben-hadad ] Probably the same king who was defeated and submitted himself to Ahab (1 Kings 20).
went up, and besieged Samaria Josephus explains that Jehoram did not feel himself a match for Benhadad, and so shut himself up in Samaria, relying for protection on the security of its walls.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
After this – Perhaps some years after – when the miracle and the kind treatment were alike forgotten.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
He whom Ahab wickedly and foolishly spared, 1Ki 20:42, who now comes to requite Ahabs kindness, and to fulfil that Divine prediction.
Ben-hadad was a name very frequent among the kings of Syria, 1Ki 15:18; 2Ki 13:3,24, if not common to them all. See Jer 49:27; Amo 1:4.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
24. Ben-hadad . . . besiegedSamariaThis was the predicted accomplishment of the result ofAhab’s foolish and misplaced kindness (1Ki20:42).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And it came to pass after this, that Benhadad king of Syria gathered all his host,…. Still retaining a grudge and enmity against Israel, and not at all softened by the kind and humane treatment his forces had met with, when in the hands of Israel; and finding he could do nothing in a secret way, by ambush, mustered all his forces together, to try what he could by open war:
and went up, and besieged Samaria; Jehoram king of Israel not being able to stop him till he came to his capital, which he laid close siege to.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
After this there arose so fearful a famine in Samaria on the occasion of a siege by Benhadad, that one mother complained to the king of another, because she would not keep her agreement to give up her son to be eaten, as she herself had already done.
2Ki 6:25 The famine became great – till an ass’s head was worth eighty shekels of silver, and a quarter of a cab of dove’s dung was worth five shekels. , to become for = to be worth. The ass was an unclean animal, so that it was not lawful to eat its flesh. Moreover the head of an ass is the most inedible part of the animal. Eighty shekels were about seventy thalers (10, 10s. – Tr.), or if the Mosaic bekas were called shekels in ordinary life, thirty-five thalers (5, 5s.; see Bertheau, Zur Gesch. der Isr. p. 49). According to Thenius, a quarter of a cab is a sixth of a small Dresden measure ( Msschen), not quite ten Parisian cubic inches. Five shekels: more than four thalers (twelve shillings), or more than two thalers (six shillings). The Chetbib is to be read , excrementa columbarum , for which the Keri substitues the euphemistic , fluxus, profluvium columbarum . The expression may be taken literally, since dung has been known to be collected for eating in times of terrible famine (vid., Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 13, 7); but it may also be figuratively employed to signify a very miserable kind of food, as the Arabs call the herba Alcali Arab. snan , i.e., sparrow’s dung, and the Germans call Asa foetida Teufelsdreck . But there is no ground for thinking of wasted chick-pease, as Bochart ( Hieroz. ii. p. 582, ed. Ros.) supposes (see, on the other hand, Celsii Hierobot. ii. p. 30ff.).
(Note: Clericus gives as a substantial parallel the following passage from Plutarch ( Artax. c. 24): “ he only killed the beasts of burden, so that the head of an ass was hardly to be bought for sixty drachmae; ” and Grotius quote the statement in Plin. h. n. viii. 57, that when Casalinum was besieged by Hannibal a mouse was sold for 200 denaria.)
2Ki 6:26 As the king was passing by upon the wall to conduct the defence, a woman cried to him for help; whereupon he replied: , “should Jehovah not help thee, whence shall I help thee? from the threshing-floor or from the wine-press?” It is difficult to explain the which Ewald (355, b.) supposes to stand for . Thenius gives a simpler explanation, namely, that it is a subjective negation and the sentence hypothetical, so that the condition would be only expressed by the close connection of the two clauses (according to Ewald, 357). “From the threshing-floor or from the wine-press?” i.e., I can neither help thee with corn nor with wine, cannot procure thee either food or drink. He then asked her what her trouble was; upon which she related to him the horrible account of the slaying of her own child to appease her hunger, etc.
2Ki 6:30 The king, shuddering at this horrible account, in which the curses of the law in Lev 26:29 and Deu 28:53, Deu 28:57 had been literally fulfilled, rent his clothes; and the people then saw that he wore upon his body the hairy garment of penitence and mourning, , within, i.e., beneath the upper garment, as a sign of humiliation before God, though it was indeed more an opus operatum than a true bending of the heart before God and His judgment. This is proved by his conduct in 2Ki 6:31. When, for example, the complaint of the woman brought the heart-breaking distress of the city before him, he exclaimed, “God do so to me … if the head of Elisha remain upon him to-day.” Elisha had probably advised that on no condition should the city be given up, and promised that God would deliver it, if they humbled themselves before Him in sincere humility and prayed for His assistance. The king thought that he had done his part by putting on the hairy garment; and as the anticipated help had nevertheless failed to come, he flew into a rage, for which the prophet was to pay the penalty. It is true that this rage only proceeded from a momentary ebullition of passion, and quickly gave place to a better movement of his conscience. The king hastened after the messenger whom he had sent to behead Elisha, for the purpose of preventing the execution of the murderous command which he had given in the hurry of his boiling wrath (2Ki 6:32); but it proves, nevertheless, that the king was still wanting in that true repentance, which would have sprung from the recognition of the distress as a judgment inflicted by the Lord. the desperate deed, to which his violent wrath had impelled him, would have been accomplished, if the Lord had not protected His prophet and revealed to him the king’s design, that he might adopt defensive measures.
2Ki 6:32 The elders of the city were assembled together in Elisha’s house, probably to seek for counsel and consolation; and the king sent a man before him (namely, to behead the prophet); but before the messenger arrived, the prophet told the elders of the king’s intention: “See ye that this son of a murderer (Joram, by descent and disposition a genuine son of Ahab, the murderer of Naboth and the prophets) is sending to cut off my head?” and commanded them to shut the door against the messenger and to force him back at the door, because he already heard the sound of his master’s feet behind him. These measures of Elisha, therefore, were not dictated by any desire to resist the lawful authorities, but were acts of prudence by which he delayed the execution of an unrighteous and murderous command which had been issued in haste, and thereby rendered a service to the king himself. – In 2Ki 6:33 we have to supply from the context that the king followed close upon the messenger, who came down to Elisha while he was talking with the elders; and he (the king) would of course be admitted at once. For the subject to is not the messenger, but the king, as is evident from 2Ki 7:2 and 2 Kings 17. The king said: “Behold the calamity from the Lord, why shall I wait still further for the Lord?” – the words of a dispairing man, in whose soul, however, there was a spark of faith still glimmering. The very utterance of his feelings to the prophet shows that he had still a weak glimmer of hope in the Lord, and wished to be strengthened and sustained by the prophet; and this strengthening he received.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Siege of Samaria. | B. C. 891. |
24 And it came to pass after this, that Benhadad king of Syria gathered all his host, and went up, and besieged Samaria. 25 And there was a great famine in Samaria: and, behold, they besieged it, until an ass’s head was sold for fourscore pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a cab of dove’s dung for five pieces of silver. 26 And as the king of Israel was passing by upon the wall, there cried a woman unto him, saying, Help, my lord, O king. 27 And he said, If the LORD do not help thee, whence shall I help thee? out of the barnfloor, or out of the winepress? 28 And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow. 29 So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son. 30 And it came to pass, when the king heard the words of the woman, that he rent his clothes; and he passed by upon the wall, and the people looked, and, behold, he had sackcloth within upon his flesh. 31 Then he said, God do so and more also to me, if the head of Elisha the son of Shaphat shall stand on him this day. 32 But Elisha sat in his house, and the elders sat with him; and the king sent a man from before him: but ere the messenger came to him, he said to the elders, See ye how this son of a murderer hath sent to take away mine head? look, when the messenger cometh, shut the door, and hold him fast at the door: is not the sound of his master’s feet behind him? 33 And while he yet talked with them, behold, the messenger came down unto him: and he said, Behold, this evil is of the LORD; what should I wait for the LORD any longer?
This last paragraph of this chapter should, of right, have been the first of the next chapter, for it begins a new story, which is there continued and concluded. Here is,
I. The siege which the king of Syria laid to Samaria and the great distress which the city was reduced to thereby. The Syrians had soon forgotten the kindnesses they had lately received in Samaria, and very ungratefully, for aught that appears without any provocation, sought the destruction of it, v. 24. There are base spirits that can never feel obliged. The country, we may suppose, was plundered and laid waste when this capital city was brought to the last extremity, v. 25. The dearth which had of late been in the land was probably the occasion of the emptiness of their stores, or the siege was so sudden that they had not time to lay in provisions; so that, while the sword devoured without, the famine within was more grievous (Lam. iv. 9): for, it should seem, the Syrians designed not to storm the city, but to starve it. So great was the scarcity that an ass’s head, that has but little flesh on it and that unsavoury, unwholesome, and ceremonially unclean, was sold for five pounds, and a small quantity of fitches, or lentiles, or some such coarse corn, then called dove’s dung, no more of it than the quantity of six eggs, for five pieces of silver, about twelve or fifteen shillings. Learn to value plenty, and to be thankful for it; see how contemptible money is, when, in time of famine, it is so freely parted with for anything that is eatable.
II. The sad complaint which a poor woman had to make to the king, in the extremity of the famine. He was passing by upon the wall to give orders for the mounting of the guard, the posting of the archers, the repair of the breaches, and the like, when a woman of the city cried to him, Help, my lord, O king! v. 26. Whither should the subject, in distress, go for help but to the prince, who is, by office, the protector of right and the avenger of wrong? He returns but a melancholy answer (v. 27): If the Lord do not help thee, whence shall I? Some think it was a quarrelling word, and the language of his fretfulness: “Why dost thou expect anything from me, when God himself deals thus hardly with us?” Because he could not help her as he would, out of the floor or the wine-press, he would not help her at all. We must take heed of being made cross by afflictive providences. It rather seems to be a quieting word: “Let us be content, and make the best of our affliction, looking up to God, for, till he help us, I cannot help thee.” 1. He laments the emptiness of the floor and the wine-press. These were not as they had been; even the king’s failed. We read (v. 23) of great provisions which he had a command, sufficient for the entertainment of an army, yet now he has not wherewithal to relieve one poor woman. Scarcity sometimes follows upon great plenty; we cannot be sure that to-morrow shall be as this day,Isa 56:12; Psa 30:6. 2. He acknowledges himself thereby disabled to help, unless God would help them. Note, Creatures are helpless things without God, for every creature is that, all that, and only that, which he makes it to be. However, though he cannot help her, he is willing to hear her (v. 28): “What ails thee? Is there anything singular in thy case, or dost thou fare worse than thy neighbours?” Truly yes; she and one of her neighbours had made a barbarous agreement, that, all provisions failing, they should boil and eat her son first and then her neighbour’s; hers was eaten (who can think of it without horror?) and now her neighbour hid hers, 2Ki 6:28; 2Ki 6:29. See an instance of the dominion which the flesh has got above the spirit, when the most natural affections of the mind may be thus overpowered by the natural appetites of the body. See the word of God fulfilled; among the threatenings of God’s judgments upon Israel for their sins this was one (Deut. xxviii. 53-57), that they should eat the flesh of their own children, which one would think incredible, yet it came to pass.
