2 Kings · Chapter 8

V. 1. Sojourn-In any convenient place out of the land of Israel. The Lord, &c.-Hath appointed to bring a famine. This expression intimates, that all afflictions are sent by God, and come at his call or command. Seven years-A double time to the former famine under Elijah, which is but just, because they were still incorrigible under all the judgments of God, and the powerful ministry of Elisha.

Verse 1. Then spake Elisha] As this is the relation of an event far past, the words should be translated, “But Elisha had spoken unto the woman whose son he had restored unto life; and the woman had arisen, and acted according to the saying of the man of God, and had gone with her family, and had sojourned in the land of the Philistines seven years.” What is mentioned in these two verses happened several years before the time specified in the third verse. See the observations at the end of the preceding chapter. See Clarke “2 Kings 7:17”.

Verse 1. Then spake Elisha — There is nothing in the Hebrew for this particle of time, then. It is literally, And Elisha spake, or, as Houbigant renders it, had spoken. So verse 2, The woman had arisen, and done, &c. He conjectures, from verse 4, that this event happened before Gehazi was struck with the leprosy: this, however, is by no means certain. On the other hand, most commentators seem to be of opinion that it took place in the order in which it is recorded in the history, after the events related in the former chapter, and some think several years after. Unto the woman whose son he had restored to life — Manifesting his gratitude for her former kindness, by taking special care for her preservation. Go thou, and sojourn, &c. — In any convenient place out of the land of Israel. For the Lord hath called for a famine — Hath appointed to bring a famine upon the country, or a great scarcity of provisions. The manner of speaking intimates that all afflictions are sent by God, and come at his call. Seven years — A double time to the former famine under Elijah, which was but just, because they were still incorrigible under all the judgments of God, and under the powerful ministry of Elisha, who confirmed his doctrine by so many astonishing miracles.

THE SHUNAMMITE WOMAN AGAIN, 1-6.

1. The woman, whose son he had restored — The wealthy woman of Shunem. See 2 Kings 4:8-27. This narrative shows other ways, besides the ones already recorded, in which Elisha proved a blessing to this woman. He advises her to go and sojourn in a foreign land during the coming famine, and after her return the influence of his former miracles for her is instrumental in the recovery of her lost possessions. The Lord hath called for a famine — “Famines do not come by chance, but they are messengers whom the Lord calls, and whom he sends to call his people to repentance.” — Wordsworth. Seven years — A famine terrible by reason of its long continuance; just twice the duration of the drought foretold by Elijah in the days of Ahab. 1 Kings 17:1. Compare Luke 4:25. This famine was quite probably identical with the dearth mentioned 2 Kings 4:38.

Verse 2. The woman arose, and sojourned in the land of the Philistines — Which, though bordering upon Israel, was free from the famine: by which it appeared, that the special hand of God was in that calamity, and that it was a judgment from him upon the Israelites for their idolatry, and abuse of the means of grace, which they now enjoyed in such abundance through Elisha and many other prophets.

THE SHUNAMMITE WOMAN AGAIN, 1-6.

1. The woman, whose son he had restored — The wealthy woman of Shunem. See 2 Kings 4:8-27. This narrative shows other ways, besides the ones already recorded, in which Elisha proved a blessing to this woman. He advises her to go and sojourn in a foreign land during the coming famine, and after her return the influence of his former miracles for her is instrumental in the recovery of her lost possessions. The Lord hath called for a famine — “Famines do not come by chance, but they are messengers whom the Lord calls, and whom he sends to call his people to repentance.” — Wordsworth. Seven years — A famine terrible by reason of its long continuance; just twice the duration of the drought foretold by Elijah in the days of Ahab. 1 Kings 17:1. Compare Luke 4:25. This famine was quite probably identical with the dearth mentioned 2 Kings 4:38.

V. 3. Her house-Which having been forsaken by her, were possessed by her kindred.

Verse 3. She went to cry unto the king for her house and land — Which, having been forsaken by her, were possessed by her kindred or others, who probably had obtained a grant of them from the king, and now intended to keep possession of them.

3. To cry unto the king for her house — During her long absence others had taken possession of her house and land, but whether it had been seized by public authority or otherwise does not appear. See Thomson’s note below. From verse 5 we learn that this woman’s son, whom Elisha had restored to life, accompanied her on this occasion.

V. 4. Gehazi the servant-Formerly his servant. The law did not forbid conversing with lepers, but only dwelling with them.

Verse 4. The king talked with Gehazi] This is supposed to have happened before the cleansing of Naaman, for is it likely that the king would hold conversation with a leprous man; or that, knowing Gehazi had been dismissed with the highest disgrace from the prophet’s service, he could hold any conversation with him concerning his late master, relative to whom he could not expect him to give either a true or impartial account?

Some think that this conversation might have taken place after Gehazi became leprous; the king having an insatiable curiosity to know the private history of a man who had done such astonishing things: and from whom could he get this information, except from the prophet’s own confidential servant? It agrees better with the chronology to consider what is here related as having taken place after the cure of Naaman. As to the circumstance of Gehazi’s disease, he might overlook that, and converse with him, keeping at a reasonable distance, as nothing but actual contact could defile.

Verse 4. The king talked with Gehazi, the servant of the man of God — Or, who had been his servant formerly. The law did not forbid conversing with lepers at a due distance, but only the dwelling with them. Thus Naaman conversed with Elisha’s family at a distance; and the lepers called to our Lord, as he went along the highway.

4. The king talked with Gehazi — Many of the best expositors suppose this conversation took place before Gehazi became leprous, and therefore before the cleansing of Naaman. This is very probable, for it is not likely that the king would talk much with a leper, and we have already observed that the chronology of Jehoram’s reign is uncertain and obscure. See note at the beginning of chap. 3. But it must not be denied that this talk with Gehazi might have occurred after the latter became leprous. Though a leper, and no longer in the service of his old master, he might still have been known and spoken of as the servant of the man of God, and the king’s insatiable curiosity to learn the private history of Elisha might have led him to hold a conversation with a leper. The supposition of some divines, that Gehazi repented and had his curse of leprosy revoked, is an unfounded conjecture, destitute of the least shadow of support in Scripture, and in direct opposition to Elisha’s solemn sentence, “The leprosy shall cleave unto thee and unto thy seed forever.” 2 Kings 5:27.

