rata must be taken figuratively here, as in Judg ix. 8, as denoting divine consecration to the and prophetic offices. And bo, again, the statement that Elisha would slay those who escaped the swosd of Jehu is not to be and< illy. Elisha slew by the word of the Lord, which brought judgments upon the ungodly, as i m 2 Kings ii 24 (cf. Jer. i. 1", xviii. 7). The usc\cn thousand," who had not bowed the knee before Baal, are a round number lor the ixkoyq of the godly, whom the Lord had preserved foi Himself in the sinful kingdom, which was really very large in itself, however small it might be in comparison with the whole nation. The numbei is the stamp of the works of 1 1 I o til en thousand is the number of the "remnant according to tl. '.ion of grace" (Rom.
xi. 5), which had then been pi / Baal was the most usual form in which this idol was worshipped, and consisted not merely in throwing k with the hand (cf. Job xxxi. 27, and Plin. h.. B), but also in Imaging the images of
Vers. 19-21. Call of Elisha to he a prophet. — Ver. 19. As he went thence (viz. away from Horeb), Elijah found Elcsha the son of Shaphat at Abel-Meholah, in the Jordan valley (see at Judg. vii. 22), occupied in ploughing; "twelve yoke of oxen before him, and he himself with the twelfth " (a very wealthy man therefore), and threw his cloak to him as he passed by. The prophet's cloak was a sign of the prophet's vocation, so that throwing it to him was a symbol of the call to the prophetic office. — Ver. 20. Elisha understanding the sign, left the oxen standing, ran after Elijah, and said to him, " Let me kiss my lather and my mother," i.e. take leave of my parents, and then I will follow thee. For the form nptff* see Ewald, § 228, b. As he has ploughed his earthly field with his twelve pair of oxen, he was now to plough the spiritual field of the twelve tribes of Israel (Luke ix. 62). Elijah answered, " Go, return, for what have I done to thee?M 3H0 ^ belong together, as in ver. 15; so that Elijah thereby gave him permission to return to his father and mother. *? signifies for, not yet (Thenius); for there is no antithesis here, according to which *3 might serve for a more emphatic assurance (Ewald, § 330, b). The words "what have I done to thee? " can only mean, I have not wanted to put any constraint upon thee, but leave it to thy free will to decide in favour of the prophetic calling. — Ver. 21. Then Elisha returned, took the pair of oxen with which he had been ploughing, sacrificed, i.e. slaughtered them (nnr used figuratively), boiled the flesh with the plough, gave a farewell meal to the people (of his place of abode), i.e. his friends and acquaintance, and then followed Elijah as his servant, i.e. his assistant. The suffix in Ew3 refers to "iP^n nny, and is more precisely defined by the apposition "*&?-« " namely, the flesh of the oxen."
Even if the impression which the miracle upon Carmel had made upon Ahab, who was weak rather than malevolent, remained without any lasting fruit, the Lord did very quickly manifest His mercy towards him, by sending a prophet with a promise of victory when the Syrians invaded his kingdom, and by giving the Syrians into his power. This victory was a fruit of the seven thousand who had not bent their knee before Baal. Elijah was also to learn from this that the Lord of Sabaoth had not yet departed from the rebellious kingdom.