III. The king’s indignation against Elisha upon this occasion. He lamented the calamity, rent his clothes, and had sackcloth upon his flesh (v. 30), as one heartily concerned for the misery of his people, and that it was not in his power to help them; but he did not lament his own iniquity, nor the iniquity of his people, which was the procuring cause of the calamity; he was not sensible that his ways and his doings had procured this to himself; this is his wickedness, for it is bitter. The foolishness of man perverteth his way, and then his heart fretteth against the Lord. Instead of vowing to pull down the calves at Dan and Beth-el, or letting the law have its course against the prophets of Baal and of the groves, he swears the death of Elisha, v. 31. Why, what is the matter? What had Elisha done? his head is the most innocent and valuable in all Israel, and yet that must be devoted, and made an anathema. Thus in the days of the persecuting emperors, when the empire groaned under any extraordinary calamity, the fault was laid on the Christians, and they were doomed to destruction. Christianos ad leones–Away with the Christians to the lions. Perhaps Jehoram was in this heat against Elisha because he had foretold this judgment, or had persuaded him to hold out, and not surrender, or rather because he did not, by his prayers, raise the siege, and relieve the city, which he though he could do but would not; whereas till they repented and reformed, and were ready for deliverance, they had no reason to expect that the prophet should pray for it.
IV. The foresight Elisha had of the king’s design against him, v. 32. He sat in his house well composed, and the elders with him, well employed no doubt, while the king was like a wild bull in a net, or like the troubled sea when it cannot rest; he told the elders there was an officer coming from the king to cut off his head, and bade them stop him at the door, and not let him in, for the king his master was just following him, to revoke the order, as we may suppose. The same spirit of prophecy that enabled Elisha to tell him what was done at a distance authorized him to call the king the son of a murderer, which, unless we could produce such an extraordinary commission, it is not for us to initiate; far be it from us to despise dominion and to speak evil of dignities. He appealed to the elders whether he had deserved so ill at the king’s hands: “See whether in this he be not the son of a murderer?” For what evil had Elisha done? He had not desired the woeful day, Jer. xvii. 16.
V. The king’s passionate speech, when he came to prevent the execution of his edict for the beheading of Elisha. He seems to have been in a struggle between his convictions and his corruptions, knew not what to say, but, seeing things brought to the last extremity, he even abandoned himself to despair (v. 33): This evil is of the Lord. Therein his notions were right and well applied; it is a general truth that all penal evil is of the Lord, as the first cause, and sovereign judge (Amos iii. 6), and this we ought to apply to particular cases: if all evil, then this evil, whatever it is we are now groaning under, whoever are the instruments, God is the principal agent of it. But his inference from this truth was foolish and wicked: What should I wait for the Lord any longer? When Eli, and David, and Job, said, It is of the Lord, they grew patient upon it, but this bad man grew outrageous upon it: “I will neither fear worse nor expect better, for worse cannot come and better never will come: we are all undone, and there is no remedy.” It is an unreasonable thing to be weary of waiting for God, for he is a God of judgment, and blessed are all those that wait for him.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Samaria Besieged – Verses 24-33
The verses, study of which begins here, rightfully should have been included with chapter 7, which is the sequel to what is contained here. Verse 24 indicated the passage of an indefinite time after Elisha’s frustration of the Syrian incursions into Israel in the first part of chapter 6. Ben-hadad, the Syrian king, evidently felt that he had sufficiently atoned for his previous violation of the land, and this time he brings his entire army to the Israelite capital, Samaria, and lays siege against it.
It should be remembered that when 0mri, the father of Ahab, chose the hill of Shomer for his new capital, he did so because of its strategic location and relative ease of defense. It was on a low mountain, isolated from the other hills around it, making accessibility of an invader to it very difficult. That quality has persisted through history. It was the seat of Herod Agrippa’s government during the time of Christ, when it was known by the name of Sebaste. A smaller, squalid, city exists there today, chiefly peopled by Palestinian Arabs. (See 1Ki 16:23-24)
As the siege continued without abatement, the people of the city began to run out of food. The famine became very severe. A donkey’s head was going for food at the price of eighty pieces of silver (more than $500 in present values) and a fourth of a kab (about a pint) of dove’s droppings (ordinarily used for fertilizer) for five pieces of silver (about $35 in present values; these based on the supposition that the silver pieces were shekels). In this time of crisis the king was making the rounds of the people, walking upon the city wall. There he was observed and accosted by a woman crying to him.
The woman’s story would be almost incredible, even to the hardened feelings of ancient people. She told of an agreement with another woman by which they would eat their babies in their hunger. She had given up her own baby to be boiled and eaten on the previous day, and now when the other woman should have reciprocated, her baby had been hidden, so that it might not be eaten. She appealed to the king for help.
There was literally no more food to be had in the city. The king had expressed to her the emptiness of the barns and winepresses, but he was shocked at her story. It revealed the psychological pressure the people were under, that a mother would become so crazed with hunger as to kill her child, cook it and eat it. The king tore his clothing, and those near him could see that he was wearing sackcloth next to his skin, the sign of grief and repentance. However, the king seems somewhat hypocritical in that he hid his sackcloth underneath his robe. He was likely putting on a front, in attempt to bolster the people’s hope, though he saw little hope.
It has been seen how King Joram sought to blame God for his calamities, as in the stranding of the allied armies in the wilderness (2Ki 3:10; 2Ki 3:13).
In this case he seems to feel that Eiisha has called down the punishment from God for the sins of Israel, as Elijah had called for the drought in the days of Ahab, his father (1Ki 17:1 ff). At that very moment a delegation of the elders were in Elisha’s house, probably imploring him to get God to alleviate the siege and famine. but Elisha did not, for he did not have the power except as the Lord gave it. So the king swore by that God, for whom he usually had no use, to take off Elisha’s head because of the famine. Evidently he felt he could punish God in this way.
Elisha was made to know from the Lord that Joram’s messenger was on his way to arrest him and take him to the king. The prophet gave instruction to the elders to shut and bolt the door that the king’s messenger might not enter. The messenger told them the evil which had befallen Samaria actually was of the Lord, and they should wait no longer to punish God’s servant, Elisha. But Elisha said, “Hold the door, his master is not far behind him.” (cf. Act 5:33).
Lessons from chapter 6: 1) zeal may be regained if one seeks it humbly; 2) by staying close to the Lord His children may frustrate the maneuvers of Satan; 3) God’s children are never without His protection; 4) to render good for evil is always right and will result in God’s favor; 5) sin results in terrible things, of which men should repent and regain blessing; 6) it is the way of the world to blame God for its suffering.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.
2Ki. 6:19. I will bring you to the man whom ye seekThis was an evasion for a good purpose, and not an untruth, for Elisha did bring them to him, vanquished and grateful; in the sense of having won them to him, capturing them in the meshes of kindness, instead of their capturing him in hatred and vengeance.
2Ki. 6:25. A great famine in SamariaThe high prices of revolting articles of food is given to show the extremes of distress to which the people were driven. An asss headRegarded as unclean food, yet sold for 5 5s. A cab of doves dungA cab was the smallest Hebrew dry measure, about half-pint, and its price was 12s. 6d. Doves dung is probably the name for a kind of pea or seed, which was contemptuously so called. Josephus, however, relates that in the siege of Jerusalem by Titus, the sewage even of the city was drained, and the excrements eaten!
2Ki. 6:27. If the Lord do not help theeRather, Nay! Jehovah help thee!
2Ki. 6:29. So we boiled my sonMisery had culminated in so abhorrent a deed! The other woman had hid her son, not to consume it, but to shield it from such a fate.
2Ki. 6:30. Sackcloth within upon his fleshVisible under his torn outer garments he wears the penitential robe of sackcloth. But in his case it showed no humiliation of spirit before God; it was but as the phylacteries of the Pharisees. His imprecation on Elisha shows his evil disposition to be unsubdued. He blamed not himself, but the prophet, as Ahab did Elijah (1Ki. 18:17).
2Ki. 6:32. Son of a murdererBy descent, the son of Ahab; and in disposition like him (1Ki. 21:19). Hold him fast at the doorKeep him off with the door, i.e., by pressing against it. Is not the sound of his masters feet behind him?i.e., of the kings feet, who would impetuously follow on the heels of his messenger. Elisha urges the elders not to let the kings executioners enter at once, but detain him till the king himself arrives.
2Ki. 6:33. The messenger came downFor messenger, Ewald and Grtz read king, and the sense requires this. Doubtless he would be admitted to the prophets presence; and as he meets Elisha he utters a cry full of despair, in which he confesses that the Lords hand is against him, and that he sees now no hope of deliverance from the prevailing distress; yet in his cry of despair there is a tremulous suggestion of possible help from the Lord he had incensed.W. H. J.
HOMILETICS OF 2Ki. 6:24-33
THE HORRORS OF FAMINE
I. Famine is the dread companion of war (2Ki. 6:24-25). Benhadad soon forgot the clemency with which his soldiers were treated when in the power of the king of Israel (2Ki. 6:21-23). Perhaps he was chagrined with the failure of his previous attempts with detached bands of warriors, and determined to invade Israel with a vast army. The Syrians poured into the ill-fated country in overwhelming numbers, and so thoroughly invested Samaria, that in a short time the city was reduced to a state of abject famine. The horrors of war and of famine are always in ghastly association.
Loud the shrieks of battle roar,
Streaming down the hollow wind;
War and slaughter go before,
Want and death are left behind.
When David had a choice of three punishments for his sin in numbering the peoplefamine, war, or pestilencehe was in a strait which to select, and in his bewilderment threw himself upon the mercy of God (2Sa. 24:14) The four lepers who brought the intelligence of the flight of the Syrians evidently concluded there was nothing to choose between famine and the sword (2Ki. 7:4). The pathway of war is streaked with blood, and strewn with the bones of the famished. In the extremity of hunger the most nauseous articles are seized for food. The history of besieged cities reveals the loathsome dishes on which the most delicate were compelled to dine.
II. That famine blunts and demoralises the tenderest feelings of human nature (2Ki. 6:26-29). A mothers love for her offspring is the strongest passion in the human heart. It is the last foul stroke of famine when this love is shattered; when all delicacy and refinement, all sense of right and wrong, all fond endearment and deep-seated love are so thoroughly extinguished that a mother can share a meal with a neighbour on the boiled body of her own child, then the horrors of famine have reached their climax! And yet this was among the woes that Moses foretold would come to pass with this people in case of disobedience (Deu. 28:53). Kitto furnishes a number of particulars concerning a terrible famine in Egypt, in the year 1200, when the people, after resorting to the most unclean and abominable tood in the extremity of their hunger, began to feed on young children: and it was not uncommon to surprise parties with children half boiled or roasted. At first this was treated by the authorities as a horrible crime; but by-and-bye the horror entirely subsided, and every one spoke of it, and heard it spoken of, as an indifferent and ordinary matter. It is very humbling to man to discover the overwhelming power of the lower passions in extremity. There seems but a brittle barrier between civilized man and the savage. The restraints of Divine grace, direct and indirect, are more potent upon society thau the artificial laws imposed by use and wont.
III. That famine is the source of great distress to the humane ruler (2Ki. 6:30). The first duty of a king is to provide for the immediate physical needs of his subjects. This much is recognised among the wildest tribes. It is, therefore, a cause of unspeakable suffering to a considerate monarch when he is unable to supply his own and his peoples wants. This was the condition of the king of Israel at this time. The barn-floor was swept, and the winepress empty. The staple articles of food were consumed, and king and people were involved in a common suffering. No wonder Jehoram wore the sackcloth of humiliation, and rent his clothes in despair. Kings have their troubles. Great honour means great responsibility. In famine, the king is as powerless as the beggar.
IV. That the innocent are often unjustly blamed and threatened as the cause of famine (2Ki. 6:31-32). There was evidently more sorrow in the king of Israel than repentance. He was not yet brought to see that all this suffering was in consequence of sin. He blames Elisha, and, in his despair and fury, determines to take away the prophets life. And yet what had he done? If Elisha foretold and warned them of the famine, did not their sins deserve it? If the prophet might have averted the calamity by his prayer, did not their impenitence restrain him? If he advised the king to hold out the siege, did he not foresee the remarkable deliverance that was at hand, and that only by suffering would both king and people be prepared to acknowledge the hand of God? All Israel did not afford a head so guiltless as this that was destined to slaughter. This is the fashion of the world; the lewd blame the innocent, and will revenge their sin upon others uprightness. If the soul is innocent of the sins which the vileness of others attributes to it, it can afford to wait for the Divine vindication. The character of His servants is safe in the hands of God.
