2 Kings · Chapter 1

V. 1. Moab-This had been subdued by David, as Edom was; and upon the division of his kingdom, Moab was adjoined to that of Israel, and Edom to that of Judah, each to that kingdom upon which it bordered. But when the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were weak and forsaken by God, they took that opportunity to revolt from them; Moab here, and Edom a little after.

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

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

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

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

V. 2. Chamber-In which, the lattess might be left to convey light into the lower room. But the words may be rendered, through the battlements (or through the lattess in the battlements) of the roof of the house. Where, standing and looking through, and leaning upon this lattess, it broke, and he fell down into the court or garden. Baal-zebub-Properly, the god of flies; an idol so called, because it was supposed to deliver those people from flies; Jupiter and Hercules were called by a like name among the Grecians. And it is evident, both from sacred and prophane histories, That the idol-gods, did sometimes through God’s permission, give the answers; though they were generally observed, even by the Heathens themselves, to be dark and doubtful.

Verse 2. Fell down through a lattice] Perhaps either through the flat root of his house, or over or through the balustrades with which the roof was surrounded.

Go, inquire of Baal-zebub] Literally, the fly-god, or master of flies. The Septuagint has baal muian, Baal the fly. He was the tutelary god of Ekron, and probably was used at first as a kind of telesm, to drive away flies. He became afterwards a very respectable devil, and was supposed to have great power and influence. In the New Testament Beelzebub is a common name for Satan himself, or the prince of devils. See Clarke’s notes on “Matthew 10:25”.

Verse 2. Ahaziah fell through a lattice in his upper chamber — Houbigant renders it, Through the lattice into his upper chamber. He thinks that as Ahaziah was walking upon the top of the house, the wooden lattice gave way, and he fell through. Go and inquire of Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron — The word Baal-zebub, properly means the god of flies. This idol was so called, because it was supposed to deliver the Ekronites from flies, with which they were much pestered, being situated on a moist and hot soil, near the sea. Jupiter and Hercules were called by a like name among the Greeks; and it is evident, both from sacred and profane histories, that the idol-gods, or, rather, Satan by them, did sometimes give answers, through God’s permission, though these answers were generally observed, even by the heathen themselves, to be dark and doubtful.

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

2. A lattice in his upper chamber — That is, the latticed window of an upper room. Compare Song of Solomon 2:9. The windows of ancient Eastern houses had no glass. “They were only latticed, and thus gave free passage to the air and admitted light, while birds and bats were excluded. In winter the cold air was kept out by vails over the windows, or by shutters, with openings in them sufficient to admit light.” — Kitto. And was sick — The consequence of his fall is thus told, but the particulars of his fall are not stated, and conjecture is here useless. Baal-zebub the god of Ekron — The Fly-god was worshipped by the Philistines at Ekron, and the plague of flies in hot climates serves to account for the worship of a deity of this name. The word Baal in the composition of this idol’s name, taken in connexion with the fact that the king of Israel, who had adopted the Baal worship of Tyre, sends to Ekron to inquire, shows that there was a close relationship between the idolatry of Phenicia and Philistia; and on a silver coin of the Phenician town Aradus (Ezekiel 27:8, Arvad) is engraved the figure of a fly — a device having, probably, some reference to this same idol Baal-zebub. 1 Samuel 6:5, shows how the Philistines of Ekron hastened, in time of suffering, to make images of the things that plagued them. On Ekron, see at 1 Samuel 5:20. It was the chief seat of the worship of this god. The probable reason of Ahaziah’s sending to inquire of the god of Ekron was because of some special fame of this oracle.

V. 3. And say-Dost thou not cast contempt on the God of Israel, as if he were either ignorant of the event of thy disease, or unable to give thee relief; and as if Baal-zebub had more skill and power than he?

Verse 3. Is it not because, &c. — There are two negatives in the Hebrew text, which increase the sense, Is it not because there is no God, none in Israel? That is, Do you not plainly declare that you think there is no God, none at all in Israel? That he knows nothing, and can do nothing? which makes you send to Ekron, as if there were a more knowing and mighty, if not the only God there. God had expressly said, that he had given prophets to the Israelites to inform them of future events, that they might not be tempted to go to inquire of strange gods, Deuteronomy 18:14, 15.

3. Not a god in Israel — This inquiry of a strange god was at once a violation of the first commandment of the decalogue (Exodus 20:3) and an utter rejection of Jehovah, and deserved the judgment of death.

