4<\/strong>. And Mesha king of Moab<\/em> ] This name for the king of Moab occurs in the first line of the Moabite stone. In that inscription the Moabite king mentions his successes against Omri and Omri’s successor and speaks of forty years as the time during which the conflict between Israel and Moab continued. Now Omri reigned six years (1Ki 16:23<\/span>) and Ahab’s reign lasted twenty-two years (1Ki 16:29<\/span>) while Ahaziah reigned one or two years more. Thus the whole period of forty years would not be covered unless we take in the reign of Jehoram. The Moabite inscription naturally represents only the Moabite successes, but the Scripture narrative shews that the victory over Omri had been followed by a defeat in the days of Ahab.<\/p>\n a sheepmaster<\/em> ] The LXX. transliterates the word writing . It occurs only here and in Amo 1:1<\/span>. The other Greek versions and the Targum give the meaning. The Moabite country by its character, valleys with fertile hill-sides and streams of water running through them, was eminently suited for a pastoral people; and from the nature of the tribute imposed it seems likely that all the wealth of the Moabites was in their cattle.<\/p>\n rendered unto the king of Israel<\/em> ] At the division of the kingdoms, Moab would fall to the share of the ten tribes, as it joined on to the south of the tribe of Reuben. Perhaps the tribute at first had not been so heavy as is here described, but had been increased on account of the struggles of Moab to throw off their yoke.<\/p>\n an hundred thousand lambs, and an hundred thousand rams<\/em>, with the wool<\/em> ] R.V. the wool of<\/strong> an hundred thousand lambs, and of an hundred thousand rams<\/em>. There is nothing in the Hebrew for ‘with’. The construction is: ‘he rendered these animals, the wool’. So that it seems best to take the last word as explanatory of what has preceded, and to understand that what the Moabite king gave of these numerous animals was the fleece only. The LXX. understood it so, and gives , as we might say fleece-wise<\/em>. That version however adds in the verse, without any warrant of the original, = in the revolt<\/em>, as if to explain that this large payment had been made only on one occasion. But this is wholly without evidence, and the Hebrew would lead us to think that the payment was made every year, and this is implied in Isa 16:1<\/span>, ‘Send ye the lamb’, i.e. the tribute of lambs. This being so, it is more likely that the fleeces were sent than the live stock. Indeed there would be little meaning in adding ‘the wool’ if the flocks were to be sent alive. It should be mentioned however that Josephus supports the A.V. saying .<\/p>\n Moab, the region immediately east of the Dead Sea and of the lower Jordan, though in part suited for agriculture, is in the main a great grazing country. Mesha resembled a modern Arab Sheikh, whose wealth is usually estimated by the number of his flocks and herds. His tribute of the wool of 100, 000 lambs was a tribute in kind, the ordinary tribute at this time in the East.<\/P> Mesha is the monarch who wrote the inscription on the Moabite stone (2Ki 1:1<\/span> note). The points established by the Inscription are:<\/P> 1. That Moab recovered from the blow dealt by David 2Sa 8:2<\/U><\/span>, 2Sa 8:12<\/span>, and became again an independent state in the interval between Davids conquest and the accession of Omri;<\/P> 2. That Omri reconquered the country, and that it then became subject to the northern kingdom, and remained so throughout his reign and that of his son Ahab, and into the reign of Ahabs son and successor, Ahaziah;<\/P> 3. That the independence was regained by means of a war, in which Mesha took town after town from the Israelites, including in his conquests many of the towns which, at the original occupation of the holy land, had passed into the possession of the Reubenites or the Gadites, as Baal-Meon Num 32:38<\/span>, Kirjathaim Num 32:37<\/span>, Ataroth Num 32:34<\/span>, Nebo Num 32:38<\/span>, Jahaz Jos 13:18<\/span>, etc.;<\/P> 4. That the name of Yahweh was well known to the Moabites as that of the God of the Israelites; and<\/P> 5. That there was a sanctuary of Yahweh at Nebo, in the Trans-Jordanic territory, where vessels were used in His service.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 4<\/span>. Was a sheepmaster<\/B><\/I>] The original is naked<\/I>, of which the Septuagint could make nothing, and therefore retained the Hebrew word : but the Chaldee has marey githey<\/I>, “a sheepmaster;” Aquila<\/I> has ; and Symmachus<\/I>, ; all to the same sense. The original signifies one who marks<\/I> or brands<\/I>, probably from the marking<\/I> of sheep. He fed many sheep, &c., and had them all marked<\/I> in a particular way, in order to ascertain his property.