V. That famine is here acknowledged as a Divine judgment. Behold, this evil is of the Lord (2Ki. 6:33). We are to suppose the king had, on reflection repented of his rash command to murder Elisha, and immediately hurried after the messenger to stay the execution. He is convinced the famine is a Divine judgment on the nation for his sins. Having reached this state of mind, he enquires, in a spirit of more genuine repentance than he has before displayed, Why should I wait for the Lord any longer? He prays for a removal of the famine. The passage may be thus paraphrased:I acknowledge that this evil is a punishment for my sins; the Lord thus chastens me sorely; but now when all this people are brought to such an extremity of woe, why should I wait longer for the Lord to interpose and deliver this people from their sufferings? It is hard to acknowledge the hand of God in our distresses; it is pleasanter to trace that hand in our gifts and prosperities. Jehovah punishes with reluctance, and of the manifold instrumentalities of punishment at His call, the one to be dreaded is famine. It is well when suffering operates in bringing the soul to God.
LESSONS:
1. War is a fruitful source of suffering and ruin.
2. National apostasy from God is punished with national calamities.
3. Famine reveals the helplessness of man, and his absolute dependence on God.
GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES
2Ki. 6:24. Evil men wax worse and worse. As Benhadad accomplished nothing by his raids, he made an attack with his entire force. A perverse and stubborn man cannot endure to be frustrated, and when he is, instead of leading him to submissiveness, as it ought, it only hurts his pride and makes him more irritated.Lange.
2Ki. 6:25. The value and worthlessness of money.
1. Money is valuable only as a medium of exchange for the absolute necessaries of life.
2. Is freely parted with under the pressure of starvation.
3. Is powerless to avert death.
The famine within the walls was more terrible than the sword without. Their worst enemy was shut within, and could not be dislodged of their own bowels. Whither hath the idolatry of Israel brought them? Before they had been scourged with war, with drought, with dearth, as with a single cord; they remain incorrigible, and now God twists two of these bloody lashes together and galls them even to death. There needs no other executioners than their own maws. Those things which in their own nature were not edible, at least to an Israelite, were now both dear and dainty.Bp. Hall.
Of all the judgments of God in this world, none is more terrible than famine. It is a scourge which draws blood. It often happens that God takes this scourge in hand when, in spite of manifold warnings, His name is forgotten in the land, and apostacy, rebellion, and unbelief are prevalent.Krummacher.
2Ki. 6:26-29. The horrible in humanity.
1. Revealed in its most revolting aspects in extremity.
2. Seen in the triumph of sheer animalism over the keenest instincts of natural affection.
3. Beyond the power of king or council to obviate.
4. Is controlled only by the restraints of Divine grace.
Necessity leads to prayer whenever there is a spark of the fear of God remaining; but where that fear is wanting, Necessity knows no law, becomes the watchword. The crime of the two women is a proof that where men fall away from God they may sink down among the ravenous beasts. Separate sores which form upon the body are signs that the body is diseased and the blood poisoned. Shocking crimes of individuals are proofs that the community is morally rotten.Lange.
2Ki. 6:30-33. A desperate monarch. 1. Humbled and bewildered by the Sufferings and extremities of his people (2Ki. 6:30).
2. Vows vengeance on the innocent (2Ki. 6:31).
3. Repents his rash decision, and hastens to prevent its execution (2Ki. 6:32).
4. Is constrained to acknowledge the national suffering as a punishment for sin, and to seek Divine help in its removal (2Ki. 6:33).
2Ki. 6:30-31. See here a faithful picture of the wrongheadedness of man in misfortune. In the first place, we half make up our minds to repent in the hope of deliverance; but if this is not obtained at once and in the wished-for way, we burst out in rage either against our fellow-men, or against God Himself. Observe, moreover, the great ingratitude of men. Jehoram had already several times experienced the marvellous interference of God; once it fails, however, and he is enraged. The garments of penitence upon the body is of no avail, if an impenitent heart beats beneath it. Anger and rage, and plots of murder, cannot spring from the heart that is truly penitent. It is the most dangerous superstition to imagine that we can make satisfaction for our sins, can become reconciled to God and turn aside His wrath, by external performances, the wearing of sackcloth, fasting, self-chastisement, or the repetition of prayers. The world is horrified at the results of sin, but not at sin itself. Instead of confessing. We have sinned, Jehoram swears the man of God shall die.Lange.
2Ki. 6:31. This imprecation, which the king wishes immediately to execute, proves that his distress of mind was no wholesome fruit of the recognition of his own guilt, such as the law coming to his view must have produced, but only a consequence of his contemplating the heart-rending misery that now for the first time stands before his eyes in all its fright-fulness, for which he wished to wreak his vengeance on the prophet whom he held to be the prime cause of the appalling necessity, probably because he had given the advice not to surrender the city on any condition, with the promise that God would deliver them if they humbled themselves before Him in sincere repentance and implored His aid. By putting on a garment of hair, the king believed he had done his part; and since, notwithstanding this, the expected help did not come, he fell into a rage which was to be expended on the prophet. This rage arose, indeed, only from a momentary ebullition of anger, and soon gave way to the better voice of conscience. The king hastened after the messenger whom he had sent to behead Elisha, in order himself to prevent the execution of the death order which he had given in the haste of his burning rage; but it proves that true repentance, which springs from the recognition of the necessity as a judgment imposed by the Lord, was still wanting in the king. The act of desperation to which his violent passion had hurried him would have taken place had not the Lord protected His prophet and revealed to him the design of the king, so that he could take measures to prevent it.Keil.
2Ki. 6:32. He that foresaw his own peril provides for his safety. Shut the door, and hold him fast at the door. No man is bound to tender his throat to an unjust stroke. The same eye that saw the executioner coming to smite him, saw also the king hastening after him to stay the blow. The prophet had been no other than guilty of his own blood if he had not reserved himself awhile for the rescue of authority. O, the inconstancy of carnal hearts! It was not long since Jehoram could say to Elisha, My father, shall I smite them? Now he is ready to smite him as an enemy whom he honoured as a father. Yet again, his lips had no sooner given sentence of death against the prophet, than his feet stir to recall it.Bp. Hall.
Is not the sound of his masters feet behind him?Repentance.
1. Is a commendable feeling when it is the reversal of a cruel and unjust policy.
2. Loses no time in seeking to undo the evil that was threatened.
3. Leads to the removal of suffering that human rage is impotent to cure.
2Ki. 6:33. Behold, this evil is of the Lord. These are the words of a despairing man, in whose soul, however, a trace of faith is still concealed. For in the very fact that the king shows this frame of mind before the prophet, he lets it be understood that he still cherishes a feeble glimmer of hope and confidence in the Lord, and wishes to be directed and encouraged by the prophet. This encouragement is accordingly imparted to him.Keil.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
II. ELISHAS PREDICTIVE MIRACLES 6:24-8:15
Three predictive miracles of Elisha are recorded in connection with this period of Aramean invasion: He predicted (1) the deliverance of Samaria from an Aramean siege (2Ki. 6:24 to 2Ki. 7:20); (2) a famine in Israel (2Ki. 8:1-6); and (3) the murderous career of Hazael (2Ki. 8:7-15).
A. PREDICTION OF DELIVERANCE FOR SAMARIA 6:24-7:20
Several different stories connected with an Aramean siege of Samaria have been collected in 2Ki. 6:24 to 2Ki. 7:20. The main purpose of the section, however, is to demonstrate the predictive powers of Elisha. This somewhat lengthy section can be discussed under six heads: (1) the sad plight of Samaria (2Ki. 6:24-29); (2) the personal jeopardy of Elisha (2Ki. 6:30-33); (3) the dramatic prediction of the prophet (2Ki. 7:1-2); (4) the joyous discovery of four lepers (2Ki. 7:3-11); (5) the cautious investigation by the king (2Ki. 7:12-15); and (6) the literal fulfillment of Elishas prophecy (2Ki. 7:16-20).
1. THE SAD PLIGHT OF SAMARIA (2Ki. 6:24-29)
TRANSLATION
(24) And it came to pass after this, that Benhadad king of Aram gathered all his camp, and went up, and besieged Samaria. (25) And a great famine came about in Samaria, and behold besiegers were against it until the head of an ass was worth eighty pieces of silver, and the forth part of a qab of doves dung was worth five pieces of silver. (26) And as the king of Israel was passing by upon the wall, a woman cried out unto him, saying, Help, my lord, O king! (27) And he said, If the LORD does not save you, whence shall I save you, from the threshing floor or from the wine vat? (28) And the king said to her, What do you want? And she said, This woman said unto me, Give your son, that we may eat him today, and my son we shall eat tomorrow. (29) And we boiled my son, and ate him. And I said unto her the next day, Give your son that we may eat him, and she had hidden her son!
COMMENTS
Though the nuisance raids of the marauding bands came to an end, Israel was still to suffer much at the hands of Aram. Some considerable time after the memory of Jehorams kind deed had been forgotten, Benhadad the king of Aram gathered his entire force and invaded Israel. Realizing that he was no match for Benhadads forces in the field, Jehoram withdrew to his capital at Samaria and prepared for a long siege (2Ki. 6:24). Benhadad blockaded the city and attempted to starve its inhabitants into submission. The situation in the city deteriorated to such a degree that an asss head, the worst part of an unclean animal, which would normally never be eaten, sold for eighty pieces of silver (about $50.00) and a qab (pint) of doves dung for five pieces of silver ($3.00; 2Ki. 6:25). Doves dung may have been the popular name for some food such as roast checkpeas. If actual doves dung is intended, it was probably sold as fuel.[541]
[541] Gray, OTL, p. 522. But Josephus relates that during the Roman siege of Jerusalem people ate dung, Ant. IX, 4.4.
King Jehoram[542] made regular inspections of the fortifications and guard posts on the broad walls of Samaria during the siege. On one such tour a womanpossibly one of the inhabitants of the houses which abutted on the wallcried out to the king for help (2Ki. 6:26). The king was taken back by this pitiful appeal and assumed that the woman was seeking relief from the pangs of hunger. What could he do for the woman? Only God could provide food under the circumstances! Did this woman think that the king had secret stores of food or vats full of wine which he had withheld from the populace? The royal stores were as much exhausted as those of the lowliest subjects (2Ki. 6:27). The woman must have explained that she was not attempting to beg food from the king, but that she was seeking from him a decision as the supreme judicial officer of the land. This being the case, the king asked the woman to relate her complaint. She told a gruesome story of a pact with a neighbor lady to eat their two sons, the one on one day, and the second the following day (2Ki. 6:28). The one child was boiled and eaten. But the following day the neighbor woman had reneged on the agreement and had hidden her son to avoid the terrible ordeal of seeing him killed and eaten (2Ki. 6:29).
[542] Others think the unnamed king was Jehoahaz or Joash. In this case, the Benhadad of 2Ki. 6:24 would be Benhadad II, the son of Hazael.