Verse 5. This is the woman, and this is her son, whom Elisha restored to life.] This was a very providential occurrence in behalf of the Shunammite. The relation given by Gehazi was now corroborated by the woman herself; the king was duly affected, and gave immediate orders for the restoration of her land.

Verses 5, 6. As he was telling the king, &c., the woman cried to the king, &c. — By the order of Providence she came to present her petition, and brought her son with her, in that very instant of time when Gehazi was telling the story of Elisha’s restoring him to life, that the king might be more fully satisfied of the truth of what he related from her own mouth, and that it might make the deeper impression upon him. Providence ought to be carefully observed, and devoutly acknowledged, in ordering the circumstances of events; for sometimes, as here, those that are minute of themselves, prove of great consequence. And when the king asked the woman, she told him — That is, she confirmed what Gehazi had said. Thus did God even force him to believe, what he might have had some colour to question, if he had only had Gehazi’s word for it. So the king appointed, saying, Restore all that was hers — Not only her house and land, but all the profits that had been made of them, and brought into his treasury. This was a high act of justice, and an argument of some goodness left in a bad man.

THE SHUNAMMITE WOMAN AGAIN, 1-6.

1. The woman, whose son he had restored — The wealthy woman of Shunem. See 2 Kings 4:8-27. This narrative shows other ways, besides the ones already recorded, in which Elisha proved a blessing to this woman. He advises her to go and sojourn in a foreign land during the coming famine, and after her return the influence of his former miracles for her is instrumental in the recovery of her lost possessions. The Lord hath called for a famine — “Famines do not come by chance, but they are messengers whom the Lord calls, and whom he sends to call his people to repentance.” — Wordsworth. Seven years — A famine terrible by reason of its long continuance; just twice the duration of the drought foretold by Elijah in the days of Ahab. 1 Kings 17:1. Compare Luke 4:25. This famine was quite probably identical with the dearth mentioned 2 Kings 4:38.

Verses 5, 6. As he was telling the king, &c., the woman cried to the king, &c. — By the order of Providence she came to present her petition, and brought her son with her, in that very instant of time when Gehazi was telling the story of Elisha’s restoring him to life, that the king might be more fully satisfied of the truth of what he related from her own mouth, and that it might make the deeper impression upon him. Providence ought to be carefully observed, and devoutly acknowledged, in ordering the circumstances of events; for sometimes, as here, those that are minute of themselves, prove of great consequence. And when the king asked the woman, she told him — That is, she confirmed what Gehazi had said. Thus did God even force him to believe, what he might have had some colour to question, if he had only had Gehazi’s word for it. So the king appointed, saying, Restore all that was hers — Not only her house and land, but all the profits that had been made of them, and brought into his treasury. This was a high act of justice, and an argument of some goodness left in a bad man.

6. Restore all that was hers — Her estate was of no small value, for, according to 2 Kings 4:8. she was a great, that is, a wealthy and influential person at Shunem. All the fruits of the field — All the produce that her land had yielded for the seven years, whether it were more or less. She was thus reimbursed according to the yield of the land. On the above narrative Dr. Thomson has the following: “It is still common for even petty sheiks to confiscate the property of any person who is exiled for a time, or who moves away temporarily from his district. Especially is this true of widows and orphans, and the Shunammite was now a widow. And small is the chance to such of having their property restored, unless they can secure the mediation of some one more influential than themselves. The conversation between the king and Gehazi about his master is also in perfect keeping with the habits of Eastern princes; and the appearance of the widow and her son so opportunely, would have precisely the same effect now that it had then. The thing happened just as recorded. It is too natural to be an invention or fabrication.”

Verse 7. Elisha came to Damascus] That he might lead Gehazi to repentance; according to Jarchi and some others.

Verse 7. Elisha came to Damascus — Either to the city so called, or rather, as it seems from verse 9, to the kingdom of Damascus; as Samaria, which properly was the name of a city, sometimes means the kingdom of which that city was the capital. Some have thought that Elisha went thither to avoid the famine; but it is more probable that he was sent by God, on the errand following. Ben-hadad, the king of Syria, was sick — For neither honour, wealth, nor power will secure men from the common diseases and disasters of human life: palaces and thrones lie as open to the arrests of death as the meanest cottage. It was told him, saying, The man of God is come hither — Which doubtless had rarely, if ever, been the case before; and his having cured Naaman had raised a great opinion of his power with God in that country.

HAZAEL MADE KING OF SYRIA, 7-15.

7. Elisha came to Damascus — To fulfil the word of the Lord spoken long before to Elijah. See 1 Kings 19:15, and note there.

V. 8. Enquire of the Lord, &c-In his health he bowed down in the house of Rimmon; but now he tends to enquire of the God of Israel. Among other instances of the change of mens minds by affliction or sickness, this is one; that it often gives them other thoughts of God’s ministers, and teacheth them to value those whom they before hated and despised.

Verse 8. Take a present in thine hand] But what an immense present was this-forty camels’ burden of every good thing of Damascus! The prophet would need to have a very large establishment at Damascus to dispose of so much property.

Verse 8. The king said, Go, meet the man of God, and inquire of the Lord, &c. — In his health he bowed down in the house of Rimmon, but now he sends to inquire of the God of Israel. It is not long since he sent a great force to seize and treat Elisha as an enemy; yet now he courts and inquires of him as a prophet: thus affliction brings those to God, who, in their prosperity, made light of him: it opens men’s eyes, and rectifies their mistakes: and among other instances of the change it produces in their minds, this is one, and not the least considerable, that it often gives them other thoughts of God’s ministers, and teaches them to value those whom they before hated and despised. Affliction, however, has not this good effect upon all: it only blinds and hardens some. We lately saw even a king of Israel sending, in his sickness, to inquire of the god of Ekron, as if there had been no God in Israel. How does the conduct of this heathen, in similar circumstances, reprove and condemn the idolatrous and incorrigible Israelite! Thus does God sometimes fetch that honour to himself from strangers, which is denied him, and alienated from him, by his own professing people.