<\/P> <\/P> A hundred thousand lambs<\/B><\/I>] The Chaldee<\/I> and Arabic<\/I> have a<\/I> hundred thousand fat oxen<\/I>.<\/P> <\/p>\n A sheep-master; <\/B>a man of great wealth, (which in those times and places consisted much in cattle,) which enabled and emboldened him to rebel against his sovereign lord. <\/P> <\/p>\n 4-6. Mesha king of Moab,<\/B> &c.Ashis dominions embraced an extensive pasture country, he paid, asannual tribute, the wool of a hundred thousand lambs and a hundredthousand rams. It is still common in the East to pay custom and taxesin the fruits or natural produce of the land.<\/P><\/p>\n And Mesha king of Moab was a sheep master<\/strong>,…. With which his country abounded; he kept great numbers of them, and shepherds to take care of them; he traded in them, and got great riches by them; his substance chiefly consisted in them:<\/p>\n and rendered unto the king of Israel<\/strong>: either as a present, or as an annual tribute:<\/p>\n an hundred thousand lambs, and an hundred thousand rams, with the wool<\/strong>; that is, upon them, unshorn, and so the more valuable; and it was usual for tributary nations to pay their tribute to those to whom they were subject in such commodities which they most abounded with; so the Cappadocians, as Strabo c relates, used to pay, as a tribute to the Persians, every year, 1500 horses and 2000 mules, and five myriads of sheep, or 50,000; and formerly, Pliny d says, the only tribute was from the pastures.<\/p>\n c Geograph. l. 11. p. 362. d Nat. Hist. l. 18. c. 3.<\/p>\n War of Joram, in Alliance with Jehoshaphat, against the Moabites. – 2Ki 3:4<\/span>, 2Ki 3:5<\/span>. The occasion of this war was the rebellion of the Moabites, i.e., the refusal to pay tribute to Israel since the death of Ahab. Mesha the (vassal-) king of Moab was a possessor of flocks, and paid to the king of Israel 100,000 lambs and 100,000 rams; not merely at the commencement of each new reign (Cler.), but as a yearly tribute ( , to bring again = to bring repeatedly, as in Num 18:9<\/span>, etc.). This yearly tribute could not be exorbitant for the land of the Moabites, which abounded in good pasture, and was specially adapted for the rearing of flocks. The payment of tribute in natural objects and in the produce of the land was very customary in ancient times, and is still usual among the tribes of Asia.<\/p>\n (Note: Pecunia ipsa a pecore appellabatur. Etiam nunc in tabulis Censoriis pascua dicuntur omnia, ex quibus populus reditus habet, quia diu hoc solum vectigal fuit. Mulctatio quoque nonnisi ovium boumque impendio dicebatur <\/em>. – Plinii h. nat.<\/em> xviii. 3.)<\/p>\n signifies both a shepherd (Amo 1:1<\/span>) and also a possessor of flocks. In Arabic it is properly the possessor of a superior kind of sheep and goats (vid., Boch. Hieroz<\/em>. i. p. 483f. ed. Ros.). may either be taken as a second object to , or be connected with htiw as an accusative of looser government (Ewald, 287, h<\/em>.). In the first case the tribute would consist of the wool (the fleeces) of 100,000 lambs and 100,000 rams; in the second, of 100,000 lambs and the wool of 100,000 rams. In support of the latter we may quote Isa 16:1<\/span>, where lambs are mentioned as tribute.<\/p>\n 2Ki 3:5-7<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> The statement concerning the rebellion of the Moabites, which has already been mentioned in 2Ki 1:1<\/span>, is repeated here, because it furnished the occasion for the expedition about to be described. Ahaziah had been unable to do anything during his short reign to renew the subjugation of Moab; Joram was therefore anxious to overtake what had been neglected immediately after his ascent of the throne. He went to Samaria , at that time, namely, when he renewed his demand for the tribute and it was refused (Thenius), and mustered all Israel, i.e., raised an army out of the whole kingdom, and asked Jehoshaphat to join in the war, which he willingly promised to do (as in 1Ki 22:4<\/span>), notwithstanding the fact that he had been blamed by prophets for his alliance with Ahab and Ahaziah (2Ch 19:2<\/span> and 2Ch 20:37<\/span>). He probably wished to chastise the Moabites still further on this occasion for their invasion of Judah (2 Chron 20), and to do his part by bringing them once more under the yoke of Israel, to put it out of their power to make fresh incursions into Judah.