2. THE PERSONAL JEOPARDY OF ELISHA (2Ki. 6:30-33)
TRANSLATION
(30) And it came to pass when the king heard the words of the woman, that he tore his garments. And as he was passing by upon the wall, the people looked, and behold sackcloth upon his flesh within. (31) And he said, Thus may God do to me, and thus may he add if the head of Elisha the son of Shaphat remain on him this day. (32) Now Elisha was sitting in his house, and the elders were sitting with him when the king sent a man from before him. But before the messenger came unto him, he said unto the elders, Do you see how this son of a murderer has sent to remove my head? See when the messenger comes, shut the door and hold him fast in the door. Is not the sound of the feet of his master behind him? (33) While he was yet speaking with them, behold the messenger came down unto him. And he said, Behold this evil is from the LORD; why should I wait for the LORD any longer.
COMMENTS
The king was horrified at this terrible tale of the desperate mother, and he realized how deplorable conditions within the capital had become. He tore open his clothes in anguish, and his subjects standing about noticed that he had on sackcloth. These penitential garments were worn close to the skin so as to constantly chastise the flesh. Secretly the king was repenting of his sins, though no doubt he was far from possessing a chastened or humble spirit. No one knew of his personal spiritual struggle until the terrible tale of the distressed woman caused him to rend his robes (2Ki. 6:30).
In his distress, the king swore an oath[543] that he would have Elisha decapitated that very day (2Ki. 6:31). It is not entirely clear why the king blamed the horrors of the famine on Elisha. Perhaps he felt that Elisha should work some mighty miracle to relieve the city of its suffering and to vanquish the enemy. The Law of Moses nowhere sanctioned decapitation, and in taking this oath, Jehoram was assuming the arbitrary power of other monarchs of that day.
[543] The Hebrew oath was an imprecation of evil on oneself if one did, or failed to do, a certain thing.
Elisha was sitting in his home in Samaria with the elders of the land sitting before him at the time the king dispatched the prophets executioner. These elders had probably come to consult the man of God about the critical conditions within the city and, if possible, obtain from him some miraculous assistance. Their conversation was interrupted when Elisha received a supernatural revelation of what was about to take placethat an executioner had already been dispatched, but that the king would arrive shortly thereafter. Elisha referred to Jehoram as that son of a murderer in reference to his father Ahab who had sanctioned all the atrocities perpetrated by Jezebel. By his recent order to have Elisha eliminated, the king had shown the same bloodthirsty disposition as his father. The prophet called upon those present with him to resist the royal messenger and bar the door to him, because the king himself would shortly arrive, and he would either confirm or countermand that original order (2Ki. 6:32).
Even while Elisha talked to the elders, the messenger of the king appeared at the door. Apparently the elders did obey Elisah and barred the door to this royal representative. Meanwhile, the king himself seems to have arrived, and he, of course, was admitted to the prophets abode. The king seems to have repented of his hasty order to slay the prophet and hurried after his own messenger in order to give the prophet a final opportunity to live. The question asked by the kingWhy should I wait for the Lord any longer?implies that Elisha had previously urged the king to wait for divine interposition. The king interpreted the calamity as being from the Lord. Why should he try to hold out any longer? Why should he not break with God, slay his lying prophet, and surrender the city to the Arameans?
3. THE DRAMATIC PREDICTION OF THE PROPHET (2Ki. 7:1-2)
TRANSLATION
(1) And Elisha said, Hear the word of the LORD: Thus has the LORD said: About this tune tomorrow a seah of fine flour will be worth a shekel, and two seahs of barley will be worth a shekel in the gate of Samaria. (2) Then an officer on whose hand the king leaned answered the man of God, and said: Behold, if the LORD were about to make windows in the heavens, would this word come to pass? And he said, You will see with your eyes, but of it you shall not eat!
COMMENTS
Elisha responded to the king in the most solemn mannera manner which could not help but arrest the attention and command the respect of Jehoram. The prophets life was hanging in the balance. Everything depended on whether Elisha, with a half dozen or so words, could change the kings mind. He therefore made such a precise prediction that within a short period of time the whole nation would know whether or not he was a true spokesman for the living God. Within twenty-four hours, declared the prophet, such a quantity of grain would be available to the inhabitants of Samaria that barley and fine flour would again be bought and sold at the pre-siege prices, and this right in the city gate of Samaria (2Ki. 6:1). A seah is roughly equivalent to a peck in modern measures, and the shekel would be worth about a dollar. The gates of ancient cities were spacious places consisting of several buildings where public business was transacted.
One of the officersthe kings personal attendantwas vocally incredulous. With scoffing sarcasm he insisted that the prediction was utterly impossible of fulfillment. Even if the Lord were to make windows in the heavens, and pour down through them grain instead of rain, could this prediction come to pass? The disdain of this officer was directed not only at the veracity of the prophet, but at the power of God. For this reason Elisha answered him sternly: You will see it, but not partake of it. By these words, the officer, if he was wise enough to discern it, was forewarned of his imminent death, and thus given time to set his house in order and make his peace with God.
4. THE JOYOUS DISCOVERY OF FOUR LEPERS (2Ki. 7:3-11)
TRANSLATION
(3) And four men, lepers, were at the entrance of the gate. And they said one to another, Why should we continue sitting here until we die? (4) If we think we shall go into the city, the famine is in the city, and we shall die there; and if we remain here, then we shall die. And now come, and let us fall unto the camp of the Arameans! If they allow us to live, we shall live; and if they slay us, then we shall die. (5) And they arose in the twilight to go unto the camp of the Arameans, and they came to the edge of the Aramean camp, and behold no man was there. (6) The Lord had caused the Aramean camp to hear the sound of chariots and horses and a great host; and they said one to another, Behold the king of Israel has hired against us the Hittite kings and kings of Egypt to go against us. (7) And they arose, and fled in the twilight, and forsook their tents and their horses and their donkeys, the camp as it was; and they fled for their lives. (8) Now these lepers came to the edge of the camp, and they went into the first tent, and they ate, and they drank, and took up silver and gold and garments from there, and went and hid them; and they returned and went into another tent, and took from it and hid it. (9) Then they said one to another, What we are doing is not right! This is a day of good news, but we are remaining silent; if we delay unto the light of morning, punishment will overtake us. Now come, that we may go and tell the house of the king! (10) And they came and called to the gate-keepers[544] of the city, and told them, saying, We came unto the Aramean camp, and behold no man was there, nor voice of a man; but horses tied, and tents as they were. (11) And the gate-keepers called out[545] and told the house of the king within.
[544] Though singular in the Hebrew, the word seems to be used here collectively.
[545] The verb is singular. However context seems to demand, and some manuscripts point to, a plural verb.
COMMENTS
Lepers were forbidden by law from dwelling within the cities of Israel. Relatives within the city normally kept them supplied with food, and hence they congregated about the city gates. Because of the extreme scarcity within the city during the siege, these unfortunates were on the verge of perishing (2Ki. 6:3). As they contemplated their plight, they realized that even if they were able to re-enter the city by some means or the other, they would perish there of the famine. Yet to remain at the citys gate would only bring death. The only alternative was to desert to the enemy. Perhaps they would be able to exchange some intelligence information for food to prolong life awhile longer. And if the Arameans should kill them, they would be no worse off than sitting where they were and dying by degrees (2Ki. 6:4).
The lepers waited for the lengthening shadows of evening twilight before they began to move toward the Aramean camp. Had they attempted to head for the enemy camp in broad daylight, Israelite soldiers on the walls of Samaria would have shot arrows at them. Entering the outer edge of the Aramean camp, the lepers found no sign of life. Not a soul was to be seen anywhere (2Ki. 6:5). Shortly before the arrival of the lepers, the Lord had miraculously intervened on behalf of His people by causing the Arameans to hear what they thought was the sound of an enormous army sweeping down upon them. The jittery Arameans thought that Jehoram had hired the Hittite kings from the north and the rival dynasties of Egyptian Kings from the south to attack from both directions[546] (2Ki. 6:6). In their panic the Arameans never paused to contemplate how remote was the possibility that Jehoram could have arranged a simultaneous attack by two powers so widely removed from one another. The Arameans simply fled for their lives, leaving their camp[547] exactly as it had been (2Ki. 6:7).
[546] Gray (OTL, p. 524) suggests it may have been one of Elishas disciples who started a rumor in the Aramean camp.
[547] The horses left behind must have been chariot horses, which they had no time to harness.
Entering the first empty tent, the lepers grabbed and began to devour the food and drink to be found there. Having satisfied the pangs of hunger, the lepers cast a covetous eye about on the gold, silver, and beautiful garments which the enemy had left behind. Their first impulse was to hide these valuables, for they knew the spoils of war belonged to the nation as a whole and to the king in particular. They knew that when their comrades discovered the flight of the enemy and descended upon that empty camp, that there would be no consideration for lepers in the distribution of the spoil. From tent to tent the ecstatic men ran, carrying out whatever delighted their eyes to place in their secret catch (2Ki. 6:8).
During the process of the plundering, the consciences of these lepers began to bother them. Their countrymen and relatives within Samaria were perishing and sufferingmothers eating their childrenwhile they had spent hour after hour enjoying their good fortune. To withhold such good things from their desperate countrymen must surely be a criminal act for which God would punish them. So, belatedly the lepers determined to carry the news to the kings house, i.e., his officers and court, those through whom the king himself might be approached (2Ki. 6:9). They first shouted the news to the guard at the gate of Samaria (2Ki. 6:10), who in turn reported the matter to the royal officials (2Ki. 6:11).
5. THE CAUTIOUS INVESTIGATION BY THE KING (2Ki. 7:12-15)
TRANSLATION
(12) And the king arose in the night, and said unto his servants, Let me tell you now what the Arameans have done to us. They know that we are starving, and they went out from the camp to hide in the field, saying, When they go out from the city, we shall seize them alive; then unto the city we shall go. (13) And one from his servants answered, and said,. Then let five of the remaining horses which remain in the city be taken, I pray you, (behold they are as all the multitude of Israel which are consumed) and let us send, and investigate. (14) So two chariots of horses were taken, and the king sent after the Aramean camp, saying, Go and investigate. (15) And they went after them unto the Jordan and behold all the way was filled with garments and baggage which the Arameans had cast away in their haste. And the messengers returned and told the king.
COMMENTS
The king, aroused from his sleep, greeted the news of the Aramean retreat with incredulity. He knew of no reason for such a sudden turn of events, and suspected that the Arameans were employing some devious stratagem to lure the unsuspecting Israelites from the protection of their walls (2Ki. 6:12). One of the royal attendants suggested that a small body of horsemen be sent out to reconnoiter. The majority of the Israelite horses had died of starvation, or else had been slain to furnish meat for the soldiers who remained in the city, for the entire city would shortly be dead from starvation. So by means of these persuasive arguments the royal servants convinced Jehoram that he should at least check out the report of the lepers (2Ki. 6:13).
Two chariots of horses, i.e., two chariots and the accustomed number of horses (normally two horses to a chariot) were dispatched from Samaria (2Ki. 6:14). These charioteers were probably under orders to make contact with the enemy and ascertain their positions if possible. Finding the Aramean camp deserted, the patrol began to follow the main road toward the Jordan. All along the way they saw the garments, weapons, and baggage discarded by the fleeing troops. By the time they reached Jordan, the Israelite patrol was convinced that the Arameans had truly fled, and that the deserted camp was no ruse. They then hastily returned to Samaria and reported what they had found to the king (2Ki. 6:15).
6. THE LITERAL FULFILLMENT OF THE PROPHECY (2Ki. 7:16-20)
TRANSLATION
(16) And the people went out and spoiled the Aramean camp. And it came to pass that a seah of fine flour was valued at a shekel, and two seahs of barley at a shekel, according to the word of the LORD. (17) Now the king had appointed over the gate the officer upon whose hand he leaned; but the people had trampled him in the gate, and he had died just as the man of God had spoken when the king had come down unto him. (18) And it came to pass just as the man of God had spoken unto the king, saying, Two seahs of barley will be worth a shekel, and a seah of fine flour worth a shekel about this time tomorrow in the gate of Samaria. (19) And the officer had answered the man of God and said: Behold if the LORD were to make windows in the heavens, would this word come to pass? And he had said, Behold you will see with your eyes, but of it you will not eat. (20) And so did it happen to him; and the people trampled him in the gate and he died.