Verse 8. Take a present. See on 1 Kings 14:3.

8. Inquire of the Lord by him — It is noticeable that this heathen king sends in his sickness to inquire, not of his own gods, but of the prophet of Jehovah. This was doubtless owing to his knowledge of what Elisha had done for Naaman, the captain of his host. In the days of his health and prosperity he had not heeded the lesson of Naaman’s cure, but in the hour of sickness he consults the same wonderful physician.

V. 9. Thy son-He who before persecuted him as an enemy, now in his extremity honours him like a father.

Verse 9. And took a present with him, forty camels’ burden — By this noble present, consisting of every good thing of Damascus, the king testified his affection to the prophet, bid him welcome to Damascus, and provided for his sustenance while he was there, and the sustenance of those that were with him: for some have inferred, from the king’s sending him so very large a quantity of provisions, beyond measure too much for a single person, that Elisha, besides his servant, had several of the sons of the prophets with him. It is probable he accepted this present; for if he had refused it, it is likely his refusal would have been noticed.

9. Forty camels’ burden — “There is often in these countries,” observes Harmer, “a great deal of pomp and parade in presenting gifts, and that not only when they are presented to princes, or governors of provinces, but where they are of a more private nature. ‘Through ostentation,’ says one writer, ‘they never fail to load upon four or five horses what might easily be carried by one.’ In like manner as to jewels, trinkets, and other things of value, they place in fifteen dishes what a single plate would very well hold.” Accordingly, we must not understand that this present for Elisha, though doubtless very large and valuable, and worthy of the king, was so great that it required forty camels to carry it, but must understand it in the light of this Oriental custom of making on such occasions as great a display as possible. Shall I recover — Literally, Shall I live?

V. 10. Howbeit-Here is no contradiction: for the first words contain an answer to Benhadad’s question, shall I recover? To which the answer is, thou mayest, notwithstanding thy disease, which is not mortal. The latter words contain the prophet’s addition to that answer, which is, that he should die, not by the power of his disease, but by some other cause.

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.

Verse 10. Say unto him, Thou mayest certainly recover: howbeit, &c. — Here is no contradiction: for the first words contain an answer to Ben-hadad’s question, Shall I recover? To which the answer is, Thou mayest, notwithstanding thy disease, which is not mortal. The latter words contain the prophet’s addition to that answer, which is, that he should die, not by the power of his disease, but by some other cause. But it must be observed, that this is according, not to the Hebrew text, but the marginal reading of the Jewish rabbins, who have substituted the pronoun wl, lo, to him, for the adverb al, lo, not. In the text it is, Go say, Thou shalt not recover; or, as Dr. Waterland renders it, Thou shalt certainly not live; for the Lord hath showed me that he shall surely die. Dr. Kennicott is clearly of opinion that this is the true reading and sense of the passage. See his first Dissert., p. 163. Houbigant, however, prefers our translation, and thinks that the words contain a silent reproof from Elisha, who well knew that a courtier, like Hazael, would certainly flatter his king: he therefore understands the meaning to be, “Go thou, and, courtier-like, say to him, Thou wilt certainly recover; howbeit, the Lord hath, shown me very much the contrary; he will surely die, and die by thy traitorous hand.”

Ver. 10. Thou mayest certainly recover. Aye, say as you all do, both physicians and courtiers. Cry aloud, for Baal is a god. This was said in irony, to rebuke their cruel politeness.—The Lord hath showed me that he shall surely die. The rabbins say that al is written for wl. The Romans had a law that it was death to announce the decease of the emperor, except by the senate! But a rhetorician was applauded for doing it by a figure, called circumlocution. He said that Cæsar’s servants had done that in their master’s absence which they would have done, if he had been dead.

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 al, not, the Keri has wl, 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 w, 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 verse 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.

V. 11. He settled-The prophet fixed his eyes upon Hazael. Until-‘Till Hazael was ashamed, as apprehending the prophet discerned something of an evil and shameful nature in him.

Verse 11. He settled his countenance steadfastly] Of whom does the author speak? Of Hazael, or of Elisha? Several apply this action to the prophet: he had a murderer before him and he saw the bloody acts he was about to commit, and was greatly distressed; but he endeavoured to conceal his feelings: at last his face reddened with anguish, his feelings overcame him, and he burst out and wept.

The Septuagint, as it stands in the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, makes the text very plain: Kai esth Azahl kata prwsopon autou, kai pareqhken enwpion autou dwra, ewv hscuneto, kai eklausen o anqrwpov tou Qeou, And Hazael stood before his face, and he presented before him gifts till he was ashamed; and the man of God wept. The Codex Vaticanus, and the Codex Alexandrinus, are nearly as the Hebrew. The Aldine edition agrees in some respects with the Complutensian; but all the versions follow the Hebrew.

Verse 11. He settled his countenance steadfastly — Elisha fixed his eyes on Hazael, and looked upon him so earnestly, so long, and with such a settled countenance, that Hazael was ashamed, as apprehending that the prophet discerned or suspected something of an evil and shameful nature in him. The Hebrew words, however, rendered till he was ashamed, are ambiguous, and may be indifferently referred either to the prophet or to Hazael: but they seem more properly to belong to the latter, because it follows by way of distinction, The man of God wept.

Ver. 11. He settled his countenance stedfastly—and the man of God wept. He saw the character of Hazael’s conquests, having the gift of “discerning spirits.” This man’s consecration operated as the sop to Judas, first to destroy others, by which he destroyed himself. With the oil, the mania of conquest seized his soul. He magnified his commission against Israel, invaded Philistia, and Jerusalem opened her gates on his return. The Ammonites also were subdued. Then God, who in anger made him king, in anger cast his rod away.