<\/p>\n 2Ki 3:8<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> In reply to Joram’s question, “By which way shall we advance (against Moab)?” Jehoshaphat decided in favour of “the way through the desert of Edom.” There were two ways by which it was possible to enter the land of the Moabites; namely, either by going above the Dead Sea, and crossing the Jordan and the boundary river Arnon, and so entering it from the north, or by going round the southern point of the Dead Sea, and advancing through the northern portion of the mountains of Edom, and thus entering it from the south. The latter way was the longer of the two, and the one attended with the greatest difficulties and dangers, because the army would have to cross mountains which were very difficult to ascend. Nevertheless Jehoshaphat decided in its favour, partly because, if they took the northern route, they would have the Syrians at Ramoth in Gilead to fear, partly also because the Moabites, from their very confidence in the inaccessibility of their southern boundary, would hardly expect any attack from that side, and might therefore, if assailed at that point, be taken off their guard and easily defeated, and probably also from a regard to the king of Edom, whom they could induce to join them with his troops if they took that route, not so much perhaps for the purpose of strengthening their own army as to make sure of his forces, namely, that he would not make a fresh attempt at rebellion by a second invasion of the kingdom of Judah while Jehoshaphat was taking the field against the Moabites.<\/p>\n 2Ki 3:9-12<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> But however cleverly this plan may have been contrived, when the united army had been marching round for seven days and was passing through the deep rocky valley of the Ahsy<\/em>,<\/p>\n (Note: The usual route from southern Judaea to the land of the Moabites, which even the Crusaders and more recent travellers took, runs round the Dead Sea up to the mouth of the Wady ed Deraah<\/em> or Kerak<\/em>, and then up this wady to Kerak (vid., Rob. ii. p. 231). The allied kings did not take this route however, but went through the Wady el Kurahy<\/em> or es-Safieh<\/em>, which opens into the southern end of the Dead Sea, and which is called the Wady el Ahsy<\/em> farther up in the mountains, by Seetzen ( R<\/em>. ii. pp. 355,356) erroneously the Wady el Hssa<\/em> (Rob. ii. p. 488), a ravine through which Burckhardt passed with the greatest difficulty ( Syrien<\/em>, ii. p. 673). That they advanced by this route is a necessary inference from the fact, that when they first suffered from want of water they were on the border of the Moabitish territory, of which this very wady forms the boundary (2Ki 3:21<\/span>; see Burckh. p. 674, and Rob. Pal<\/em>. ii. p. 555), and the water came flowing from Edom (2Ki 3:20<\/span>). Neither of these circumstances is applicable to the Wady el Kerak<\/em>. – Still less can we assume, with O. v. Gerlach, that they chose the route through the Arabah that they might approach Moab from the south, as the Israelites under Moses had done. For it would have been impossible for them to reach the border of Moab by this circuitous route. And why should they go so far round, with the way through Edom open to them?)<\/p>\n which divided the territories of Edom and Moab, it was in the greatest danger of perishing from want of water for men and cattle, as the river which flows through this valley, and in which they probably hoped to find a sufficient supply of water, since according to Robinson ( Pal<\/em>. ii. pp. 476 and 488) it is a stream which never fails, was at that time perfectly dry.<\/p>\n In this distress the hearts of the two kings were manifested. – 2Ki 3:10-12<\/span>. Joram cried out in his despair: “Woe, that Jehovah has called these three kings, to give them into the hand of Moab!” ( , that<\/em>, serves to give emphasis to the assurance; see Ewald, 330, b<\/em>.) Jehoshaphat, on the other hand, had confidence in the Lord, and inquired whether there was no prophet there, through whom they could seek counsel of the Lord (as in 1Ki 22:7<\/span>); whereupon one of the servants of the Israelitish king answered that Elisha was there, who had poured water upon the hands of Elijah, i.e., had been with him daily as his servant, and therefore could probably obtain and give a revelation from god. Elisha may perhaps have come to the neighbourhood of the army at the instigation of the Spirit of God, because the distress of the kings was to be one means in the hand of the Lord, not only of distinguishing the prophet in the eyes of Joram, but also of pointing Joram to the Lord as the only true God. The three kings, humbled by the calamity, went in person to Elisha, instead of sending for him.