COMMENTS
By the time the patrol got back to Samaria, morning had arrived. The news of the good fortune spread through Samaria like wild-fire. The whole population en masse descended on the near-by Aramean camp to feast and take spoil (2Ki. 6:16). The officer who on the previous day had scoffed at the predictions of Elisha was trampled by the mob in the gate of the city (2Ki. 6:17). To underscore the fact of Elishas prophetic powers and the dreadful consequences that follow upon scornful rejection of a message from God, the sacred writer repeats in the final three verses of chapter 7 the earlier predictions of Elisha with regard to the abundant supply of grain and the imminent death of the royal officer (2Ki. 6:18-20).
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(24-7:20) THE SIEGE OF SAMARIA AND THE FAMINE. THE DELIVERANCE, AS FORETOLD BY ELISHA.
(24) After this.Afterwards. The term plainly implies chronological sequence.
Ben-hadad.Ben-hadad II., who had besieged Samaria in the reign of Ahab (1Ki. 20:1). He is mentioned on the monuments of Shalmaneser II., now in the British Museum, under the designation of Rammnu-hidri, or idri. Now, as the Assyrians identified their god Rammnu (Rimmon) with the Syrian deity, Adad, Addu, or Dadi, this title might be equivalent to Adad-idri, or Addu-idri. Further, in three contract tablets in the reign of Nabonidus, Mr. Pinches has read the names Bin-Addu-natnu and Bin-Addu-amarai.e., Bin-Addu gave, and Bin-Adu commanded. Bin (or, Tur)-Addu, son of Addu, is clearly the name of a god, like abal Esarra, son of Esarra, in the name Tiglath Pileser; and is, in fact, the Assyrian equivalent of Ben-hadad. The Syrian kings full name, therefore, would seem to have been Ben-hadad-idri, The son of Hadad is my help (Syriac adar, to help). (Comp. the name Hadad-ezer.) The Assyrians omitted the first element, the Hebrews the last.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
THE SIEGE OF SAMARIA AND THE GREAT FAMINE SUDDENLY ENDED, 2 Kings 6: 2Ki 6:24 to 2Ki 7:20.
24. After this Sometime after the events recorded in the preceding section. Ben-hadad gave up the mode of warfare he had been carrying on against Israel by detached bands of warriors, and resolved to overcome the king of Israel by besieging his capital. Thus Josephus says, he “made no more secret attempts upon the king of Israel, out of fear of Elisha; but he resolved to make open war with him, thinking to overwhelm his enemies by the multitude of his army and power.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1). The Description Of The Siege And Its Consequences ( 2Ki 6:24 to 2Ki 7:1 ).
Analysis.
a
b And as the king of Israel was passing by on the wall, there cried a woman to him, saying, “Help, my lord, O king.” And he said, “If YHWH does not help you, from where shall I help you? Out of the threshing-floor, or out of the winepress?” And the king said to her, “What is you problem?” And she answered, “This woman said to me, “Give your son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and ate him, and I said to her on the next day, ‘Give your son, that we may eat him’, and she has hidden her son” (2Ki 6:26-29).
c And it came about, when the king heard the words of the woman, that he tore his clothes. And he was passing by on the wall, and the people looked, and, behold, he had sackcloth within on his flesh. And he said, “God do so to me, and more also, if the head of Elisha the son of Shaphat shall stand on him this day” (2Ki 6:30-31).
d But Elisha was sitting in his house, and the elders were sitting with him (2Ki 6:32 a)..
c And the king sent a man from before him, but before the messenger came to him, he said to the elders, “Do you see how this son of a murderer has sent to take away my head? Look, when the messenger comes, shut the door, and hold the door fast against him. Is not the sound of his master’s feet behind him?” (2Ki 6:32 b).
b And while he was yet talking with them, behold, the messenger came down to him, and he said, “Behold, this evil is of YHWH. Why should I wait for YHWH any longer?” (2Ki 6:33).
a And Elisha said, “Hear you the word of YHWH. Thus says YHWH, Tomorrow about this time will a measure of fine flour be sold for a shekel, and two measures of barley for a shekel, in the gate of Samaria” ’(2Ki 7:1).
Note that in ‘a’ they were on a starvation diet and in the parallel things were back to normal. In ‘b’ the dreadful conditions are illustrated, and in the parallel this evil was imputed by the king to YHWH. In ‘c’ the king threatens to kill Elisha, and in the parallel Elisha is aware of and refers to the fact. Centrally in ‘d’ Elisha was conferring with the elders in his house.
2Ki 6:24
‘And it came about after this, that Benhadad king of Aram (Syria) gathered all his host, and went up, and besieged Samaria.’
The timing reference is very vague. In fact this was many years after the previous passage, and in the reign of a later king, probably Jehoahaz (compare 2Ki 13:3-7). Benhadad was a throne name of the kings of Aram. This was Benhadad III, who succeeded Hazael, who had caused great distress to Israel. By his time Israel had been considerably weakened as a result of the activities of Jehu, and had submitted to Assyria, something which would have angered both Hazael and Benhadad who with their allies had been seeking to fight off Assyria. This therefore was a full scale invasion, and having taken many towns and cities, the Aramaeans had surrounded and besieged Samaria in order to starve it into submission.
2Ki 6:25
‘And there was a great famine in Samaria, and, behold, they besieged it, until an ass’s head was sold for fourscore pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a kab of dove’s dung for five pieces of silver.’
The result was that as the months passed food began to run out and the stage was reached when the people were starving and would almost eat anything. The eating of an ass’s head was forbidden in the Law (Lev 11:3 ff.), it was the most inedible part of the ass, and the price was clearly exorbitant. Only the wealthy could afford it. The reference to ‘dove’s dung’ may be literal, but it has been suggested that it was a popular description of a certain herb similarly described in terms of ‘dung’ by the Arabs. Either way the fact that it was sold at such a price indicates the extreme shortage of food. (Rats on the menu would have been a luxury).
2Ki 6:26
‘And as the king of Israel was passing by on the wall, there cried a woman to him, saying, “Help, my lord, O king.” ’
One day the king was walking on the wall of the city surveying the defensive position, when a woman called out to him for an audience.
2Ki 6:27
‘And he said, “If YHWH does not help you, from where shall I help you? Out of the threshing-floor, or out of the winepress?” ’
His first bitter response brings out the depths of his feelings. He had no means of helping her. The threshing-floor and winepress were empty. Her only hope was to look to YHWH. And if He failed to answer, what could anyone else do?
2Ki 6:28
‘And the king said to her, “What is you problem?” And she answered, “This woman said to me, “Give your son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and ate him, and I said to her on the next day, ‘Give your son, that we may eat him’, and she has hidden her son.” ’
The king the asked her what her problem was and was horrified to learn that with another woman she had indulged in cannibalism by eating her son, with the understanding that after that they would eat the other woman’s son. But now the other woman had gone back on her promise and was withholding her son, and the first woman was asking the king for justice by enforcing the agreement. The very fact that she expected him to do so demonstrates that she knew that this was now a fairly common practise under the exigencies of the siege.
For such cannibalism during sieges compare Lev 26:29; Deu 28:56-57; Eze 5:10; Lam 2:20; Lam 4:10. It is also attested in an Assyrian text from Ashurbanipal, and an Egyptian papyrus.
2Ki 6:30
‘And it came about, when the king heard the words of the woman, that he tore his clothes. And he was passing by on the wall, and the people looked, and, behold, he had sackcloth within on his flesh.’
The king was aghast and tore his clothes in order to express his strong emotion. As king he had of course been shielded from the kind of starvation that these people were experiencing, but now it was being brought home to him with a vengeance. The tearing of his clothes revealed to all that he was wearing the sackcloth of mourning underneath, because of his distress at the situation of his people, making clear his genuine feeling for their sufferings.
2Ki 6:31
‘Then he said, “God do so to me, and more also, if the head of Elisha the son of Shaphat shall stand on him this day.”
As a result he swore that the head of Elisha would be forfeit that day. This may have been because Elisha had encouraged standing firm in the face of the threat on the grounds that YHWH would at some point intervene, or his reasoning may have been that as the chief prophet of YHWH, Whom he saw as responsible for this situation, Elisha should have been able to do something about it (as reputedly he had done in the past). In his view as the situation continued it was therefore primarily Elisha’s fault. This would bring out how dependent Israel felt at that time on the prophets. They above all were seen as the people who could change situations by their prophecies. In other words the king and people had a superstitious belief that what caused and changed situations was the actual activity of prophets, who could make things happen or not as they would. They did not stop to consider that in Israel these prophets pointed out that these things happened because of YHWH’s anger at the sinfulness of the king and people, and that therefore the situation was the fault of the king and people themselves.
2Ki 6:32
‘But Elisha was sitting in his house, and the elders were sitting with him, and the king sent a man from before him, but before the messenger came to him, he said to the elders, “Do you see how this son of a murderer has sent to take away my head? Look, when the messenger comes, shut the door, and hold the door fast against him. Is not the sound of his master’s feet behind him?” ’
Elisha, meanwhile, equally concerned about the situation of the famine was discussing matters with the elders of the people who had come to his house in view of the seriousness of the national situation. But even while he was talking with them he was made aware by YHWH of the king’s intentions (possibly partly through a message sent by a friend at court), and of the fact that an important messenger was coming from the king, a man who had the authority to arrest him and bring him to the king, with a view to his beheading (or even execute him on the spot). Elisha therefore turned to the elders and pointed out that this was only to be expected of a man whose father had revelled in blood (although ‘son of a murderer’ need only indicate one who was capable of murder), and gave orders that his door should be barred and bolted against the messenger, as the king himself would be following shortly to countermand the execution order.
Some see the reference to the echo of his master’s feet as not necessarily signifying that the king was himself coming after his messenger, (but see 2Ki 7:17). In that case it may have been indicating that the messenger was the king’s genuine representative to such an extent that the king was, as it were, ‘in his shoes’. But 2Ki 7:17 may suggest that the king, having despatched him, did actually follow his messenger. Thus some see it as signifying that the king, having despatched his official to execute Elisha on the spot, then had second thoughts, with the result that he was following him in order to counteract the order. That would explain why he expected the elders to bar the door against the king’s representative, which might otherwise not have been a wise policy. It was one thing to exclude him while clarification was obtained, quite another to exclude him altogether. 2Ki 7:17 may, however, simply signify that the king had, as it were, come down in his messenger, and as the house was Elijah’s, any exclusion would be laid at his door.
2Ki 6:33
‘And while he was yet talking with them, behold, the messenger came down to him, and he said, “Behold, this evil is of YHWH. Why should I wait for YHWH any longer?” ’
Meanwhile, while Elisha was yet speaking, the king’s messenger arrived in order to convey the king’s words, and declared, “Behold, this evil is of YHWH. Why should I wait for YHWH any longer?” ’ In other words he was blaming YHWH directly for the evil that had come on them (compare Amo 3:6), which was of course, in one sense, partly true. Indeed that may have been his partly justified interpretation of Elisha’s preaching, which had presumably indicated that deliverance could only follow repentance. But sinners never see themselves as really deserving of God’s chastisement, and he may therefore have felt that wearing sackcloth was a sufficient indication of repentance, and have been wondering why, in view of it, YHWH had not intervened. He did not see that really this evil had sprung from the behaviour of himself and the people. His further words may be a threat to rid himself of Elisha and turn to other gods for help, on the grounds that, having performed such rites as they thought were necessary without receiving a response, perhaps it was time to look to Baal. He had failed to understand that in fact the only ‘rite’ that YHWH really demanded was repentance and submission to His covenant (compare Isa 1:11-18), and that without that all ritualistic efforts to placate God were in vain..