Verse 4. But shalt surely die.] The true God tells you this; he in whose hands are both life and death, who can kill and make alive. Baal-zebub can do nothing; God has determined that your master shall die.

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

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

V. 5. Why, &c.-Before you have been at Ekron: which he knew by their quick return.

Verse 5. He said, Why are ye now turned back? — Before you have been at Ekron: which he knew by their quick return. To avoid a repetition, we have no account given of the prophet’s meeting them, other than what they give of it themselves at their return.

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

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

Verse 6. There came a man up to meet us — Elijah was a man of such a venerable presence, and spake to them with such authority, in the name of the Lord, that they were overawed thereby, and induced to obey him rather than the king.

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

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

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

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

V. 8. An hairy man-His garment was rough and hairy, such as were worn by eminent persons in Greece, in ancient times; and were the proper habit of the prophets. Girdle-As John the baptist also had. That by his very outward habit, he might represent Elijah, in whose spirit and power he came.

Verse 8. He was a hairy man] That is, he wore a rough garment, either made of camels’ hair, as his successor John Baptist’s was, or he wore a skin dressed with the hair on. Some think that the meaning is, he had very long hair and a long beard. The ancient prophets all wore rough garments, or upper coats made of the skins of beasts: They wandered about in sheep-skins and goat-skins, says the apostle, Hebrews 11:37.

Verse 8. They answered, He was a hairy man — This may either denote his wearing long hair on his head and beard, according to the manner of the ancient Greek philosophers, or it may signify that he was clad with a hairy garment, that is, with a skin that had not been dressed, such as the prophets were wont to wear, (Isaiah 20:2; Zechariah 13:4; Matthew 3:4,) and eminent persons in Greece in ancient times; and such clothing the poorer Arabians use at this day. The prophets, doubtless, used this habit to show their utter contempt of a luxurious, effeminate life. And girt with a girdle of leather — As John the Baptist also was, that by his very outward appearance he might represent Elijah, in whose power and spirit he came. And he said, It is Elijah the Tishbite — This conclusion he draws from their description of him, having seen him in this dress in his fathers court.

8. A hairy man — Literally, a man, a lord, of hair; lord of the hairy mantle. A rough garment, woven of goats’ hair, and fastened with a leather strap about his loins, formed, apparently, the sole dress of Elijah. “Inaccurately as the word mantle represents such a garment, it has yet become so identified with Elijah that it is impossible now to alter it. It is desirable therefore, to substitute “mantle” for “garment” in Zechariah 13:4, a passage from which it would appear that since the time of Elijah his garb had become the recognised sign of a prophet of Jehovah.” — Grove. The prophets were wont to wear a distinctive dress, expressive, in some way, of the nature of their work. Isaiah wore a garment of sackcloth, as a mark of sorrow and self-abasement for the sins of the people. Isaiah 20:2. John the Baptist attired himself like Elijah, (in whose spirit and power he came, Matthew 3:4;) and the outer garb was a representative of his inner character and spirit.

V. 9. Man of God-So he calls him by way of scorn. Come-The king commands thee to come to him: which if thou refuseth, I am to carry thee by force.

Verse 9. A captain of fifty with his fifty.] It is impossible that such a man as Ahaziah, in such circumstances, could have had any friendly designs in sending a captain and fifty soldiers for the prophet; and the manner in which they are treated shows plainly that they went with a hostile intent. And he spake unto him, Thou man of God] Thou prophet of the Most High.

Verse 9. The king sent unto him a captain of fifty, with his fifty — Undoubtedly with a design to apprehend him, and take away his life: for neither the untimely death of Ahab his father, nor his own late dangerous fall, and his sickness in consequence of it, nor the thoughts of death, had made any good impression on his mind, or possessed him with the fear of God: and he was so far from making any good improvement of the warning now given him, that he was evidently enraged against the prophet for giving it. But how inconsistent was the king’s conduct on this occasion. “Did he think Elijah a prophet,” says Henry, “a true prophet? Why then did he dare to persecute him? Did he think him a common person? What need then was there of such a force to seize him?” Behold, he sat on the top of a hill — Elijah was now so far from absconding, as formerly, in the close recesses of a cave, that he makes a bold appearance on an elevated place. His repeated experience of the divine protection has made him more bold. Thou man of God, the king hath said, Come down — He would not be at the pains to go up to the top of the hill, but thought it sufficient to require him in the king’s name to come down and surrender himself.