<\/p>\n 2Ki 3:13-14<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> In order still further to humble the king of Israel, who was already bowed down by the trouble, and to produce some salutary fruit of repentance in his heart, Elisha addressed him in these words: “What have I to do with thee? Go to the (Baal-) prophets of thy father and thy mother! Let them help thee.” When Joram replied to this in a supplicatory tone: , no, pray (as in Rth 1:13<\/span>), i.e., speak not in this refusing way, for the Lord has brought these three kings – not me alone, but Jehoshaphat and the king of Edom also – into this trouble; Elisha said to him with a solemn oath (cf. 1Ki 17:1<\/span>): “If I did not regard Jehoshaphat, I should not look at thee and have respect to thee,” i.e., I should not deign to look at thee, much less to help thee.<\/p>\n 2Ki 3:15-17<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> He then sent for a minstrel, to collect his mind from the impressions of the outer world by the soft tones of the instrument, and by subduing the self-life and life in the external world to become absorbed in the intuition of divine things. On this influence of music upon the state of the mind, see the remark on 1Sa 16:16<\/span>, and Passavant’s Untersuchungen ber den Lebens-magnetismus<\/em>, p. 207 (ed. 2). – As the minstrel was playing, the hand of the Lord came upon him ( according to the later usage for , as in 1Sa 17:48<\/span>, etc.; compare Ewald, 345, b<\/em>., and as in 1Ki 18:46<\/span>), so that he said in the name of the Lord: “Make this valley full of trenches ( , inf. abs<\/em>. for the imperative; for see Ges. 108, 4); for thus saith the Lord, ye will see neither wind nor rain, and this valley will be filled with water, that ye may be able to drink, and your flocks and your cattle.” are trenches for collecting water (vid., Jer 14:3<\/span>), which would suddenly flow down through the brook-valley. This large quantity of water came on the (following) morning “by the way of Edom” (2Ki 3:20<\/span>), a heavy fall of rain or violent storm having taken place, as is evident from the context, in the eastern mountains of Edom, at a great distance from the Israelitish camp, the water of which filled the brook-valley, i.e., the Wady el Kurahy<\/em> and el Ahsy<\/em> (see at 2Ki 3:9<\/span>) at once, without the Israelites observing anything either of the wind, which always precedes rain in the East (Harmar, Beobb<\/em>. i. pp. 51, 52), or of the rain itself. are the flocks intended for slaughtering, the beasts of burden.<\/p>\n 2Ki 3:18-19<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> Elisha continued: “and this is too little for Jehovah (the comparative force of is implied in the context, especially in the alternating combination of the two clauses, which is indicated by … , see Ewald, 360, c<\/em>.): He will also give Moab into your hand, and ye will smite all the fortified and choice cities, fell all the good trees (fruit-trees), stop up all the springs of water, and spoil all the good fields with stones.” and are intended to produce a play upon words, through the resemblance in their sound and meaning (Ewald, 160, c<\/em>.). In the announcement of the devastation of the land there is an allusion to Deu 20:19-20<\/span>, according to which the Israelites were ordered to spare the fruit-trees when Canaan was taken. These instructions were not to apply to Moab, because the Moabites themselves as the arch-foes of Israel would not act in any other way with the land of Israel if they should gain the victory. , to add pain, is a poetical expression for spoiling a field or rendering it infertile through the heaping up of stones.<\/p>\n 2Ki 3:20-23<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> The water came in the morning at the time of the morning sacrifice (see 1Ki 18:36<\/span>), to indicate that the Lord was once more restoring His favour to the people on account of the sacrifice presented to Him in His temple.<\/p>\n The help of God, which preserved the Israelitish army from destruction, also prepared destruction for the Moabites. 