11. He settled his countenance steadfastly — Literally, He made his countenance stand, and fixed it. That is, Elisha composed himself and fastened upon Hazael a deep, steadfast, searching gaze that seemed to read him through and through. Until he was ashamed — Until Hazael was ashamed. The prophet continued that steadfast, searching gaze, until Hazael blushed with embarrassment, not knowing what to say. Man of God wept — Here was another manifestation of Elisha’s emotion, greater even than that with which he had answered the question of Hazael.

Verse 12. I know the evil that thou wilt do] We may see something of the accomplishment of this prediction, 2 Kings 10:32, 33; 13:3, 7.

Verse 12. I know the evil thou wilt do unto the children of Israel — It was not in Hazael’s countenance that Elisha read what he would do; but God did at this time reveal it to him, and gave him such a clear and full view of it, that it greatly affected him. The sins of Israel provoked God to give them up into the hands of their cruel enemies: yet Elisha wept to think that ever Israelites should be so abused as he foresaw they would be by Hazael. For though he foretold, he did not desire, the woful day. Their strong holds wilt thou set on fire, &c. — See what havoc and destruction war makes! what destruction sin makes! and how the nature of man is changed by the fall, and stripped even of humanity itself! Wilt dash their children — That dashing young children against the stones was one piece of barbarous cruelty which the people of the East were apt to run into, in the prosecution of their wars, is plainly intimated Psalm 137:8, 9. Nor was this inhuman practice out of use among nations pretending to more politeness; for, according to the remains of ancient fame, the Grecians, when they became masters of Troy, were so cruel as to throw Astyanax, Hector’s son, a child in his mother’s arms, headlong from one of the towers of the city. The ripping up of women with child is the highest degree of brutal cruelty; but there is reason to believe that Hazael, in his war with the Gileadites, (2 Kings 10:32, 33,) verified this part of the prophet’s prediction concerning him; for, what Amos, complaining of his cruelty to this people, calls thrashing Gilead with thrashing instruments of iron, both the Seventy and Arabic versions read, He sawed the pregnant women with iron saws. — Le Clerc and Calmet.

12. I know the evil that thou wilt do — All that long and steadfast gaze had been a fathoming of Hazael’s heart, and a kenning of his future life and destiny. It had already been foretold in the word of the Lord to Elijah, 1 Kings 19:17. The burning of Israelitish fortresses, and the other cruelties here named, which Hazael would perpetrate, all doubtless came to pass in the wars which this usurper carried on with Israel. See verses 28, 29; 2 Kings 10:32, 33; 2 Kings 12:17, 18; 2 Kings 13:3-7, 22; and 2 Chronicles 24:23, 24. Hazael reigned more than forty years, and seems generally to have had the advantage over the Israelites, and greatly oppressed them.

V. 13. A dog-So fierce, barbarous, and inhuman. King-And when thou shalt have power in thy hand, thou wilt discover that bloody disposition, and that hatred against God’s people, which now lies hid from others, and possibly from thyself.

Verse 13. But what, is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great things] I believe this verse to be wrongly interpreted by the general run of commentators. It is generally understood that Hazael was struck with horror at the prediction; that these cruelties were most alien from his mind; that he then felt distressed and offended at the imputation of such evils to him; and yet, so little did he know his own heart, that when he got power, and had opportunity, he did the whole with a willing heart and a ready hand. On the contrary, I think he was delighted at the prospect; and his question rather implies a doubt whether a person so inconsiderable as he is shall ever have it in his power to do such great, not such evil things; for, in his sight, they had no turpitude. The Hebrew text stands thus: hzh lwdgh rbdh hc[y yk blkh Ëdb[ hm yk ki mah abdecha hakkeleb, ki

yaaseh haddabar haggadol hazzeh? “But, what! thy servant, this dog! that he should do this great work!” Or, “Can such a poor, worthless fellow, such a dead dog, [o kuwn o teqnhkwv, Sept.,] perform such mighty actions? thou fillest me with surprise.” And that this is the true sense, his immediate murder of his master on his return fully proves. “Our common version of these words of Hazael,” as Mr. Patten observes, “has stood in the front of many a fine declamation utterly wide of his real sentiment. His exclamation was not the result of horror; his expression has no tincture of it; but of the unexpected glimpse of a crown! The prophet’s answer is plainly calculated to satisfy the astonishment he had excited. A dog bears not, in Scripture, the character of a cruel, but of a despicable animal; nor does he who is shocked with its barbarity call it a GREAT deed.”-David Vindicated.

Verse 13. Hazael said, But what, is thy servant a dog? &c. — The expression is used in Scripture to signify vile and unworthy, as in 2 Samuel 3:8, and 9:8; and fierce, barbarous, and inhuman, Psalm 22:16, 20, and 59:6. That he should do this great thing — So he terms it, as being, 1st, A thing that supposed great power, and not to be done but by a crowned head: as if he had said, It must be some mighty potentate that must prevail thus against Israel, and therefore not I. Accordingly, the Hebrew may be rendered, What! thy servant, a dog! that he should do this great thing! 2d, An act of great barbarity, which could not be done but by a person lost to all honour and virtue. This is the sense in which Hazael’s words have been generally understood; and it seems evidently the true sense. He felt, at this time, no inclination to be so barbarous and cruel as the foregoing words of Elisha implied, and he wondered that the prophet should suppose him capable of ever acting in such a manner. Is thy servant a dog, to rend, and tear, and devour? Unless I were a dog I could not do it. He was evidently startled at the mention of the cruelties which the prophet foretold he should perpetrate, and thought it impossible he should ever be guilty of them. Thus we are very apt to think ourselves sufficiently secure against the commission of those sins which yet we are afterward overcome by, and practise. The Lord hath showed me that thou shalt be king over Syria — And then, when thou shalt have the power, thou wilt have the will to commit these enormities and barbarities, and actually wilt commit them. Those who are little and low in the world, cannot imagine how strong the temptations of power and prosperity are, to which if they ever arrive, they will find how deceitful their hearts were, and how much more corrupt than they suspected.