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

ELIJAH CALLS FIRE FROM HEAVEN, 9-16.

9. Sent unto him a captain of fifty — To take him by force, and bring him down. He sat on the top of a hill — Perhaps it was the top of Carmel, though the place is uncertain. Come down — This order of the king was haughty and bold, and, being sent with hostile purpose to the prophet, was virtually bidding defiance to the God of Israel, and demanded punishment. The manner and action of the captain and his fifty seem to have been as defiant and insulting as the order itself, and hence one reason of the severe judgment.

V. 10. Let fire, &c.-Elijah did this, not to secure himself, he could have done that some other way: nor to revenge himself, for it was not his own cause that he acted in: but to prove his mission, and to reveal the wrath of God from heaven against the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.

Verse 10. And there came down fire] Some have blamed the prophet for destroying these men, by bringing down fire from heaven upon them. But they do not consider that it was no more possible for Elijah to bring down fire from heaven, than for them to do it. God alone could send the fire; and as he is just and good, he would not have destroyed these men had there not been a sufficient cause to justify the act. It was not to please Elijah, or to gratify any vindictive humour in him, that God thus acted; but to show his own power and justice. No entreaty of Elijah could have induced God to have performed an act that was wrong in itself. Elijah, personally, had no concern in the business. God led him simply to announce on these occasions what he himself had determined to do. If I be a man of God, i.e., as surely as I am a man of God, fire SHALL come down from heaven, and SHALL consume thee and thy fifty. This is the literal meaning of the original; and by it we see that Elijah’s words were only declarative, and not imprecatory.

Verse 10. Elijah said, If I be a man of God, then let fire come down, &c. — This prayer or denunciation of Elijah did not proceed from malice and hatred to his enemies, nor from a desire to secure himself, which he could easily have done some other way; nor to revenge himself, for it was not his own cause he acted in; but from a pure zeal to vindicate God’s name and honour, which were so horribly abused; to prove his mission, and to reveal the wrath of God from heaven against the ungodliness and

unrighteousness of men. And therefore Christ does not condemn this act of Elijah, but only reproves his disciples for their perverse inclination to imitate it from another spirit and principle, and in a more unseasonable time. There came down fire, and consumed him and his fifty — It is plain, from the address of this captain to Elijah, that he knew him to be a prophet, for he calls him a man of God; and therefore, he must have known that it was unlawful for him to be in any ways aiding, in obedience to an idolatrous king, in ill-treating a man of this sort: for it was no less than insulting and setting at naught the God of Israel, whose prophet he was. The captain, without doubt, knew that Ahaziah was angry with the prophet, and that he sent for him with no other end but to take an unjust revenge of him for having denounced his death. He, therefore, that would rather obey a tyrant than the laws of nature and revelation, which forbid us to be instruments of injustice, well deserved punishment. He who rather chose to secure his life than put it in any danger by refusing to be the executioner of unjust commands, justly deserved to lose it; and what we have said of the captain is likewise to be thought of the men. But, it may be objected, that both the captain and the soldiers were idolaters, and had forsaken the worship of the God of Israel: if this were the case, which perhaps it was, they deserved death for their idolatry, as well as for attempting to put the unjust orders of the king into execution. And we ought to conclude that Elijah’s calling for fire from heaven upon them, was not merely from the impulse of his own mind; but that a divine prophetic influence prompted him to it, God knowing that they deserved, and that it was fit to inflict this punishment upon them. For the actions of the true prophets, in such cases as these, must not be looked upon as merely springing from themselves, but as the effect of divine influences and impulses, which they could not do otherwise than obey.

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

10. Let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty — This was a miracle of Divine judgment, and in perfect keeping with the spirit of the old dispensation, as many examples may be cited to show. Exodus 19:13, 32; 10:27; Numbers 14:37; 16:21, 32, 35, 49; 25:4,

9. In this respect the new dispensation widely differs from the old. “For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” Luke 9:51-56, where see notes. But it must not be understood that when our Lord rebuked the two disciples, and showed them the difference between the Law and the Gospel as to the spirit of each, he thereby blamed this act of Elijah. “He blamed the two disciples who dishonoured Elijah, by endeavouring to pervert his act into a precedent for a proposal which was altogether dissimilar to that act of Elijah, in all the circumstances of the case. Elijah was God’s minister for executing his Divine judgment. The two disciples were but the servants of their own anger. There was a fire in their breasts which God had never kindled; far was it from the Saviour of the world to second their earthly fire with his heavenly.” — Wordsworth.