2Ki 3:21-23<\/span>. On hearing the report of the march of the allied kings, Moab had raised all the men that were capable of bearing arms, and stationed them on the frontier. In the morning, when the sun had risen above the water, the Moabites saw the water opposite to them like blood, and said: “That is blood: the (allied) kings have destroyed themselves and smitten one another; and now to the spoil, Moab!” Coming with this expectation to the Israelitish camp, they were received by the allies, who were ready for battle, and put to flight. The divine help consisted, therefore, not in a miracle which surpassed the laws of nature, but simply in the fact that the Lord God, as He had predicted through His prophet, caused the forces of nature ordained by Him to work in the predetermined manner. As the sudden supply of an abundance of water was caused in a natural way by a heavy fall of rain, so the illusion, which was so fatal to the Moabites, is also to be explained in the natural manner indicated in the text. From the reddish earth of the freshly dug trenches the water collected in them had acquired a reddish colour, which was considerably intensified by the rays of the rising sun, so that when seen from a distance it resembled blood. The Moabites, however, were the less likely to entertain the thought of an optical delusion, from the fact that with their accurate acquaintance with the country they knew very well that there was no water in the wady at that time, and they had neither seen nor heard anything of the rain which had fallen at a great distance off in the Edomitish mountains. The thought was therefore a natural one, that the water was blood, and that the cause of the blood could only have been that their enemies had massacred one another, more especially as the jealousy between Israel and Judah was not unknown to them, and they could have no doubt that Edom had only come with them as a forced ally after the unsuccessful attempt at rebellion which it had made a short time before; and, lastly, they cannot quite have forgotten their own last expedition against Judah in alliance with the Edomites and Ammonites, which had completely failed, because the men composing their own army had destroyed one another. But if they came into collision with the allied army of the Israelites under such a delusion as this, the battle could only end in defeat and in a general flight so far as they were concerned.<\/p>\n 2Ki 3:24-25<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> The Israelites followed the fugitives into their own land and laid it waste, as Elisha had prophesied (2Ki 3:25<\/span> compared with 2Ki 3:19<\/span>). The Chethb<\/em> is to be read (for as in 1Ki 12:12<\/span>): and (Israel) came into the land and smote Moab. The Keri<\/em> is a bad emendation. is either the infinitive construct used instead of the infin. absolute (Ewald, 351, c<\/em>.), or an unusual form of the inf. absol. (Ewald, 240, b<\/em>.). , till one (= so that one only) left its stones in Kir-chareseth<\/em>. On the infinitive form see at Jos 8:22<\/span>. The suffix in probably points forward to the following noun (Ewald, 309, c<\/em>.). The city called here and Isa 16:7<\/span>, and in Isa 16:11<\/span> and Jer 48:31<\/span>, Jer 48:36<\/span>, i.e., probably city of potsherds, is called elsewhere , the citadel of Moab (Isa 15:1<\/span>), as the principal fortress of the land (in the Chaldee Vers. ), and still exists under the name of Kerak<\/em>, with a strong castle build by the Crusaders, upon a lofty and steep chalk rock, surrounded by a deep and narrow valley, which runs westward under the name of Wady Kerak and falls into the Dead Sea (vid., Burckhardt, Syr<\/em>. pp. 643ff., C. v. Raumer, Pal<\/em>. pp. 271,272). This fortress the allied kings besieged. “The slingers surrounded and smote it,” i.e., bombarded it.<\/p>\n 2Ki 3:26<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> When the king of Moab saw that the battle was too strong for him, he attempted to fight a way through the besiegers with 700 men with drawn swords ( , lit., to split them) to the king of Edom, i.e., on the side which was held by this king, from whom he probably hoped that he should meet with the weakest resistance.