Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Kings 8:10

And Elisha said unto him, Go, say unto him, Thou mayest certainly recover: howbeit the LORD hath showed me that he shall surely die.

10. Go, say unto him, Thou mayest certainly [R.V. shalt surely ] recover ] This is not the translation of the Hebrew text ( Kethib) but of the marginal reading [ Keri ]. The variation is between the negative and the pronoun and preposition. The text would be rendered ‘Go say; Thou shalt not recover’. This does not suit with what follows, ‘Howbeit the Lord hath shewed me that he shall surely die’. We should expect ‘For the Lord &c.’ The meaning of the prophet’s words is, ‘Go and carry him such a message as a courtier is likely to carry, a message of good promise, for this I know you are likely to do, yet the Lord has made known to me that he will die’. The R.V. has given the translation of the Kethib on the margin, but as that is so little in harmony with the context, has translated the Keri in the text, though this is contrary to the usual rule of the Revisers.

Another way of explaining the language of Elisha has been adopted by some. It is pointed out that the king’s question was ‘Shall I recover of this disease?’ Elisha, forewarned of the events that were coming, gives as answer to that enquiry ‘Thou shalt surely recover’, meaning thereby that the disease would not kill Benhadad, but suppresses that other source whence danger and death threatened, viz., the murderous hands of Hazael, which he knew would soon slay his master. This seems very unlike the manner of a prophet of the Lord. The explanation previously given is therefore to be preferred. Bp Hall takes the later explanation, ‘The Lord hath shewed me that he shall surely die, by another means, though not by the disease’.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Translate – Go, say unto him, Thou shalt certainly live: howbeit the Lord hath showed me that he shall certainly die. i. e., Say to him, what thou hast already determined to say, what a courtier is sure to say (compare 1Ki 22:15), but know that the fact will be otherwise.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

2Ki 8:10

Thou mayest certainly recover.

Ignorance of the future

The subject which I propose to discuss is the moral effect of ignorance of the future.

I. The avidity with which men seek to know the future. People are almost always ready to believe that something unusually good is to befall them; that their lot is to be exceptional; that their future is somewhere to be discovered by divination, by the lines on their hands, by the courses of the heavenly bodies. Take your stand by the fortune-teller, to whom has betaken herself a young girl, who, in her ignorance and simplicity, wants to know what human lot is coming to her; whether she is to marry or not; whether her husband is to be rich or poor; what is his complexion, the colour of his hair and eyes, his occupation, and all those minutiae about him with which her teeming fancy busies itself. Recall the little simple devices, such as pulling in pieces a daisy as certain sentences are repeated, to which children and young folks resort; they all arise from a curiosity about the future, and an impression that lodged somewhere in the earth, or air, in daisy or constellation, is the secret that we wish to know. There is no doubt about the influence of good and evil supernatural agencies in our lives; there is no doubt, too, that the events of our lives are closely watched by the inhabitants of two worlds. If good spirits, why not bad? There are two ways in which a man may confront the future; one, looking into Gods face, trusting in Gods promises, asking the support of the Everlasting Arms; and the other, turning to invoke the spirits of darkness; making a league with the devil to get counsel and help from the infernal world. And I look upon all this desire to penetrate the veil of mystery which encompasses the future–except as we walk by faith with the Invisible One, as we believe in God and link our destiny with God by keeping His laws–as immoral and unchristian.