2Ki 7:1
‘And Elisha said, “Hear you the word of YHWH. Thus says YHWH, Tomorrow about this time will a measure of fine flour be sold for a shekel, and two measures of barley for a shekel, in the gate of Samaria.” ’
Elisha’s reply was basically that it was YHWH’s sure prophetic word, a word that must therefore necessarily come to fruition, that within a day the siege would be relieved, and the shortages would be over. By this time next day, he assured the king, the markets in the space in front of the city gates would be selling flour and barley at normal prices. (With the Aramaean army still encamped around the city, it must have appeared very unlikely).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Relief Of The Siege Of Samaria ( 2Ki 6:24 to 2Ki 7:20 ).
The incident that follows appears here because it is a part of the Elisha narrative, in which the wonders wrought by YHWH for Elisha are described, not because it is in its chronological position. For it probably occurred in the time of Jehoahaz, the son of Jehu, and thus a considerable time after the previously mentioned incident, and after much of the history that follows in chapter 8-9.
The ministry of Elisha covered a period of over fifty years during the reigns of Ahab, Ahaziah, Jehoram, Jehu, Jehoahaz and Jehoash. During the reign of Jehoram YHWH had, as we have seen, given special protection to Israel. But the continuing sinfulness of the kings of Israel apparently caused the forfeiting of that special protection so that YHWH no longer intervened in the same way. And one of the results of that is described in what follows. It is a reminder that if God is not sought in a time of favour, then judgment and chastening will inevitably follow. So while it might have appeared that with Elisha around Israel had little to fear, that is now being revealed as being untrue. Not only was Samaria besieged, but it had been allowed to reach a point where the people were literally starving and were literally eating anything, and Elisha was sharing in their sufferings. It is a reminder that Elisha was very much subject to YHWH’s will in what he did.
The passage deals with the investment by Benhadad, king of Aram, of the city of Samaria during a full scale invasion. Such an invasion had not occurred in the days of Jehoram, but Israel had been considerably weakened by Jehu, and in the time of his son Jehoahaz it reached its lowest ebb. This then was probably when the siege described took place. It brought Samaria to its knees, as the city suffered under extreme shortage of food, with the result that every form of edible matter was eaten, even sinking down into cannibalism. This kind of thing is also testified to in sieges through the ages. It was nothing unusual in terms of history.
But things had become so bad that the blame inevitably fell on Elisha, who had previously so wonderfully delivered Israel. The king could not understand why, having no doubt encouraged the people to resist, he did not arrange for their deliverance again in the same way as he had previously. He failed to recognise that it was YHWH’s doing, and not Elisha’s, and that Elisha was wholly dependent on YHWH and His will. And he failed to recognise that it may have been due to his own evil living. However, on sending messengers to Elisha he received the assurance that the siege would shortly be lifted so that all would have enough to eat. The final deliverance of Samaria by YHWH’s power is then described in the second subsection.
The passage divides up into two subsections:
1) The description of the siege and its consequences (2Ki 6:24 to 2Ki 7:1).
2) The discovery of YHWH’s amazing deliverance (2Ki 7:2-20).
The first subsection is within the inclusio which opens with details of the cost of food in the period of severe shortage (2Ki 6:24-25), and closes with the details of the cost once plenty is to be restored (2Ki 7:1). 2 Kings 6: 2Ki 7:1 in fact unites the two sections. For the second subsection is within the inclusio which commences with 2 Kings 6: 2Ki 7:1 followed by the captain’s comment about the ‘windows of Heaven’, which is then followed by the warning of his demise (2Ki 7:2), and closes with verses which are parallel with 2Ki 6:1-2 and a description of his actual death (2Ki 7:19-20).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Great Famine in Samaria
v. 24. And it came to pass after this, v. 25. And there was a great famine in Samaria; and, behold, they besieged it, until an ass’s head, v. 26. And as the king of Israel was passing by upon the wall, there cried a woman unto him, saying, Help, my lord, O king! v. 27. And he said, v. 28. And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman, v. 29. So we boiled my son and did eat him, v. 30. And it came to pass, when the king heard the words of the woman, that he rent his clothes, v. 31. Then he said, v. 32. But Elisha sat in his house, and the elders, the magistrates of the city, sat with him, v. 33. And while he yet talked with them, behold, the messenger came down unto him; and he,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
2Ki 6:24. It came to pass after this, that Ben-hadad, &c. It has been often observed, that injuries are more gloriously overcome by benefits, than requited by pertinacious and mutual hatred; but the sense of benefits does not last long in bad natures. No sooner do we read of the kind treatment which the Syrians received, than it immediately follows, that the king of Syria gathered all his host, and went up, and besieged Samaria: which, seeming not to agree with what is said in the preceding verse, that the bands of Syria came no more into the land of Israel, some suppose, that the Syrians quite retreated for this time, and laid aside all thoughts of war, though afterwards they altered their minds, and broke out again into hostilities. Others, however, suppose the meaning to be, that the bands of the Syrians made no more incursions and inroads, but that they were resolved to fall upon the Israelites at once, with a regular and formed army; and so Josephus understands it, Antiq. lib. ix. c. 2.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
It should seem that this must have been a long time after what is related in the foregoing verse; probably several years, because that a famine had taken place to lead to it, of which we have no immediate account. And to what an extent must have been this famine, when the head of an ass, which was among the unclean, was sold so high. Dove’s dung, it should seem, was the name of some herb, or root, or pulse.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2Ki 6:24-33
24. And it came to pass after [afterwards] this, that Benhadad [Ben-hahad 11, who had besieged Samaria in the reign of Ahab (1Ki 20:1 .)], king of Syria gathered all his host, and went up, and besieged Samaria.
25. And there was [there arose: in consequence of the siege] a great famine in Samaria: and, behold, they beseiged [were besieging] it, until an ass’s head was sold for fourscore pieces [eighty shekels = about 10. Ass’s flesh would not be ordinarily eaten, and the head would be the cheapest part. When Hannibal besieged Casalinum, Pliny states that a mouse was sold for 200 denarii (6 5s.)], of silver, and the fourth part of a cab of dove’s dung [probably denotes some kind of common vegetable produce] for five pieces of silver [five shekels in silver = about 12s. 6 d .].
26. And as the king of Israel was passing by upon the wall, there cried a woman unto him, saying, Help, my lord, O king.
27. And he said, If the Lord do not help thee, whence shall I help thee? out of the barnfloor [Jehovah alone is the giver of corn and wine (comp. Hos 9:2 ; Hos 2:8-9 )] or out of the winepress?
28. And the king said [compare these facts with Deu 28:56 , seq.; 1Sa 4:10 ; Eze 5:10 ] unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow.
29. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son [perhaps to save him (comp. 1Ki 3:26 )].
30. And it came to pass, when the king heard the words of the woman, that he rent his clothes: and he passed [now he was passing] by upon the wall, and the people looked [saw], and, behold, he had sackcloth [the sackcloth was. “The sackcloth,” i.e., the garb of penitence and woe ( 1Ki 21:27 )], within upon his flesh [comp. Isa 20:2-3 ].
31. Then he [the king] said, God do so and more also to me [literally, so may God do to me, and so may he add (comp. Rth 1:17 ; 1Sa 3:17 ; 1Ki 2:23 )], if the head of Elisha [the king’s horror is succeeded by indignation (comp. with the oath, 1Ki 19:2 )] the son of Shaphat shall stand on him this day.
32. But Elisha sat in his house, and the elders sat with him; and the king sent a man [to behead the prophet] from before him: but ere the messenger came to him, he said to the elders [Elisha foreknew what was about to happen (comp. chap. 2Ki 5:26 )], See ye how this son of a murderer [referring to Ahab’s murder of Naboth ( 1Ki 21:19 )] hath sent to take away mine head? look, when the messenger cometh, shut the door, and hold him fast at the door [literally, press him back with the door]; is not the sound of his master’s feet behind him?
33. And while he yet talked with them, behold, the messenger came [was coming] down unto him: and he [the king] said, Behold, this evil is of the Lord; what should I wait for the Lord any longer?
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
2Ki 6:24 And it came to pass after this, that Benhadad king of Syria gathered all his host, and went up, and besieged Samaria.
Ver. 24. And went up, and besieged Samaria. ] Which city now smarted for Ahab’s foolish pity. 1Ki 20:34
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
gathered. This was organized war, in contrast with the freebooting irregular bands of 2Ki 6:23.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
2Ki 6:24-31
2Ki 6:24-31
BENHADAD AND HIS HOST BESIEGED SAMARIA
“And it came to pass after this, that Benhadad king of Syria gathered all his host, and went up and besieged Samaria. And there was a great famine in Samaria: and behold, they besieged it until an ass’s head was sold for fourscore pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a kab of dove’s dung for five pieces of silver. And as the king of Israel was passing by upon the wall, there cried a woman unto him, saying, Help, my lord, O king. And he said, If Jehovah do not help thee, whence shall I help thee? out of the threshing floor, or out of the winepress? And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him; and she hath hid her son. And it came to pass, when the king heard the words of the woman, that he rent his clothes (now he was passing by upon the wall); and the people looked, and, behold, he had sackcloth within upon his flesh. Then he said, God do so to me, and more also, if the head of Elisha the son of Shaphat shall stand upon him this day.”
We pass over this awful paragraph with a minimum of comment. What a horrible thing, really is warfare, not merely in ancient days, but in our own as well. The famine in Samaria was entirely the result of the siege by the Syrians, their purpose being simple and brutal enough. They would starve the inhabitants into submission!
If Israel had remained united, Damascus would have been their dependent, but the sins of Solomon and his brutal slave-state had laid the ground for the division of the chosen people, whose conceited and ambitions kings walked in their own godless ways, bringing continued sorrows upon the people. “Causing Israel to sin” is the oft-repeated phrase in the record of their shameful reigns.
The horrors of this particular siege of Samaria had been prophesied by the great Lawgiver (Moses) himself.
“And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters … in the siege and in the distress wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee … if thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law” (Deu 28:53-58).
Thus, the terrible calamities that came upon God’s people were directly due to their sins and were the consequences of their rebellion against God. However, that in no way diminishes the sorrow and shame of such extremities as those mentioned here.
But, look at the reaction of the king of Israel! Fool that he was, he decided to kill God’s prophet instead of deciding to get rid of his paganism and return to the worship of God in Jerusalem. Of course, he would be no more successful in that intention than Benhadad had been.
E.M. Zerr:
2Ki 6:24. The war spirit is a restless one. Sometime after the events of the preceding paragraphs, the Syrians again came into the land of Israel. They laid siege to Samaria, the capital of that kingdom.
2Ki 6:25. In all ages and in every country, a prolonged siege of a walled city results in a famine; and a famine results in the inflation of costa of necessities of life. Ordinarily, no one would care to eat the head of an ass. In this siege it was not only accepted as food, but was sold for the enormous sum of 80 pieces of silver, which Moffatt says is ten pounds. A cab was about a pint, and one fourth of a cab of dove’s dung was sold for five pieces of silver, or about three dollars. The dung was used for fuel in that country, and as all kinds of fuel would be difficult to find in a siege, this article was obtainable from the fact of the birds’ being winged creatures, and not affected by a siege.
2Ki 6:26. The king of Israel was on the wall of the city, looking out to view the position of the enemy. This brought him into sight of one of his distressed subjects, who cried to him for help.