V. 11. And said-He discovers more petulancy than the former; and shews, how little he was moved by the former example.

Verse 11. Thus hath the king said, Come down quickly — This man was more insolent than the former, charging the prophet to obey without delay, and not make him stay, nor think to dally with him: in which words, he doubtless spoke the sense of the whole company. Whereas the fate of those that went before them, might, and ought to have instructed them that the thing they were attempting to do was displeasing to God.

11. Come down quickly — The manner of this second captain towards the prophet is even more insolent than that of the other.

12. The fire of God — These severe judgments were not the fallible Elijah’s work, but the work of Elijah’s God, who to the incorrigibly wicked is ever “a consuming fire.” Hebrews 12:29.

V. 13. Besought-Expressing both reverence to his person, and a dread of God’s judgments. There is nothing to be got by contending with God: if we would prevail with him, it must be by supplication. And those are wise who learn submission from the fatal consequences of obstinacy in others.

Verse 13. And fell on his knees before Elijah, and besought him — Expressing both reverence for his person, and a dread of God’s judgments, being struck with the fate of the two other captains and their fifties. There is nothing to be got by contending with God: if we would prevail with him, it must be by supplication. And those are wise that learn submission from the fatal consequences of obstinacy in others.

13. Fell on his knees before Elijah — This was very different from the manner of the two former. These fifty thy servants — Not Ahaziah’s servants, but Elijah’s. This humble and reverential manner showed becoming respect for Elijah and his God, and turned away the fierce anger of Jehovah. Had the former captains observed like respect, the penal fire had not fallen.

ELIJAH CALLS FIRE FROM HEAVEN, 9-16.

9. Sent unto him a captain of fifty — To take him by force, and bring him down. He sat on the top of a hill — Perhaps it was the top of Carmel, though the place is uncertain. Come down — This order of the king was haughty and bold, and, being sent with hostile purpose to the prophet, was virtually bidding defiance to the God of Israel, and demanded punishment. The manner and action of the captain and his fifty seem to have been as defiant and insulting as the order itself, and hence one reason of the severe judgment.

Verse 15. And the angel of the Lord said-Go down with him] This is an additional proof that Elijah was then acting under particular inspirations: he had neither will nor design of his own. He waited to know the counsel, declare the will, and obey the command, of his God.

And he arose, and went down] He did not even regard his personal safety or his life; he goes without the least hesitation to the king, though he had reason to suppose he would be doubly irritated by his prediction, and the death of one hundred of his men. But with all these consequences he had nothing to do; he was the ambassador of the King eternal, and his honour and life were in the hands of his Master.

Verses 15, 16. He arose and went down with him — Not fearing the rage of the king, nor that of Jezebel, or all their forces: wherein he gives an eminent example of his faith in God’s protection, and obedience to his commands. And he said — To his very face: nor durst the king lay hands on him, being daunted with his presence, and great courage and confidence; and affrighted with the late dreadful evidence of his power with God. Thus saith the Lord, Forasmuch, &c. — Probably more discourse passed between them than is here recorded. But this was the conclusion of all, that the sentence which God had pronounced against him was irreversible; and therefore, that he must not expect to live much longer, but make use of the time remaining, to repent of his sins and make his peace with God.

15. Be not afraid of him — Notwithstanding all the wonders wrought by God through the ministry of Elijah, he ever continued a man of like passions with ourselves, and in this case needed the assuring voice of the angel in order to go with firmness and utter his message to the king himself.

V. 16. He said-To his very face. Nor durst the king lay hands upon him, being daunted with the prophet’s presence, and confidence; and affrighted by the late dreadful evidence of his power with God.

Verses 15, 16. He arose and went down with him — Not fearing the rage of the king, nor that of Jezebel, or all their forces: wherein he gives an eminent example of his faith in God’s protection, and obedience to his commands. And he said — To his very face: nor durst the king lay hands on him, being daunted with his presence, and great courage and confidence; and affrighted with the late dreadful evidence of his power with God. Thus saith the Lord, Forasmuch, &c. — Probably more discourse passed between them than is here recorded. But this was the conclusion of all, that the sentence which God had pronounced against him was irreversible; and therefore, that he must not expect to live much longer, but make use of the time remaining, to repent of his sins and make his peace with God.