<\/p>\n 2Ki 3:27<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> But when this attempt failed, in his desperation he took his first-born son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him as a sacrifice upon the wall, i.e., in the sight of the besiegers, not to the God of Israel (Joseph. Ephr. Syr., etc.), but to his own god Camos (see at 1Ki 11:7<\/span>), to procure help from him by appeasing his wrath; just as the heathen constantly sought to appease the wrath of their gods by human sacrifices on the occasion of great calamities (vid., Euseb. praepar. ev<\/em>. iv. 16, and E. v. Lasaulx, die Shnopfer der Griechen und Rmer<\/em>, pp. 8ff.). – “And there was (came) great wrath upon Israel, and they departed from him (the king of Moab) and returned into their land.” As is used of the divine wrath or judgment, which a man brings upon himself by sinning, in every other case in which the phrase occurs, we cannot understand it here as signifying the “human indignation,” or ill-will, which broke out among the besieged (Budd., Schulz, and others). The meaning is: this act of abomination, to which the king of the Moabites had been impelled by the extremity of his distress, brought a severe judgment from God upon Israel. The besiegers, that is to say, felt the wrath of God, which they had brought upon themselves by occasioning human sacrifice, which is strictly forbidden in the law (Lev 18:21<\/span>; Lev 20:3<\/span>), either inwardly in their conscience or in some outwardly visible signs, so that they gave up the further prosecution of the siege and the conquest of the city, without having attained the object of the expedition, namely, to renew the subjugation of Moab under the power of Israel.<\/p>\n CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES<\/strong>.<\/p>\n 2Ki. 3:4<\/span>. An annual tribute on Moab<\/strong>The custom is common in the East to pay custom or taxes with the products of the land. For a Moabitish king, with rich pastures in his own territory, and also in the Arabian wilderness, this was but a small tribute to pay. 2Ki. 3:6-7<\/span>. Confederation of Jehoram and Jehoshaphat<\/strong>This was effected at the same time<\/em> (2Ki. 3:6<\/span>) as Jehoram began his reign and Moab rebelled; and the confederation was with the design of crushing Moab. The king of Israel numbered, or mustered, a considerable army from his subjects throughout all Israel, and invited the king of Judah to join him in the campaign. <\/p>\n 2Ki. 3:8<\/span>. The way through the wilderness of Edom<\/strong>i.e.<\/em>, not crossing the Jordan, but marching down by the Dead Sea to its southern extremity, and thence up through the wilderness, and over the mountains of Edom, approaching Moab from the south. Moab was best fortified on its northern boundary; besides which, to reach Moab by a northerly route they would have had to risk a collision with the Syrians, whereas Edom was at this time ruled by a deputy, whom Jehoshaphat had appointed (1Ki. 22:47<\/span>). <\/p>\n 2Ki. 3:9<\/span>. Seven days journey<\/strong>It was a weary route over the desert region south of the Dead Sea, while also the deep rocky valley of Ashy (Keil<\/em>) was most difficult of penetration. They found, to their distress, that the Wady of this valley was dry. 2Ki. 3:10-11<\/span>. Jehoram despairs; Jehoshaphat seeks a prophet of Jehovah<\/strong>. <\/p>\n 2Ki. 3:11<\/span>. Which poured water on the hands of Elijah<\/strong>i.e.<\/em>, who was about Elijah daily as his servant, and who is certainly the most reliable prophet, since he [Elijah] is gone (Thenius<\/em>). The phrase, , Here is Elisha<\/em>, means that he was in the camp or close at hand. Perhaps, as Keil suggests, the prophet, led by Divine impulse, had come near the armies to guide their kings in the hour of embarrassment and despair. Elishas ministry might now convert Jehoram from idolatrous sympathies, by showing him the true God. <\/p>\n 2Ki. 3:13<\/span>. Elisha said to Jehoram, What have I to do with thee?<\/strong>Elisha meets him with sternness to rebuke his pride and impiety, and then ironically refers him to the idols for which he bad deserted Jehovah. NAYi.e.<\/em>, not<\/em>not so; do not so answer and refuse me; or, It will not help me to go to the prophets of Baal. <\/p>\n 2Ki. 3:15<\/span>. Now bring me a minstrel<\/strong>To soothe and elevate his mind into preparedness to heed the voice of Gods spirit within him. On , the hand of the Lord, see Notes on 1Ki. 18:46<\/span>. <\/p>\n 2Ki. 3:19<\/span>. Mar every good piece of land<\/strong>, to inflict pain; grieve the land. <\/p>\n 2Ki. 3:20<\/span>. Came water by the way of Edom<\/strong>Occasioned by sudden rains supernaturally given, which fell on the mountain heights of Edom, and quickly filled the Wady, and overflowed into the ditches. <\/p>\n HOMILETICS OF <\/em>2Ki. 3:4-20<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n THE POWER OF A GOOD MAN IN EXTREMITY<\/p>\n On the death of Ahab the Moabites rebelled against Israel, and refused any longer to pay the heavy tribute they had been accustomed to render. During the short and unwarlike reign of the unfortunate Ahaziah, nothing was done to chastise the Moabites for their revolt; but as soon as Jehoram seized the sceptre, he organized an expedition against Moab to compel the payment of the accustomed tribute. The whole undertaking would have ended in terrible disaster and loss, but for the timely intervention of the despised Elisha. It is in extremity that man discovers his own helplessness, and learns to venerate and love that God who is a present help in trouble.