II. Ignorance of the future, if that future is to be disastrous, is always a blessing to us; while, if it is to be advantageous, it is an inspiration. And it is between this possible disaster and advantage that men make all the progress, whether intellectual or spiritual. In all motion which is artificially produced, such as the movement of a carriage or land, or on rails, or the movement of a vessel through the water, there are always two elements; two forces acting and reacting. There is that which propels–the motive power; and that which resists it, and the result is motion. When the driving-wheels of a locomotive do not take hold of the rail–that is, when the rail is covered with frost or ice so that there is no resistance to their revolution–there can be no progress: the great iron sinewed horse is but a plaything, whirling his wheels like a top. These two elements are in the flight of the bird: the stroke of the wing and the resistance of the air. When inventors are making efforts to find some machine which will navigate the air, they seek first lightness. But it is the weight of the bird, as well as the stroke of the wing, that gives it power to make such beautiful evolutions in the air. The air is to the body of the bird what the water is to the hull of the vessel–a medium of resistance. As the wheels of the steamer, as the screw of the propeller, as the oar or the paddle of the rower is resisted by the water, progress is made. It is just so in human life. The patriarch Job says: What! shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? It is encountering a mixture of good and evil that makes character. It is the contingency of good and evil; the uncertainty whether it shall be one or the other, that is the mainspring of human action. People ask, why did not God make man so that he could not sin? It is like asking why God did not make matter so that an object could move without meeting resistance; why God did not make the bird so that it could fly without breasting the powers of the air. Walking is only falling forward and regaining ones self. The regaining prevents the accident. The babe begins with the first motion, but is not yet competent to the second. And no man walks with God without finding a leverage for his soul in the evil that is in the world; only he wants none of it in him. In one sense we are forewarned respecting the future. We have general principles given us. These principles are often cast into the form of maxims. For example, we say that Honesty is the best policy, with primary reference to business; that let a man make ever so much money by dishonest dealing, he is injuring his business all the time; he is only getting rope to hang himself. The young lad who is studying at school hears this; he does not think it applies to his relations to his teacher and his books, but it does. When, in after life, he confronts business questions or business interests, and finds he cannot solve queries which were solved by his neglected text-books, or his faithful teacher, he discovers it. It is no time to dismount and tighten the saddle-girth when the battle is on us. There is not one of us who would not have been a sadder man in life to know beforehand the calamities that came to him the last twelvemonths. Let him take up his cross daily, it is not to-morrows cross that we can take up to-day, even if we would take it up. And what is called borrowing trouble is taking up to-morrows cross–always an imaginary one–before to.morrow comes. The Saviour says, Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof, meaning that if we manage to grapple with the evil of to-day and overcome that, it is all God expects of us; it is victory. And then, on the other hand, the certainty of good fortune is always enervating. God helps the men who help themselves. They fall into the line of His purposes; they see the tide which, taken at its flood, leads on to fortune. Tell a young man that at the age of forty he will be worth a million dollars, and you have done him an injury.

III. Ignorance of the future is a protection against temptation to employ indirect and sinful methods of securing what we have been assured will take place. Take this case of Hazael to illustrate the temptation that comes to a man who knows that he is to occupy a high position. You would say he would argue in this manner: Well, if I am to be King of Syria, let the God, whose prophet predicts it, make me king; I will not lift a finger; least of all will I try to find a short cut to the throne. This was the way Macbeth deliberated:–

If chance will make me king,

why chance may crown me,

Without my stir.

A mans aspirations and capacities are often prophecies of what God means to do by him. If he should say to himself, I deserve such and such position, and it matters not how I get it; if then he should address himself to the work of supplanting such another occupant of the place, or aspirant for it, he may secure the position indeed, but he has introduced into his cup of life that which will embitter it for ever. There is no moral greatness in having place. Place without fitness for it; place with the recollection of dishonour or misdirection in seeking it, is really a disgrace to a man. Hazael became King of Syria as Macbeth became King of Scotland, by attempting to accomplish by crime what was already written down in the future. But what was Hazael as King of Syria, what was Macbeth as King of Scotland, with the predecessor of each assassinated to make open the path to the throne? The very night of Duncans death, while he still lay there, the murder undiscovered, and there came some one knocking at the castle gate, Macbeth says:–

Wake Duncan with thy knocking;

I would thou couldst!

For example: there is an achievement, a possession that I wish, I think I deserve it, have fitness for it, could honour my Maker if I were gratified in my desire, could benefit my fellow-men. Now comes the test of my character. If I am willing to fulfil the conditions of merit, to serve God where He has placed me, up to my best ability; to wait His time for recognition and promotion; if promotion should come, then it has sought me; I have entered into no unholy alliances, I have not broken the golden rule. I have coveted no mans silver, gold, or place. If, on the other hand, I say to myself, God intended this for me, and I mean to have it, and I begin to clamber over the heads of people, as men sometimes try to get out of a crowd, I carry with me the sense of my own unworthiness.