ELIJAH CALLS FIRE FROM HEAVEN, 9-16.

9. Sent unto him a captain of fifty — To take him by force, and bring him down. He sat on the top of a hill — Perhaps it was the top of Carmel, though the place is uncertain. Come down — This order of the king was haughty and bold, and, being sent with hostile purpose to the prophet, was virtually bidding defiance to the God of Israel, and demanded punishment. The manner and action of the captain and his fifty seem to have been as defiant and insulting as the order itself, and hence one reason of the severe judgment.

V. 17. Jehoram-His brother. The son of Jehoshaphat-Jehoshaphat, in his seventeenth year, when he went to Ahab, and with him to Ramoth-Gilead, appointed his son Jehoram his vice-roy, and (in case of his death) his successor. In the second year from that time, when Jehoram was thus made vice-king in his father’s stead; this Jehoram, Ahab’s son, began to reign: and in the fifth year of the reign of this Jehoram son of Ahab, which was about the twenty-fourth year of Jehoshaphat’s reign, Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat was made king of Judah, together with his father.

Verse 17. And Jehoram reigned in his stead] The Vulgate, Septuagint, and Syriac say, Jehoram HIS BROTHER reigned in his stead, in the second year of Jehoram. There were two Jehorams who were contemporary: the first, the son of Ahab, brother to Ahaziah, and his successor in the kingdom of Israel; the second, the son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, who succeeded his father in Judah. But there is a difficulty here: “How is it that Jehoram the brother of Ahaziah began to reign in the second year of Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat, seeing that, according to 2 Kings 3:1, he began his reign in the eighteenth year of the reign of Jehoshaphat; and, according to 2 Kings 8:16, Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat began to reign in the fifth year of Jehoram king of Israel?” Calmet and others answer thus: “Jehoram king of Israel began to reign in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, which was the second year after this same Jehoshaphat had given the viceroyalty to his son Jehoram; and afterwards Jehoshaphat communicated the royalty to Jehoram his successor, two years before his death, and the fifth year of Jehoram, king of Israel.” Dr. Lightfoot takes another method:-“Observe,” says he, “these texts, 1 Kings 22:51: Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned two years; and 2 Kings 1:17: And Ahaziah died according to the word of the Lord which Elijah had spoken, and Jehoram reigned in his stead, in the second year of Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah; and 2 Kings 3:1: Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah. By these scriptures it is most plain, that both Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat, and Ahaziah the son of Ahab, began to reign in the seventeenth of Jehoshaphat; for who sees not in these texts that Jehoshaphat’s eighteenth, when Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign, is called the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat? Now Jehoshaphat’s reign was not yet expired by eight or nine years, for this was in his seventeenth year, and he reigned twenty-five years, 1 Kings 22:42; nor was Ahab’s reign expired by two or three years, for this was in his twentieth year, and he reigned twenty-two years. 1 Kings 16:29. But the reason why both their sons came thus into their thrones in their lifetime, and both in the same year, was because their fathers, Jehoshaphat and Ahab, were both engaged in the war against the Syrians about Ramoth-gilead: and while they were providing for it, and carrying it on, they made their sons viceroys, and set them to reign in their stead, while they were absent or employed upon that expedition.” This is very probable, and seems well supported by the above texts, and would solve all the difficulties with which many have been puzzled and not a few stumbled, had we sufficient evidence for the viceroyalty here mentioned.

II KINGS

Verse 17. Jehoram reigned in his stead — Namely, his brother, because he had no son. In the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat — To avoid confusion, the reader should take notice, that in the course of this history, there is mention made of two Jehorams; one the second son of Ahab, who succeeded Ahaziah, and was king of Israel; the other, the heir of Jehoshaphat, who reigned in Judah. By comparing 2 Kings 3:1, and 2 Kings 8:16, it will appear that there is a considerable difference in the reading of the dates, which made Houbigant suppose that some errors have crept into the text. To reconcile, however, the above-mentioned passages, some have supposed that Jehoshaphat, in his seventeenth year, when he went to Ahab, and with him to Ramoth-gilead, appointed his son Jehoram his viceroy, and (in case of his death) his successor. In the second year from that time, when Jehoram was thus made vice-king in his father’s stead and absence, this Jehoram, Ahab’s son, began to reign: and in the fifth year of the reign of this Jehoram, son of Ahab, which was about the twenty-fourth year of Jehoshaphat’s reign, Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, was made king of Judah, together with his father. This supposition, if allowed, will, in a great degree, clear up the difficulty.