<\/p>\n I. That the most carefully planned enterprise may be unexpectedly reduced to great extremity<\/strong> (2Ki. 3:4-9<\/span>). Israel, Judah, and Edom united their armies, and marched, a formidable host, against the revolted Moabites, led in person by the monarch of each nation. A route was selected which, by attacking the Moabites from the South, was intended to take them by surprise, as they would hardly expect an attack from Israel in that quarter. The plot was well laidsuccess was certainthe Moabites would be driven into immediate submission; when suddenly the advancing host found itself menaced by a danger more distressing than that of the mightiest armythere was no water for man or beast! Of what avail now was their multitude of warriors, and the imposing splendour of their equipment? Their numbers aggravated the suffering, and their proud display added to the ignominy of the failure. The most consummate strategist is often baffled by unlooked-for difficulties. History furnished a melancholy example in Napoleon Bonapartes invasion of Russia and his disastrous retreat from Moscow.<\/p>\n II. That in a time of extremity the help of a good man is anxiously sought<\/strong> (2Ki. 3:10-12<\/span>). <\/p>\n 1. Heathenism is powerless to help in extremity<\/em>. Jehoram yields at once to despair, and can see no possible way of deliverance (2Ki. 3:6<\/span>). What an acknowledgment of the imbecility of his gods! Idolatry had no comfort for the sorrowing, no resources in times of difficulty. It breeds a spirit of sullen and forlorn fatalism. <\/p>\n 2. The worshipper of Jehovah knows where to go for help<\/em> (2Ki. 3:11<\/span>). How different is the conduct of the two kings! Jehoram wrings his hands in utter helplessness; Jehoshaphat calls for a prophet. The believer in Jehovah has resources to fall back upon in adversity of which the world knoweth not. A tender-hearted doctor once said to a patient who was suffering excruciating pain, It is a brave heart that bears all this so grandly. Ah! no, Doctor, was the meek and gentle response, it is not the brave heart at all; Jesus bears it all for me<\/em>. <\/p>\n 3. In extremity goodness commands the homage of greatness<\/em>. So the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat and the king of Edom went down to him (2Ki. 3:12<\/span>). They did not summon Elisha into the royal presence, as was the case with Micaiah (1Ki. 22:9<\/span>). They were in distress. It was not a time to stand on ceremony, or to make a vain display of royal pomp and greatness. They eagerly and humbly sought the help of the man of God. True worth will triumph in the end, however much it may be ignored and vilified; and will command the respect even of its enemies.<\/p>\n III. That a time of extremity affords an opportunity for a good man to exalt the Lord<\/strong>. <\/p>\n 1. He is fearless in reproving wrong<\/em>. Elisha repudiates Jehorams claim to any consideration, and tells him to go to the prophets of his father and to the prophets of his mother (2Ki. 3:13<\/span>). He has already discovered the powerlessness of his national idol; and keenly as he must have felt the rebuke of the man of God at this time, he could not but admit its justice. No opportunity for reproving wrong should be neglected, and circumstances sometimes arise in which such neglect would be specially reprehensible. <\/p>\n 2. He acknowledges the good in whomsoever found<\/em>. Were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, I would not look towards thee, nor see thee (2Ki. 3:14<\/span>). One sovereign is condemned, while another is commended, as if to show that no disrespect is intended to the royal office, but that sin must be reproved, whether found in the person of the sovereign, or in that of the meanest subject. What shall not be done for a Jehoshaphat? For his sake shall those two other princes, and their vast armies, live and prevail. It is in the power of one good man to oblige a world. We receive true though insensible favours from