IV. Ignorance of the future on our part does not interfere with Gods certainty respecting it. It should bring us to confide in that certainty. Only certainty somewhere can bring us security. It is usual to put this in the other way, as though Gods certainty respecting a future event might possibly prevent the exercise of our freedom when putting out our force to compass or defeat it. But in mans sphere, man is just as free as God is in His sphere. And without some certainty, what is the use of freedom? Hazael is to be King of Syria. This should content him, But being an unscrupulous man, and the King of Syria being sick, and in that particular to him, his confidential servant, an easy victim, as Duncan came conveniently–the devils opportunity–to the castle of Macbeth, Hazael spreads a wet cloth over the kings face, smothers him, and he dies, and the vacant throne is ready for himself. The certainty that he was to be King of Syria did not affect his conduct. Mark that. His knowledge of the certainty did. It tempted him to compass, by foul means, that which, if he had waited, would have happened so, as we express it. God is no less in the future events of this nation than he was in the future events of the Syrian kingdom, or the kingdom of Israel; Hazael was no more certain, historically certain, certain in the mind of God to succeed Ben-hadad than some man is to succeed the present President. But the certainty of God is on another plane from the contingency that is in the affairs of men. The storm of rain and sleet which encases the woods as with armour of silver, which makes every branch like a spear which the winds poise and tilt as though for some encounter in knight-errantry, was predicted by the weather bureau twenty-four hours before it came; was fore-known and fore-recorded and published to the nation. But the certainty did not affect the action of the atmosphere combinations needful to produce the storm. The atmospheric forces north, south, east, west, were held in hand or let loose according as was needful to the result. Up in His own sphere God presides, insuring human freedom, touching the springs of action, carrying out His own plans, making all things work together for the good of His children and for His own glory. Our ignorance of the future does not disturb His affairs. God makes the wrath of man to praise Him, and the remainder of wrath He restrains. He lets wicked men go just as far as they need to prove their freedom, and then He stops them and takes the advantage, not of what they thought to do, but of what they did. This is the most wonderful kind of alchemy. (J. E. Rankin, D. D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 10. Thou mayest certainly recover: howbeit the Lord hath showed me that he shall surely die.] That is, God has not determined thy death, nor will it be a necessary consequence of the disease by which thou art now afflicted; but this wicked man will abuse the power and trust thou hast reposed in him, and take away thy life. Even when God has not designed nor appointed the death of a person, he may nevertheless die, though not without the permission of God. This is a farther proof of the doctrine of contingent events: he might live for all his sickness, but thou wilt put an end to his life.

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

Here is no contradiction; for the first words contain an answer to Ben-hadads question, 2Ki 8:8,

Shall I recover of this disease? To which the answer is, Thou mayest or shalt recover, i.e. notwithstanding thy disease, which is not mortal, and shall not take away thy life. The latter words contain the prophets explication of or addition to that answer, which is, that he should die, not by the power of his disease, but by some other cause. But it is observable, that in the Hebrew text it is lo, the adverb, which signifies not; which though most affirm to be put for to, the pronoun, signifying to him; yet others take it as it lies, and translate the words thus, Say, Thou shalt not recover; for the Lord hath showed me that he shall surely die. Or, according to the former reading, the first words may be taken interrogatively, Say unto him, Shalt thou indeed recover? (as thou dost flatter thyself:) no; (which negation is implied in the very question, and gathered from the following words;) for the Lord hath showed me that he shall surely die.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

10. Go, say . . . Thou mayestcertainly recoverThere was no contradiction in this message.This part was properly the answer to Ben-hadad’s inquiry [2Ki8:9]. The second part was intended for Hazael, who, like anartful and ambitious courtier, reported only as much of the prophet’sstatement as suited his own views (compare 2Ki8:14).

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

And Elisha said unto him, go, say unto him, thou mayest certainly recover,…. That is, of the disease; and there was not only a probability that he might recover of it, it not being a mortal one, but a certainty that he should not die of it, as he did not, but die a violent death, which the prophet predicts in the next clause; though some take these words not as a command, what he should say, but as a prediction of what he would say; that he would go and tell him he should certainly recover, because he would not discourage him, though the prophet assures him in the next clause that he should die: there is a various reading of these words; we follow the marginal reading, but the textual reading is, “say, thou shall not certainly recover”, or “in living live”; which agrees with what follows:

howbeit or “for”

the Lord hath showed me, that he shall surely die; though not of that sickness, nor a natural death, but a violent one, and that by the hand of this his servant, though he does not express it.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