2Ki 6:27. Threshing was done by piling the whole straw on a barn floor, then beating out the grain by driving oxen round and round over it. When that was done, the loose chaff and grain was tossed up into the air with a winnowing shovel (called a fan in Mat 3:12), where the wind would blow the chaff away, letting the grain drop back on the floor. In times of famine there would be no grain to thresh. The winepress also would be empty as there would be no grapes to press. The first of this verse means that if a miracle is not performed to help them, it would be in vain to look to a man for relief from natural sources.
2Ki 6:28-29. There was some indication that a special situation prompted the woman to call on the king to intervene. Upon his inquiry she related her terrible story. Hunger had driven two mothers to the extreme plan of devouring their own flesh and blood. This very thing was predicted in Deu 28:53. After eating the flesh of one child the pangs of hunger were relieved and the mother was restored to a saner mind, and it was natural for her to back down from the agreement that hunger had impelled her to make. The other mother was thus expecting the king to take a hand in the case.
2Ki 6:30. The king did nothing about the affair of these women, but the case made a profound impression on him. He rent his clothes and covered his nakedness with a coarse material, commonly used for making sacks. In this condition he walked by the people as he was still on the wall of the city.
2Ki 6:31. God do so is a Biblical expression found frequently. It means that if the speaker does not carry out the thing he is threatening against someone, then may God do that thing to him, the speaker. In the case at hand, the king threatened to have Elisha beheaded. The prophet had performed miracles when it was God’s will. The king of Israel was so rash as to think a miracle could be performed at will at the request of a wicked ruler. In his distress he threatened vengeance against Elisha.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
the Dire Straits of Those Who Forsake God
2Ki 6:24-33
This siege was the result of Ahabs foolish and misplaced leniency. See 1Ki 20:42. The children are often called to suffer for the misdeeds and follies of their parents. Let us bear this in mind. No man liveth to himself. Conduct yourself so that none may be offended through long years after you have passed from earth.
Apparently Elisha had counseled the king not to surrender, with the further assurance of deliverance on condition of his repentance. Jehoram therefore assumed the signs of penitence and contrition without the reality; and when the promised deliverance was not forthcoming, he put the blame of Israels calamities on the prophet, and vowed vengeance against his life. The elders were gathered with Elisha, perhaps for prayer, when Elisha apprised them of the advent of the kings messenger, with his announcement of the royal determination not to wait for God any longer. The trial of our patience is more precious than of gold, but how few of us can endure it!
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
gathered: 2Ki 17:5, 2Ki 18:9, 2Ki 25:1, Deu 28:52, 1Ki 20:1, 1Ki 22:31, Ecc 9:14
Reciprocal: 1Ki 16:17 – besieged Tirzah 1Ki 20:42 – thy life shall go 2Ki 6:8 – the king 2Ki 8:7 – Benhadad Amo 1:4 – Benhadad
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2Ki 6:24. And it came to pass after this, &c. How long after we are not informed; but probably some years, when they had forgotten the kindnesses they had received in Samaria, which for a time, it appears, had quite disarmed them of their hatred against Israel, and caused them to lay aside all thoughts of war. Now, however, they alter their minds, and break out again into hostilities. Ben-hadad king of Syria gathered all his host He whom Ahab wickedly spared, now comes to requite his kindness, and fulfil the divine prediction contained in 1Ki 20:42. They will not now, as before, make incursions and inroads into the country, in small bands and companies, which, as they had experienced, might easily be entrapped; but will wage an open and solemn war, and fall upon the Israelites at once, with all their forces united. Ben-hadad was a name very frequent among the kings of Syria, if not common to them all. And went up, and besieged Samaria Plundering and laying waste the country, no doubt, as he went; and meeting with no opposition till he came to the capital city.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
2Ki 6:24 to 2Ki 7:20. The Siege of Samaria.The date and source of this episode need discussion. The name of the king of Syria, as in 1 Kings 20, was Ben-hadad; the king of Israel is not named at all. Two Benhadads are possible, the king in 1 Kings 20 who was defeated by Ahab, and the son and successor of Hazael (2Ki 13:24). If the first is meant, then Jehoram was king of Israel; if not, Jehoash, the grandson of Jehu. Elisha was called in the days of Ahab, and lived under Ahab and his two sons Ahaziah and Jehoram, Jehu, Jehoahaz, and Joash, dying under the last-named king. It is true that Elisha called the king this son of a murderer, which may be applicable to a son of Ahab; but son of may be used as the common periphrasis, and the phrase simply mean murderer. On the other hand, the scene seems better suited to the later stages of the Syrian war, and the king, despite his threat to kill Elisha, when distraught with misery at the tale of the two women, does not seem to have been on bad terms with the prophet. The event may therefore be placed late in Elishas life (p. 69). The source is also uncertain. Elisha plays a conspicuous part, and therefore it may well belong to his biography. On the other hand, it bears some affinity to 1 Kings 20, 22, and may be from the same sourceviz. a history or chronicle of the northern kingdom. The famine may have been in part caused by the scarcity mentioned in 2Ki 8:1.
The famine was so severe that an asss head was sold for eighty pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a kab (i.e. less than a pint) of doves dung for five (2Ki 6:25). A yet more terrible example was shown in the case of the two women (2Ki 6:28 f.). The head of an ass, which would not be eaten in ordinary circumstances (Jdg 6:4*), fetched an immense sum. What doves dung means it is impossible to say; it may be some common vegetable. Josephus (Wars, vi. 3) relates that in the last siege of Jerusalem a woman devoured her own child. The king stood (not passed by) on the wall, and when he rent his clothes in horror, the people saw that he was secretly wearing, as Thomas Becket did, a garb of penitence (2Ki 6:30). He attributed all the calamity to Elisha (2Ki 6:31), probably for not having delivered him as on previous occasions (see 2Ki 6:9). The words in Heb. for messenger and king are very similar, and perhaps it is not necessary to suppose that anyone came but the king, 2Ki 6:32 having been amplified. Instead of fulfilling his oath to kill Elisha, the king gave way to despair (2Ki 6:33). Elisha, however, foretold that provisions would soon be cheap, and four lepers at the city gate went into the Syrian camp, and found that the enemy had fled in a panic, believing that the king of Israel had hired Hittites and Egyptians to attack them (2Ki 7:6). It seems unlikely that the Egyptians would at this time have combined with the Northern Hittites, whose home was in Asia Minor, and it is suggested that not Egyptians (Mizrim) but Muzrites should be read (see 1Ki 10:28). The Muzrites (from Cappadocia, see Cent.B) were among the allies of Israel and Syria against Assyria in 854 B.C.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
God’s ability to preserve and provide for His people through famine 6:24-7:20
Aram’s cessation of hostilities ended after some time (2Ki 6:24; cf. 2Ki 6:23), perhaps between 845 and 841 B.C. [Note: Alberto R. W. Green, "Regnal Formulas in the Hebrew and Greek Texts of the Books of Kings," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 42 (1983):178.] The famine in Samaria, and the siege that caused it, were punishments from the Lord for Israel’s apostasy (cf. Lev 26:27-29; Deu 28:52-53; Deu 28:57; Eze 5:10). "Dove’s dung" (2Ki 6:25) is probably a better translation of the Hebrew word hiryyownim than "seed pods" (NIV). [Note: Jones, 2:432.] The two mothers who approached King Jehoram recall the two mothers who asked King Solomon for justice (1Ki 3:16-28), but now the situation was more serious. Individuals could always appeal directly to the king. [Note: Wiseman, p. 210.] Yahweh forced Jehoram to acknowledge His superiority over him (2Ki 6:27), but the king did not submit to God’s authority. The Mosaic Law had warned of the extreme distress the Israelites were experiencing (2Ki 6:29; cf. Lev 26:29; Deu 28:53). The sackcloth Jehoram wore represented repentance, but that repentance was very superficial (2Ki 6:30; cf. 2Ki 6:31; 2Ki 6:33). As Jezebel had threatened to kill Elijah, her son now threatened Elisha (2Ki 6:31; cf. 1Ki 19:2).
Jehoram planned to murder Elisha as his father Ahab had murdered Naboth (2Ki 6:32; cf. 1Ki 21:1-16). He also grew impatient with the Lord, as Saul had grown impatient with Samuel (2Ki 6:33; cf. 1Sa 15:11). We see the king’s real wickedness in his behavior.
Jehoram’s officer did not believe Yahweh could, much less would, do what Elisha predicted (2Ki 7:1-2). In this he represented many others in Israel who had abandoned Yahweh for Baal. A "measure" (Heb. seah) of flour amounted to about seven quarts.
The four lepers likewise represented many in Israel whose hopeless destiny was death because of their uncleanness (2Ki 6:3). They were, however, the undeserving recipients of God’s grace. They became the source of blessing (life) to others when they reported what God had graciously provided for all the hopeless Samaritans (2Ki 6:9-10). Understandably many preachers have used them as examples of sinners saved by grace.
God dispersed the besieging Aramean army supernaturally (2Ki 6:6; cf. 2Ki 2:11; 2Ki 6:17). He accomplished this deliverance through no work of those whom He saved.
Rather than asking Elisha what was going on (2Ki 6:12; cf. 2Ki 6:21) Jehoram relied on his own wisdom, but that gave him no comfort. The writer concluded this story by emphasizing the judgment the royal officer experienced for his unbelief (2Ki 6:17-20). His fate, as God had previously announced, happened exactly as predicted (2Ki 6:17-18). Such would be the destiny of all in Israel who refused to believe what God had said in His Law and through His prophets.
Chapter 7 is one of many sections in Scripture composed in a chiastic literary structure that stresses a particular point in the story. We could outline this story as follows.
A The royal officer’s unbelief 2Ki 6:1-2 a
B Elisha’s prediction of relief 2Ki 6:2 b
C The lepers’ decision 2Ki 6:3-5
D Yahweh’s salvation 2Ki 6:6
C’ The leper’s deliverance 2Ki 6:7-10
B’ The fulfillment of Elisha’s prediction 2Ki 6:11-15
A’ The royal officer’s judgment 2Ki 6:16-20
This structure emphasizes the central element, Yahweh’s salvation, and teaches other lessons in concentric circles of significance. These points include the role of the lepers in bringing news of deliverance to the doomed Samaritans. They were evangelists in the truest sense: heralds of good news. The value of God’s revelation is another lesson, as is the folly of rejecting that revelation.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
THE FAMINE AND THE SIEGE
2Ki 6:24-33; 2Ki 7:1-20
“Tis truly no flood plan when princes play
The vulture among carrion; but when
They play the carrion among vultures-that
Is ten times worse.”
-LESSING, “Nathan the Wise, ” Act I, Sc. 3
IF the Benhadad, King of Syria, who reduced Samaria to the horrible straits recorded in this chapter, {2Ki 6:1-33} was the same Benhadad whom Ahab had treated with such impolitic confidence, his hatred against Israel must indeed have burned hotly. Besides the affair at Dothan, he had already been twice routed with enormous slaughter, and against those disasters he could only set the death of Ahab at Ramoth-Gilead. It is obvious from the preceding narrative that he could advance at any time at his will and pleasure into the heart of his enemys country, and shut him up in his capital almost without resistance. The siege-trains of ancient days were very inefficient, and any strong fortress could hold out for years, if only it was well provisioned. Such was not the case with Samaria, and it was reduced to a condition of sore famine. Food so loathsome as an asss head, which at other times the poorest would have spurned, was now sold for eighty shekels weight of silver (about 8); and the fourth part of a xestes or kab- which was itself the smallest dry-measure, the sixth part of a seah- of the coarse, common pulse or roasted chick-peas, vulgarly known as “doves dung,” fetched five shekels (about 12S. 6d.).