the presence of the righteous. Next to being good, it is happy to converse with them that are so; if we be not better by their example, we are blest by their protection. <\/p>\n 3. He recognizes the Divine source of all true help<\/em> (2Ki. 3:15<\/span>). Elisha calls for music to soothe and tranquillize his mind, and prepare himself for the reception of Divine communications. He was fully aware that God, and God only, could render help in such an extremity. Help is found, not in the multitude of an host, not in the power of the crown, not in the charms of song and the grandeur of sacrifice, not in the goodness and greatness of the individual instrument, but only in God. This cannot be too frequently iterated, or too constantly acknowledged. <\/p>\n 4. He is favoured with revelations of the Divine intentions<\/em> (2Ki. 3:16-19<\/span>). Not only is water promised to relieve their present distress, but the kings are assured of victory over the Moabites. The good man is privileged to know more of the Divine mind than can be understood by the ungodly. The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him; and He will shew them His covenant (Psa. 25:14<\/span>).<\/p>\n IV. That Divine aid in extremity is not sought in vain<\/strong> (2Ki. 3:20<\/span>). It seemed very unlikely that the dry channels of the Edom valley should be filled with water. The air was still, the sky was clear, not a shred of rain-cloud was visible; and the work of the busy multitude in digging trenches seemed a mockery. Faith in Elisha and in the God of Elisha was put to the test. Evening sank into night, and night gave place to morning. But at the hour of the morning sacrifice, no sooner did the blood of that oblation gush forth, than the streams of water gushed forth into their new channels, and filled the country with a refreshing moisture. Elijah fetched down his fire at the hour of the evening sacrifice; Elisha fetched up his water at the hour of the morning sacrifice. How seasonably doth the wisdom of God pick out that instant wherein He might at once answer both Elishas prophecy and His peoples prayers. The Lord will never disappoint His peoples confidence. It is in extremity that He most signally displays His power and goodness.<\/p>\n LESSONS:<\/p>\n 1. Extremity reveals the helplessness of man<\/em>. <\/p>\n 2. Calls for special Divine interference<\/em>. <\/p>\n 3. Teaches the most wholesome lessons<\/em>.<\/p>\n GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES<\/em><\/p>\n 2Ki. 3:4<\/span>. When kings and lords fall away from God, then their subjects must fall away from them. And when the fathers are disobedient to God, the children and servants must also be disobedient to them, for their punishment.<\/p>\n 2Ki. 3:10-11<\/span>. What are the greatest monarchs of the world, if they want but water to their mouths! What can their crowns and plumes and rich arms avail them, when they are abridged but of that which is the drink of beasts? With dry tongues and lips do they now confer of their common misery. Jehoram deplores the calamity into which they were fallen; Jehoshaphat asks for a prophet. Every man can bewail a misery; every man cannot find the way out of it. Not without some specialty from God does Elisha follow the camp; else that had been no element for a prophet. Little did the good king of Judah think that God was so near him. Purposely was this holy seer sent for the succour of Jehoshaphat and his faithful followers when they were so far from dreaming of their delivery that they knew not of a danger. It would be wide with the best men if the eye of Divine Providence were not open upon them, when the eye of their care is shut towards it. How well did Elisha in the wars! The strongest squadron of Israel was within that breast; all their armour of proof had not so much safety and protection as his mantle.Bp. Hall<\/em>.<\/p>\n In need and distress the state of a mans heart is brought to light. Jehoram falls into despair, he does not know what counsel to take, nor how to help himself. Instead of seeking the Lord and calling to Him for help, he accuses Him and cast the reproach upon Him that He means to destroy three kings at once. Jehoshaphat, who had always bent his heart to seek God (2Ch. 19:3<\/span>), does not wring his hands in despair, but is quiet and composed. He thinks within himself, The Lord has neither now, nor ever, withdrawn Himself from His people. Therefore he trusts, and asks for a prophet of the Lord.Lange<\/em>.<\/p>\n 2Ki. 3:10<\/span>. Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n