Ver. 13. Thou shalt be king. These things are certainly set down in due order of time, though the Lord had commanded Jehu and Hazael to be anointed long before. Ahab’s repentance had obtained the reprieve, as recorded in 1 Kings 21:29.

13. But what, is thy servant a dog — There are two explanations of this verse. One makes it the language of horror; the other, that of delight and exulting surprise. The former is the one conveyed by the English version, and most generally adopted. Hazael expresses his horror and indignation at the thought that he should be such a mean dog as to perpetrate such wickedness as Elisha specified. And yet, according to this view, this showing of horror, and pretending to loathe such deeds of crime, might have been feigned and hypocritical. The other interpretation, less natural, supposes that if Hazael was horrified at the thought of such wickedness, he would not call it a great thing, and urges that a dog is an epithet of contempt, not of cruelty. Assuming that Hazael was delighted with the prospect of a crown, it makes him say, What is thy servant, the dog, that he should do this great thing! We prefer the former view, which makes Hazael repudiate the very thought of doing such base deeds. He would be at such a moment as likely to apply to himself a term of contempt as one of cruelty, and it must not be overlooked that Elisha had not yet informed him he would be king of Syria. Thou shalt be king over Syria — Until the prophet uttered these winds Hazael did not know his destiny, and therefore did not understand how he could perpetrate such deeds as Elisha mentioned. This thought excludes the view that Hazael’s words above were an exclamation of delighted surprise at the unexpected prospect of the throne. The command to Elijah — a command now binding on Elisha — was to anoint Hazael king over Syria, (1 Kings 19:15,) and this anointing was probably done by Elisha on this occasion though the fact is not recorded.

Verse 14. He told me that thou shouldest surely recover — This was abominably false. He told him he should die, verse 10; but Hazael unfairly and unfaithfully concealed that, either because he was loath to put the king out of humour with bad news, or because he thought he should thereby the more easily put in execution the design which he had already formed against his life, finding he was to be his successor, and which he was eager to see accomplished. Elisha’s prediction might give Satan an occasion of suggesting this villany to his mind; but, as Mr. Scott justly observes, “it was not the cause of his crime, and forms no excuse for it. Had he been of David’s disposition, he would have waited in the path of duty till the Lord had performed his word in that manner which pleased him.” Thus he soon began to manifest the rapaciousness and cruelty of the dog, of which he desired to be thought incapable.

14. He told me… thou shouldest surely recover — This, as we have seen above, is the exact opposite of what Elisha said, made so by the omission of the single word al, not. Hazael thus deceived Ben-hadad, expecting, probably, to put him off his guard. He who had murder in his heart, and whom Elisha’s words had inspired to a boundless ambition, was none too good to lie.

V. 15. Spread it-So closely, that he choaked him therewith.

Verse 15. A thick cloth] The versions, in general, understand this of a hairy or woollen cloth.

So that he died] He was smothered, or suffocated.

Verse 15. And spread it on his face — Pretending, it may be, to cool his immoderate heat with it, but applying it so closely that he choked him therewith; the king being weak, and unable to help himself, or perhaps asleep. By this artifice he prevented his crying out, and his death would appear to be natural, there being no signs of violence upon his body. Such a bubble is the life of the greatest men, and so exposed are princes to treachery and outrage. We found this haughty monarch (1 Kings 20:1- 10) the terror of the mighty in the land of the living; but now he goes down slain into the pit, with his iniquity upon his bones, Ezekiel 32:25. And Hazael reigned in his stead — Being, it is likely, in great favour, both with the people and the soldiery, and not suspected of the murder of Ben-hadad; and he leaving no son to succeed him in the government.

Ver. 15. Hazael took a thick cloth, wetted in water, to stop the breath of the king. He was a regicide: he began his reign with murder, and waded through seas of blood, till he reached the dark shores of hades: the scourge of God to a guilty people, as Tamerlane used to say of himself.

15. He took — Hazael, not, as some have thought, Ben-hadad, applied the cloth. A thick cloth — Probably a bed quilt, with which he suffocated the king; and this method of assassination would leave no marks of violence upon the dead. Thus Kitto: “The coverlets used in the East, where blankets are unknown, being thickly quilted with wool or cotton, become of great weight when soaked in water; and it thus became the fittest instrument for such a purpose that could be found about an Eastern bed; while the use of wet bedclothes in fever would prevent any suspicion arising from the coverlet being found saturated with moisture. It is an Eastern practice, in some kinds of fever, to wet the bedding, and it is in such cases often done with good effect; while in other kinds of fever such an application would be dangerous, if not fatal.” Hazael reigned in his stead — Ben-hadad perhaps died childless, and so Hazael’s accession to his throne may have been the more easily and quietly brought about.

V. 16. Jehoram-Jehoram was first made king or vice-roy, by his father divers years before this time, at his expedition to Ramoth-Gilead, which dominion of his, ended at his father’s return. But now Jehoshaphat, being not far from his death, and having divers sons and fearing some competition among them, makes Jehoram king the second time, as David did Solomon upon the like occasion.