DEATH OF AHAZIAH, 17, 18.

17. He died according to the word of the Lord — His death, like that of the two companies of fifties, was a judgment from Heaven. It would not do to punish those messengers of the king for insolence towards Jehovah and his prophet, and let the king himself go clear. So this impious monarch is made to drag out his last days under the consciousness of being an object of Jehovah’s wrath. Jehoram reigned in his stead — This Jehoram was a brother of Ahaziah, and succeeded him on the throne because he had no son. In the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat — On the probable reason for this likeness of names among the kings of the two rival kingdoms, see note on 1 Kings 22:44. According to 1 Kings 22:42, Jehoshaphat reigned twenty-five years, and according to 2 Kings 3:1, Ahab’s son, Jehoram, began to reign in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat, whence it appears, as our margin expresses it, that Jehoshaphat’s son, Jehoram, was made prorex some years before his father’s death. Compare also 2 Chronicles 21:3. But according to 2 Kings 8:16, Jehoshaphat’s Jehoram began to reign in the fifth year of Ahab’s Jehoram, which, according to the above statements, would be the twenty-third year of Jehoshaphat. Now, how could Ahab’s Jehoram begin to reign in the second year of Jehoshaphat’s Jehoram, and yet the latter begin to reign in the fifth year of the former? A solution of the difficulty, in which Usher, Lightfoot, Patrick, Keil, and Wordsworth substantially agree, is thus stated by the last-named commentator: “Jehoshaphat made two sessions of sovereignty to his son Jehoram — one partial and temporary, the other total and final. The first was made in the seventeenth year of his reign, because he then quitted Jerusalem in order to join Ahab against the Syrians, (1 Kings 22;) he then left his son Jehoram to act as viceroy in his absence. But in the twenty-third year of his reign Jehoshaphat associated his son Jehoram with him in the entire sovereignty, and therefore the eight years of that son (2 Kings 8:17) are not to be reckoned from Jehoshaphat’s death, but from the twenty-third year of his reign, two years before his death.”

DEATH OF AHAZIAH, 17, 18.

17. He died according to the word of the Lord — His death, like that of the two companies of fifties, was a judgment from Heaven. It would not do to punish those messengers of the king for insolence towards Jehovah and his prophet, and let the king himself go clear. So this impious monarch is made to drag out his last days under the consciousness of being an object of Jehovah’s wrath. Jehoram reigned in his stead — This Jehoram was a brother of Ahaziah, and succeeded him on the throne because he had no son. In the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat — On the probable reason for this likeness of names among the kings of the two rival kingdoms, see note on 1 Kings 22:44. According to 1 Kings 22:42, Jehoshaphat reigned twenty-five years, and according to 2 Kings 3:1, Ahab’s son, Jehoram, began to reign in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat, whence it appears, as our margin expresses it, that Jehoshaphat’s son, Jehoram, was made prorex some years before his father’s death. Compare also 2 Chronicles 21:3. But according to 2 Kings 8:16, Jehoshaphat’s Jehoram began to reign in the fifth year of Ahab’s Jehoram, which, according to the above statements, would be the twenty-third year of Jehoshaphat. Now, how could Ahab’s Jehoram begin to reign in the second year of Jehoshaphat’s Jehoram, and yet the latter begin to reign in the fifth year of the former? A solution of the difficulty, in which Usher, Lightfoot, Patrick, Keil, and Wordsworth substantially agree, is thus stated by the last-named commentator: “Jehoshaphat made two sessions of sovereignty to his son Jehoram — one partial and temporary, the other total and final. The first was made in the seventeenth year of his reign, because he then quitted Jerusalem in order to join Ahab against the Syrians, (1 Kings 22;) he then left his son Jehoram to act as viceroy in his absence. But in the twenty-third year of his reign Jehoshaphat associated his son Jehoram with him in the entire sovereignty, and therefore the eight years of that son (2 Kings 8:17) are not to be reckoned from Jehoshaphat’s death, but from the twenty-third year of his reign, two years before his death.”