While things were at this awful pass, “the King of Israel,” as he is vaguely called throughout this story, went his rounds upon the wall to visit the sentries and encourage the soldiers in their defense. As he passed, a woman cried, “Help, my lord, O king!” In Eastern monarchies the king is a judge of the humblest; a suppliant, however mean, may cry to him. Jehoram thought that this was but one of the appeals which sprang from the clamorous mendacity of famine with which he had grown so painfully familiar. “The Lord curse you!” he exclaimed impatiently. “How can I help you? Every barn-floor is bare, every wine-press drained.” And he passed on.
But the woman continued her wild clamor, and turning round at her importunity, he asked, “What aileth thee?”
He heard in reply a narrative as appalling as ever smote the ear of a king in a besieged city. Among the curses denounced upon apostate Israel in the Pentateuch, we read, “Ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat”; {Lev 26:29} or, as it is expressed more fully in the Book of Deuteronomy, “He, shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land. And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and thy daughters, which the Lord thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee: so that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil towards his brother, and towards the wife of his bosom, and towards the remnant of his children which he shall leave; so that he shall not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat, because he hath nothing left him in the siege. The tender and delicate woman, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil towards the husband of her bosom, and towards her son, and towards her daughter, and towards her children: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and the straitness, if thou wilt not observe to do all the words of the law that thou mayest fear the glorious and fearful name, The Lord thy God.” {Deu 28:52-58} We find almost the same words in the prophet Jeremiah; {Jer 19:9} and in Lamentations we read: “The hands of the pitiful women have sodden their own children: they were their meat: in the destruction of the daughter of My people.”
Isaiah asks, “Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion: on the son of her womb?” Alas! it has always been so in those awful scenes of famine, whether after shipwreck or in beleaguered cities, when man becomes degraded to an animal, with all an animals primitive instincts, and when the wild beast appears under the thin veneer of civilization. So it was at the siege of Jerusalem, and at the siege of Magdeburg, and at the wreck of the Medusa, and on many another occasion when the pangs of hunger have corroded away every vestige of the tender affections and of the moral sense.
And this had occurred at Samaria: her women had become cannibals and devoured their own little ones.
“This woman,” screamed the suppliant, pointing her lean finger at a wretch like herself-“this woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him today, and we will afterwards eat my son. I yielded to her suggestion. We killed my little son, and ate his flesh when we had sodden it. Next day I said to her, Now give thy son, that we may eat him; and she hath hid her son!”
How could the king answer such a horrible appeal? Injustice had been done; but was he to order and to sanction by way of redress fresh cannibalism, and the murder by its mother of another babe? In that foul obliteration of every natural instinct, what could he do, what could any man do? Can there be equity among raging wild beasts, when they roar for their prey and are unfed?
All that the miserable king could do was to rend his clothes in horror and to pass on; and as his starving subjects passed by him on the wall they saw that he wore sackcloth beneath his purple, in sign, if not of repentance, yet of anguish, if not of prayer, yet of uttermost humiliation. {Isa 20:2-3}
But if indeed he had, in his misery, donned that sackcloth in order that at least the semblance of self-mortification might move Jehovah to pity, as it had done in the case of his father Ahab, the external sign of his humility had done nothing to change his heart. The gruesome appeal to which he had just been forced to listen only kindled him to a burst of fury. The man who had warned, who had prophesied, who so far during this siege had not raised his finger to help-the man who was believed to be able to wield the powers of heaven, and had wrought no deliverance for his people, but suffered them to sink unaided into these depths of abjectness – should he be permitted to live? If Jehovah would not help, of what use was Elisha? “God do so to me, and more also,” exclaimed Jehoram-using his mothers oath to Elijah (1Ki 19:2)-“if the head of Elisha, the son of Shaphat, shall stand on him this day.”
Was this the king who had come to Elisha with such humble entreaty, when three armies were perishing of thirst before the eyes of Moab? Was this the king who had called Elisha “my father,” when the prophet had led the deluded host of Syrians into Samaria, and bidden Jehoram to set large provision before them? It was the same king, but now transported with fury and reduced to despair. His threat against Gods prophet was in reality a defiance of God, as when our unhappy Plantagenet, Henry II, maddened by the loss of Le Mans, exclaimed that, since God had robbed him of the town he loved, he would pay God out by robbing Him of that which He most loved in him-his soul.
Jehorams threat was meant in grim earnest, and he sent an executioner to carry it out. Elisha was sitting in his house with the elders of the city, who had come to him for counsel at this hour of supreme need. He knew what was intended for him, and it had also been revealed to him that the king would follow his messenger to cancel his sanguinary threat. “See ye,” he said to the elders, “how this son of a murderer” for again he indicates his contempt and indignation for the son of Ahab and Jezebel-“hath sent to behead me! When he comes, shut the door, and hold it fast against him. His master is following hard at his heels.”
The messenger came, and was refused admittance. The king followed him, and entering the room where the prophet and elders sat, he gave up his wicked design of slaying Elisha with the sword, but he overwhelmed him with reproaches, and in despair renounced all further trust in Jehovah. Elisha, as the kings words imply, must have refused all permission to capitulate: he must have held out from the first a promise that God would send deliverance. But no deliverance had come. The people were starving. Women were devouring their babes. Nothing worse could happen if they flung open their gates to the Syrian host. “Behold,” the king said, “this evil is Jehovahs doing. You have deceived us. Jehovah does not intend to deliver us. Why should I wait for Him any longer?” Perhaps the king meant to imply that his mothers Baal was better worth serving, and would never have left his votaries to sink into these straits.
And now mans extremity had come, and it was Gods opportunity. Elisha at last was permitted to announce that the worst was over, that the next day plenty should smile on the besieged city. “Thus saith the Lord,” he exclaimed to the exhausted and despondent king, “Tomorrow about this time, instead of an asss head being sold for eighty shekels, and a thimbleful of pulse for five shekels, a peck of fine flour shall be sold for a shekel, and two pecks of barley for a shekel, in the gate of Samaria.”
The king was leaning on the hand of his chief officer, and to this soldier the promise seemed not only incredible, but silly: for at the best he could only suppose that the Syrian host would raise the siege; and though to hope for that looked an absurdity, yet even that would not in the least fulfill the immense prediction. He answered, therefore, in utter scorn: “Yes! Jehovah is making windows in heaven! But even thus could this be?” It is much as if he should have answered some solemn pledge with a derisive proverb such as, “Yes! if the sky should fall, we should catch larks!”
Such contemptuous repudiation of a Divine promise was a blasphemy; and answering scorn with scorn, and riddle with riddling, Elisha answers the mockery, “Yes! and you shall see this, but shall not enjoy it.”
The word of the Lord was the word of a true prophet, and the miracle was wrought. Not only was the siege raised, but the wholly unforeseen spoil of the entire Syrian camp, with all its accumulated rapine, brought about the predicted plenty.
There were four lepers outside the gate of Samaria, like the leprous mendicants who gather there to this day. They were cut off from all human society, except their own. Leprosy was treated as contagious, and if “houses of the unfortunate” (Biut-el-Masakin) were provided for them, as seems to have been the case at Jerusalem, they were built outside the city. {Lev 13:46; Num 5:2-3} They could only live by beggary, and this was an aggravation of their miserable condition. And how could any one fling food to these beggars over the walls, when food of any kind was barely to be had within them?
So taking counsel of their despair, they decided that they would desert to the Syrians: among them they would at least find food, if their lives were spared; and if not, death would be a happy release from their present misery.
So in the evening twilight, when they could not be seen or shot at from the city wall as deserters, they stole down to the Syrian camp.
When they reached its outermost circle, to their amazement all was silence. They crept into one of the tents in fear and astonishment. There were food and drink there, and they satisfied the cravings of their hunger. It was also stored with booty from the plundered cities and villages of Israel. To this they helped themselves, and took it away and hid it. Having spoiled this tent, they entered a second. It was likewise deserted, and they carried a fresh store of treasures to their hiding-place. And then they began to feel uneasy at not divulging to their starving fellow-citizens the strange and golden tidings of a deserted camp. The night was wearing on; day would reveal the secret. If they carried the good news, they would doubtless earn a rich guerdon. If they waited till morning, they might be put to death for their selfish reticence and theft. It was safest to return to the city, and rouse the warder, and send a message to the palace. So the lepers hurried back through the night, and shouted to the sentinel at the gate, “We went to the Syrian camp, and it was deserted! Not a man was there, not a sound was to be heard. The horses were tethered there, and the asses, and the tents were left just as they were.”
The sentinel called the other watchman to hear the wonderful news, and instantly ran with it to the palace. The slumbering house was roused; and though it was still night, the king himself arose. But he could not shake off his despondency, and made no reference to Elishas prediction. News sometimes sounds too good to be true. “It is only a decoy,” he said. “They can only have left their camp to lure us into an ambuscade, that they may return, and slaughter us, and capture our city.”
“Send to see,” answered one of his courtiers. “Send five horsemen to test the truth, and to look out. If they perish, their late is but the fate of us all.”
So two chariots with horses were dispatched, with instructions not only to visit the camp, but track the movements of the host.
They went, and found that it was as the lepers had said. The camp was deserted, and lay there as an immense booty; and for some reason the Syrians had fled towards the Jordan to make good their escape to Damascus by the eastern bank. The whole road was strewn with the traces of their headlong flight; it was full of scattered garments and vessels.
Probably, too, the messengers came across some disabled fugitive, and learnt the secret of this amazing stampede. It was the result of one of those sudden unaccountable panics to which the huge, unwieldy, heterogeneous. Eastern armies, which have no organized system of sentries, and no trained discipline, are constantly liable. We have already met with several instances in the history of Israel. Such was the panic which seized the Midianites when Gideons three hundred blew their trumpets; and the panic of the Syrians before Ahabs pages of the provinces; and of the combined armies in the Valley of Salt; and of the Moabites at Wady-el-Ahsy; and afterwards of the Assyrians before the walls of Jerusalem. Fear is physically contagious, and, when once it has set in, it swells with such unaccountable violence, that the Greeks called these terrors “panic,” because they believed them to be directly inspired by the god Pan. Well-disciplined as was the army of the Ten Thousand Greeks in their famous retreat, they nearly fell victims to a sudden panic, had not Clearchus, with prompt resource, published by the herald the proclamation of a reward for the arrest of the man who had let the ass loose. Such an unaccountable terror-caused by a noise as of chariots and of horses which reverberated among the hills-had seized the Syrian host. They thought that Jehoram had secretly hired an army of the princes of the Khetas and of the Egyptians to march suddenly upon them. In wild confusion, not stopping to reason or to inquire, they took to flight, increasing their panic by the noise and rush of their own precipitance.
No sooner had the messengers delivered their glad tidings, than the people of Samaria began to pour tumultuously out of the gates, to fling themselves on the food and on the spoil. It was like the rush of the dirty, starving, emaciated wretches which horrified the keepers of the reserved stores at Smolensk in Napoleons retreat from Moscow, and forced them to shut the gates, and fling food and grain to the struggling soldiers out of the windows of the granaries. To secure order and prevent disaster, the king appointed his attendant lord to keep the gate. But the torrent of people flung him down, and they trampled on his body in their eagerness for relief. He died after having seen that the promise of Elisha was fulfilled, and that the cheapness and abundance had been granted, the prophecy of which he thought only fit for his skeptical derision.
“The sudden panic which delivered the city,” says Dean Stanley, “is the one marked” intervention on behalf of the northern capital. No other incident could be found in the sacred annals so appropriately to express, in the Church of Gouda, the pious gratitude of the citizens of Leyden, for their deliverance from the Spanish army, as the miraculous raising of the siege of Samaria.