Verse 16. In the fifth year of Joram] This verse, as it stands in the present Hebrew text, may

be thus read: “And in the fifth year of Joram son of Ahab king of Israel, [and of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah,] reigned Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah.” The three Hebrew words, hdwhy Ëlm cpvwhyw, and of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, greatly disturb the chronology in this place. It is certain that Jehoshaphat reigned twenty-five years, and that Jehoram his son reigned but eight; 1 Kings 22:42; 2 Kings 8:17; 2 Chronicles 20:31; 21:5. So that he could not have reigned during his father’s life without being king twenty years, and eight years! These words are wanting in three of Kennicott’s and Deuteronomy Rossi’s MSS. in the Complutensian and Aldine editions of the Septuagint, in the Peshito Syriac, in the Parisian Heptapler Syriac, the Arabic, and in many copies of the Vulgate, collated by Dr. Kennicott and Deuteronomy Rossi, both printed and manuscript; to which may be added two MSS. in my own library, one of the fourteenth, the other of the eleventh century, and in what I judge to be the Editio Princeps of the Vulgate. And it is worthy of remark that in this latter work, after the fifteenth verse, ending with Quo mortuo regnavit Azahel pro eo, the following words are in a smaller character, Anno quinto Joram filii Achab regis Israhel, regnavit Joram filius Josaphat rex Juda. Triginta, &c. We have already seen that it is supposed that Jehoshaphat associated his son with him in the kingdom; and that the fifth year in this place only regards Joram king of Israel, and not Jehoshaphat king of Judah. See Clarke’s notes on “2 Kings 1:17”.

Verse 16. Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat began to reign — Jehoram was first made king or viceroy by his father, divers years before this time, at his expedition to Ramoth-gilead, which dominion of his ended at his father’s return. But now Jehoshaphat, being not far from his death, and having divers sons, and fearing some competition among them, makes Jehoram king the second time, as David did Solomon upon the like occasion. See note on chap. 1:17.

REIGN OF JEHORAM, SON OF JEHOSHAPHAT, 16-24.

16. Joram… Jehoram — These names are used interchangeably, the one being merely a contraction of the other. Ahab and Jehoshaphat had each a son Jehoram, and these sons became brothers-in-law by the marriage of Jehoshaphat’s son with Ahab’s daughter. Verse 18. See the note on 1 Kings 22:42; and on the chronology of this reign the note on 2 Kings 1:17. Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah — This confirms the supposition made in note on 2 Kings 1:17, that Jehoram began to reign during his father’s lifetime. Some MSS. and versions omit these words; but the weight of evidence is in favour of retaining them. This Jehoram’s reign is more fully described in 2 Chronicles 21.

Verse 17. He reigned eight years in Jerusalem.] Beginning with the fifth year of Joram, king of Israel. He reigned three years with Jehoshaphat his father, and five years alone; i.e., from A.M. 3112 to 3119, according to Archbishop Usher.

REIGN OF JEHORAM, SON OF JEHOSHAPHAT, 16-24.

16. Joram… Jehoram — These names are used interchangeably, the one being merely a contraction of the other. Ahab and Jehoshaphat had each a son Jehoram, and these sons became brothers-in-law by the marriage of Jehoshaphat’s son with Ahab’s daughter. Verse 18. See the note on 1 Kings 22:42; and on the chronology of this reign the note on 2 Kings 1:17. Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah — This confirms the supposition made in note on 2 Kings 1:17, that Jehoram began to reign during his father’s lifetime. Some MSS. and versions omit these words; but the weight of evidence is in favour of retaining them. This Jehoram’s reign is more fully described in 2 Chronicles 21.

V. 18. He walked-After his father’s death. The daughter-Athaliah. This unequal marriage, though Jehoshaphat possibly designed it as a means of uniting the two kingdoms under one head, is here and elsewhere noted, as the cause both of the great wickedness of his posterity, and of those sore calamities which befel them. No good could be reasonably expected from such an union. Those that are ill matched are already half-ruined.

Verse 18. The daughter of Ahab was his wife] This was the infamous Athaliah; and through this marriage Jehoshaphat and Ahab were confederates; and this friendship was continued after Ahab’s death.

Verse 18. And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel — That is, after his father’s death. For the daughter of Ahab — Namely, Athaliah, verse 26; was his wife — By whom he was seduced from the religion of his pious father and grandfather. This unequal marriage, though Jehoshaphat possibly designed it as a means of uniting the two kingdoms under one head, is here and elsewhere noted, as the cause both of the great wickedness of his posterity, and of those sore calamities which befell them. No good could be reasonably expected from such a union. Those that are ill matched are already half ruined.

18. For — Introducing the reason or special cause why Jehoram walked in the way of the kings of Israel. The daughter of Ahab was his wife — Her name was Athaliah. Compare verse 26. This marriage was probably arranged and brought about by the parents of the parties, but it was the source of untold woes to the kingdom of Judah. It was the cause of Jehoram’s walking in the ways of the kings of Israel, just as Ahab’s marriage with Jezebel was instrumental in introducing Phenician idolatry into the northern kingdom. A comparison of ages given in verses 17 and 26 shows that this marriage was consummated at an early age, for Joram’s youngest son, Ahaziah, was born when he was only eighteen years old, and he had other sons. See 2 Chronicles 21:17.

V. 19. Alway-Until the coming of the Messiah: for so long, and not longer, this succession might seem necessary for the making good of God’s promise and covenant made with David. But when the Messiah, was once come, there was no more need of any succession, and the scepter might and did without any inconvenience depart from Judah, and from all the succeeding branches of David’s family, because the Messiah was to hold the kingdom forever in his own person, though not in so gross a way as the carnal Jews imagined. A light-A son and successor.

Verse 19. To give him alway a light] To give him a successor in his own family.

Verse 19. To give him always a light — A son and successor, until the coming of the Messiah: for so long, and not longer, this succession might seem necessary for the making good of God’s promise and covenant made with David. But when the Messiah was once come, there was no more need of any succession, and the sceptre might and did without any inconvenience depart from Judah, and from all the succeeding branches of David’s family, because the Messiah was to hold the kingdom for ever in his own person, though not in so gross a way as the carnal Jews imagined.

REIGN OF JEHORAM, SON OF JEHOSHAPHAT, 16-24.