According to the Chethb , Elisha’s answer was, “Thou wilt not live, and (for) Jehovah has shown me that he will die;” according to the Keri , “tell him: Thou wilt live, but Jehovah,” etc. Most of the commentators follow the ancient versions, and the Masoretes, who reckon our among the fifteen passages of the O.T. in which it stands for the pronoun (vid., Hilleri Arcan. Keri, p. 62f.), and some of the codices, and decide in favour of the Keri. (1) because the conjecture that was altered into in order that Elisha might not be made to utter an untruth, is a very natural one; and (2) on account of the extreme rarity with which a negative stands before the inf. abs. with the finite verb following. But there is not much force in either argument. The rarity of the position of before the inf. abs. followed by a finite verb, in connection with the omission of the pronoun after , might be the very reason why was taken as a pronoun; and the confirmation of this opinion might be found in the fact that Hazael brought back this answer to the king: “Thou wilt live” (2Ki 8:14). The reading in the text ( non) is favoured by the circumstance that it is the more difficult of the two, partly because of the unusual position of the negative, and partly because of the contradiction to 2Ki 8:14. But the is found in the same position in other passages (Gen 3:4; Psa 49:8, and Amo 9:8), where the emphasis lies upon the negation; and the contradiction to 2Ki 8:14 may be explained very simply, from the fact that Hazael did not tell his king the truth, because he wanted to put him to death and usurp the throne. We therefore prefer the reading in the text, since it is not in harmony with the character of the prophets to utter an untruth; and the explanation, “thou wilt not die of thine illness, but come to a violent death,” puts into the words a meaning which they do not possess. For even if Benhadad did not die of his illness, he did not recover from it.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

(10) Unto him.The reading of some Hebrew MSS., of the Hebrew margin, and of all the versions, as well as of Josephus.

The ordinary Hebrew text has not (l, instead of l), so that the meaning would be, Thou shalt not recover. But (1) the position of the negative before the adverbial infinitive is anomalous; and (2) Hazaes report of Elishas words, in 2Ki. 8:14, is without the negative particle. (See the Note there.) The Authorised Version is, therefore, right.

Thou mayest certainly recover.Rather. Thou wilt certainly live. Elisha sees through Hazaes character and designs, and answers him in the tone of irony which he used to Gehazi in 2Ki. 5:26, Go, tell thy lordas thou, the supple and unscrupulous courtier wilt be sure to dohe will certainly recover. I know, however, that he will assuredly die, and by thy hand. Others interpret, Thou mightest recover (i.e., thy disease is not mortal); and make the rest of the prophes reply a confidential communication to Hazael. But this is to represent the prophet as deceiving Benhadad, and guilty of complicity with Hazael, which agrees neither with Elishas character nor with what follows in 2Ki. 8:11-12. The Syriac and Arabic, with some MSS., read, thou wilt die for he will die.

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

10. Thou mayest certainly recover The Hebrew text, in accordance with a majority of Hebrew MSS., reads thus: Go, say, thou certainly shalt not live; or more literally, living thou shalt not live. Instead of , not, the Keri has , to him, and this reading our English translators, as well as the Septuagint, Vulgate, Syriac, Arabic, and Chaldee versions, have followed. The external evidence would seem to favour this latter reading, but the internal is certainly against it. In the very next sentence Elisha says, The Lord has shown me that he shall certainly die. The howbeit of the English version is in the Hebrew simply the copulative , and. The translation, thou mayest certainly recover, (that is, as some explain, it is possible for thee to recover from thy sickness, this disease shall not cause thy death,) is only a lame effort to escape the obvious inconsistency and contradiction that exists in the reading adopted by most of the versions. How unnatural and inexplicable that Elisha should order Hazael to go, and, in a matter of so solemn moment as death, deceive his king by uttering a positive falsehood! It is much more natural to suppose that Hazael, informed that he is destined to be king, went and deceived Ben-hadad by misconstruing Elisha’s words. See on 2Ki 8:14. We therefore adopt the reading of the Hebrew text, and translate Elisha’s words thus: Go, say, Thou surely shalt not live. And Jehovah has shown me that he shall surely die. These words were doubtless uttered with much emotion, and this fact sufficiently explains the change from the second to the third person in the two sentences, and the insertion of the copulative and.

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