16. Joram… Jehoram — These names are used interchangeably, the one being merely a contraction of the other. Ahab and Jehoshaphat had each a son Jehoram, and these sons became brothers-in-law by the marriage of Jehoshaphat’s son with Ahab’s daughter. Verse 18. See the note on 1 Kings 22:42; and on the chronology of this reign the note on 2 Kings 1:17. Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah — This confirms the supposition made in note on 2 Kings 1:17, that Jehoram began to reign during his father’s lifetime. Some MSS. and versions omit these words; but the weight of evidence is in favour of retaining them. This Jehoram’s reign is more fully described in 2 Chronicles 21.

Verse 20. In his days Edom revolted — After they had been subject to Judah one hundred and fifty years, ever since the time of David, who subdued that country. This was a great dishonour to him. Hereby, however, the prophecy of Isaac (Genesis 27:40) was fulfilled.

Ver. 20. Edom revolted, and thus the prediction of Isaac was fulfilled. Genesis 27:40.

20. Edom revolted — This was a determined and successful effort on the part of the Edomites to break away from the thraldom which had oppressed them ever since the days of David. See note on 1 Kings 22:47.

Verse 21. Joram went over to Zair] This is the same as Seir, a chief city of Idumea. So Isaiah 21:11: The burden of Dumah (Idumea.) He calleth to me out of Seir.

Smote the Edomites] It appears that the Israelites were surrounded by the Idumeans; and that in the night Joram and his men cut their way through them, and so got every man to his tent, for they were not able to make any farther head against these enemies; and therefore it is said, that Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah unto this day.

Verse 21. Joram went over to Zair — This word is written differently from Seir, and therefore, it seems, does not signify any part of the country of Edom, but some city near to it. And smote the Edomites which compassed him about — The Edomites were not wanting in their own defence, but had surrounded him with an army; through which he broke in the night, and routed them. And the people fled, &c. — The common soldiers of the Edomites herein following the example of their captains. Yet Edom revolted — Notwithstanding this victory, Joram could not recover his dominion over this country; probably because he was recalled by the revolt of some of his own subjects, who had taken the occasion of his absence to rebel, and he feared that others would follow their example if they had the like opportunity. So that Edom continued a kingdom under its own king. Unto this day — When this record was written. Indeed, they were not brought again under the power of the Jews till after their return from the captivity of Babylon. Then Libnah revolted — A considerable city in Judah belonging to the priests. For the reason why they revolted, see 2 Chronicles 21:10, 11. It is probable they returned to their obedience, because those words, unto this day, which are added to the former clause, are omitted here.

21. Zair — This some have thought identical with Zoar, others a corruption of Seir, and others an erroneous reading of wyrc, his princes, which is found in the parallel passage. 2 Chronicles 21:9. But these are all conjectures. It was doubtless the name of a place in the borders of Edom, which is now unknown. Smote the Edomites which compassed him about — He was victorious in this particular night engagement, but he failed to subdue the rebellion or subjugate the country. And the captains of the chariots — The captains of the enemies’ chariots; from which it appears that on this occasion the Edomites, as well as the Hebrews, fought with chariots. The people fled into their tents — That is, the Jewish people, the warriors of Joram. The whole passage is obscure from its brevity, but the general meaning is: Joram went with a great host, particularly strong in war-chariots, to subdue the revolt of the Edomites. Having arrived in their country, he is suddenly surrounded by the enemy, and makes a night attack upon them; smites many of them, especially the captains of their chariots, and succeeds in breaking through their ranks, when his whole army give over the battle and run away to their homes. The Edomites thus threw off the yoke of Judah, and fulfilled the ancient prophecy of Isaac. Genesis 27:40.

22. Edom revolted… unto this day — Some sixty years later the Edomites were again subdued by Amaziah king of Judah, (chap. 14:7,) so that this record would seem to have been made before the reign of Amaziah. Or it may be, that the subjection of Edom to Amaziah and to his successor Azariah (2 Kings 14:21, 22) was regarded as so temporary and partial as not to amount to a real crushing out of the revolt under Jehoram, for soon after, in the days of Ahaz, the Edomites made inroads upon Judah, (2 Chronicles 28:17,) and when the Chaldeans overthrew the Jewish state, and carried the Jews into captivity, the Edomites assisted in the conquest. Obadiah 1:11. Libnah — A city in the southwestern part of the Holy Land, whose inhabitants Joshua once utterly destroyed. See Joshua 10:29, 30. Its site is now unknown. The slight notice of this revolt of Libnah indicates that it was of comparatively little importance, but its success shows the weakness of Jehoram’s reign.

Verse 23. Are they not written in the book of the chronicles] Several remarkable particulars relative to Joram may be found in 2 Chron. 21.

REIGN OF JEHORAM, SON OF JEHOSHAPHAT, 16-24.

16. Joram… Jehoram — These names are used interchangeably, the one being merely a contraction of the other. Ahab and Jehoshaphat had each a son Jehoram, and these sons became brothers-in-law by the marriage of Jehoshaphat’s son with Ahab’s daughter. Verse 18. See the note on 1 Kings 22:42; and on the chronology of this reign the note on 2 Kings 1:17. Jehoshaphat being then king of Judah — This confirms the supposition made in note on 2 Kings 1:17, that Jehoram began to reign during his father’s lifetime. Some MSS. and versions omit these words; but the weight of evidence is in favour of retaining them. This Jehoram’s reign is more fully described in 2 Chronicles 21.

24. Joram slept with his fathers — He died of a horrible disease, and was buried unwept and unhonoured. Compare the account in 2 Chronicles 21.

AHAZIAH’S REIGN, 25-29.

25. Ahaziah the son of Jehoram — His youngest son, called also Jehoahaz (2 Chronicles 21:27) and Azariah, (2 Kings 23:6.) All the older sons of Jehoram were carried off by the Philistines and Arabians.

Verse 26. Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign] In 2 Chronicles 22:2, it is said, forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; this is a heavy difficulty, to remove which several expedients have been used. It is most evident that, if we follow the reading in Chronicles, it makes the son two years older than his own father! for his father began to reign when he was thirty-two years old, and reigned eight years, and so died, being forty years old; see 2 Kings 8:17. Dr. Lightfoot says, “The original meaneth thus: Ahaziah was the son of two and forty years; namely, of the house of Omri, of whose seed he was by the mother’s side; and he walked in the ways of that house, and came to ruin at the same time with it. This the text directs us to look after, when it calleth his mother the daughter of Omri, who was indeed the daughter of Ahab. Now, these forty-two years are easily reckoned by any that will count back in the Chronicle to the second of Omri. Such another reckoning there is about Jechoniah, or Jehoiachin, 2 Kings 24:8: Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign. But, 2 Chronicles 36:9, Jehoiachin was the son of the eight years; that is, the beginning of his reign fell in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, and of Judah’s first captivity.”-Works, vol. i., p. 87.

After all, here is a most manifest contradiction, that cannot be removed but by having recourse to violent modes of solution. I am satisfied the reading in 2 Chronicles 22:2, is a mistake; and that we should read there, as here, twenty-two instead of forty-two years; see the note there. And may we not say with Calmet, Which is most dangerous, to acknowledge that transcribers have made some mistakes in copying the sacred books, or to acknowledge that there are contradictions in them, and then to have recourse to solutions that can yield no satisfaction to any unprejudiced mind? I add, that no mode of solution yet found out has succeeded in removing the difficulty; and of all the MSS. which have been collated, and they amount to several hundred, not one confirms the reading of twenty-two years. And to it all the ancient versions are equally unfriendly.

Verses 26, 27. Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign — How this agrees with 2 Chronicles 22:2, see on that place. The daughter of Omri — That is, his grand-daughter, verse 18. He walked in the way of the house of Ahab — He not only worshipped the calves, but also Baal. For he was son-in-law of the house of Ahab — And so was corrupted in his religion by his connection with that idolatrous and wicked family. He was the proper son of Athaliah, daughter of Ahab, and the grandson-in-law of Ahab, his father Joram being properly Ahab’s son-in-law.

Ver. 26. Two and twenty years old. This reading is followed by the Jews; and that in 2 Chronicles 22:2, is thought to be an error.—Athaliah the daughter of Omri. She was the daughter of Ahab, but children were called the sons and daughters of their more distinguished ancestors; as Jethro, Hobab, and Raguel, are called the fathers of Moses’ wife.

26. Two and twenty years old — Not forty and two, as 2 Chronicles 22:2, by some corruption, reads. His father died in his fortieth year, (verse 17,) so that he must have begotten his youngest son when he was eighteen years old. This fact shows the early marriage of Joram and Athaliah. Compare note on verse 18. Reigned one year — His reign and life were brought to an untimely end by his being involved with the house of Ahab. See 2 Kings 9:16, 23, 27-29. The daughter of Omri — She was the granddaughter of Omri, as is seen from verse 18; but the word “daughter” is often thus used in the more general sense of female descendant. Genesis 28:8; Judges 11:40; 2 Samuel 1:20. The name of Omri seems to be mentioned rather than that of Ahab to remind the reader once more of the origin of this wicked dynasty, which is soon to be cut off.

Verses 26, 27. Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign — How this agrees with 2 Chronicles 22:2, see on that place. The daughter of Omri — That is, his grand-daughter, verse 18. He walked in the way of the house of Ahab — He not only worshipped the calves, but also Baal. For he was son-in-law of the house of Ahab — And so was corrupted in his religion by his connection with that idolatrous and wicked family. He was the proper son of Athaliah, daughter of Ahab, and the grandson-in-law of Ahab, his father Joram being properly Ahab’s son-in-law.

27. He walked in the way of the house of Ahab — “For,” says 2 Chronicles 22:3, “his mother was his counsellor to do wickedly.” The same wicked woman led both his father and himself into ruin. He was the son-in-law of the house of Ahab — He, like his father, had married a wife of the daughters of Omri, so that he “was connected with the house of Ahab by a double tie — of mother and wife.” — Wordsworth.

Verse 28. The Syrians wounded Joram] Ahaziah went with Joram to endeavour to wrest Ramoth-gilead out of the hands of the Syrians, which belonged to Israel and Judah. Ahab had endeavoured to do this before, and was slain there; see 1 Kings 22:3, &c., and the notes there.

28. Went with Joram — His uncle. To the war against Hazael — Here already we meet with that Hazael who treated with such contempt and apparent abhorrence the thought that he should commit sore evils against Israel, (verse 13,) engaged in war with that people. This battle was at Ramoth-gilead, the old spot so much contested between the kings of Israel and Syria. 1 Kings 22:3. At this time it was retaken from the Syrians by Joram’s forces, and held in spite of all Hazael’s efforts to recover it. 2 Kings 9:14. The Syrians wounded Joram — While besieging Ramoth-gilead, according to Josephus, he was struck by an arrow from one of the Syrian archers.

V. 29. Ramah-The same place with Ramoth, or Ramoth-Gilead.

Verse 29. Went back to be healed in Jezreel] And there he continued till Jehu conspired against and slew him there. And thus the blood of the innocents, which had been shed by Ahab and his wife Jezebel, was visited on them in the total extinction of their family. See the following chapters, where the bloody tale of Jehu’s conspiracy is told at large. I HAVE already had to remark on the chronological difficulties which occur in the historical books; difficulties for which copyists alone are responsible. To remove them by the plan of reconciliation, is in many cases impracticable; to conjectural criticism we must have recourse. And is there a single ancient author of any kind, but particularly those who have written on matters of history and chronology, whose works have been transmitted to us free of similar errors, owing to the negligence of transcribers? II KINGS

29. Joram went back to be healed — Not, however, until after he had taken possession of Ramoth, which he left in charge of Jehu. Ramah — The same with Ramoth-gilead. Ahaziah… went down to see Joram… in Jezreel — He was led there by a punitive arrangement of Divine Providence to meet his doom. Compare 2 Kings 9:27, and 2 Chronicles 22:7.