Vers. 1-22. The First Victory. — Ver. 1. Benhadad, the son of that Benhadad who had conquered several cities of Galilee in the reign of Baasha (ch. xv. 20), came up with a great army — there were thirty-two kings with him, with horses and chariots — and besieged Samaria. The thirty-two kings with him (ifiN) were vassals of Benhadad, rulers of different cities and the terri- tory belonging to them, just as in Joshua's time almost everv city of Canaan had its king; they were therefore bound to follow the army of Benhadad with their troops. — Vera. ii sqq. During the Benhadad Bent messengers into the city to Ahah with this demand: "Thy silver and thy gold are mine, and the I of thy wives and thy Bona are mine;" and Ahah answered i pusillanimity: " According to thy WOfd, my lord king, I and all that i> mine an- tin:; was i:.11 more audacious
Ahab in i ly that Benhadad demanded more the » cond time than tl. deman I by silver and thy gold,'
• hcaiken not Co him. and thou wilt m I willing i6i stronger than *? t compare Ewald, I,:.)Lb sent the mes with this answer, thai he would submit to the first demand, but that th Id not grant
Ahah by strong thre oding fresh messengers to threaten him with the destruction of the city, and confirming it by a solemn oath: " The gods do so to me — if the dust of Samaria should suffice for the hollow hands of all the people that are in my train." The meaning of this threat was probably that he would reduce the city to ashes, so that scarcely a handful of dust should be left; for his army was so powerful and numerous, that the rubbish of the city would not suffice for every one to fill his hand. — Ver. 11. Ahab answered this loud boasting with the proverb: " Let not him that girdeth himself boast as he that looseneth the girdle," equivalent to the Latin, ne triumphum canas ante victoriam. — Ver. 12. After this reply of Ahab, Benhadad gave command to attack the city, while he was drinking with his kings in the booths. ni-D are booths made of branches, twigs, and shrubs, such as are still erected in the East for kings and generals in the place of tents (vid. Rosenmuller, A. u. N. Morgenl. iii. pp. 198-9). WW: take your places against the city, sc. to storm it (for D^ in the sense of arranging the army for battle, see 1 Sam. xi. 11 and Job i. 17); not oUoBo^aare yapaita (LXX.), or place the siege train. — Vers. 13, 14. While the Syrians were preparing for the attack, a prophet came to Ahab and told him that Jehovah would deliver this great multitude (of the enemy) into his hand that day, " that thou mayest know that I am Jehovah," and that through the retainers of the governors of the provinces (nfoHen +ibt who had fled to Samaria), i.e. by a small and weak host. In the appearance of the prophet in Samaria mentioned here and in vers. 28 and 35 sqq. there is no such irreconcilable contradiction to ch. xviii. 4, 22, and xix. 10, as Thenius maintains; it simply shows that the persecution of the prophets by Jezebel had somewhat abated, and therefore Elijah's labour had not remained without fruit, 'on IMP *0, who shall open the battle? npx answers to the German anfddcln (to string, unite; TLng.join battle — Tn.); cf. 2 Chron. xiii. 3. — Vers. 15, 16. Ahab then mustered his fighting men: there were 232 servants of the provincial governors; and the rest of the people, all the children of Israel, i.e. the whole of the Israelitish fighting men that were in Samaria p?nn, ver. 19), amounted to 7000 men. And at noon, when Benhadad and his thirty-two auxiliary kings were intoxicated at a carousal in the booths ("ri3K> nnfe> as in ch. xvi. 9), he ordered his men to advance, with the servants of the provincial governors taking the lead. The 7000 men are not to be regarded as the 7000 mentioned in ch. xix. 18, who had
€k\w)') of the true [srael, whereas in t1 are merely the fighting men whom t 1 had I Ahab for the defence of his kingdom.- Vers 17. 18. When Benhadad was informed of the advan I hting men, in his drunl arrogance he ordered them to be taken alive, whether they with i tent— Vera 19, 20. But they — tains; since heathenism really liad its mountain deities,?>. believed u g who lived upon mountains and | 1 and bill 7? IT. i. p. 154), and in Syrophoenicia even mountains themselves had divine honours paid to them (vid. Movers, Phtinias. i. p. 667 sqq.). The servants of Benhadad were at any rate so far right, that they attributed their defeat to the assistance which God had given to His people Israel; and were only wrong in regarding the God of Israel as a local deity, whose power did not extend beyond the mountains. They also advised their lord (ver. 24) to remove the kings in his army from their position, and appoint governors in their stead (nins; see ch. x. 15). The vassal-kings had most likely not shown the desired self-sacrifice for the cause of their superior in the war. And, lastly (ver. 25), they advised the king to raise his army to its former strength, and then carry on the war in the plain. " Number thyself an army, like the army which has fallen from thee." ^iXD, " from with thee," rendered correctly de tuis in the Vulgate, at least so far as the sense is concerned (for the form see Ewald, § 264, b). But these prudentlydevised measures were to be of no avail to the Syrians; for they were to learn that the God of Israel was not a limited mountain-god. — Ver. 26. With the new year (see ver. 22) Benhadad advanced to Aphek again to fight against Israel. Aphek is neither the city of that name in the tribe of Asher (Josh, xix. 30 and xiii. 4), nor that on the mountains of Judah (Josh. xv. 53), but the city in the plain of Jezreel not far from Endor (1 Sam. xxix. 1 compared with xxviii. 4); since Benhadad had resolved that this time he would fight against Israel in the plain. — Ver. 27. The Israelites, mustered and provided for (}7373: supplied with ammunition and provisions), marched to meet them, and encamped before them " like two little separate flocks of goats " (i.e. severed from the great herd of cattle). They had probably encamped upon slopes of the mountains by the plain of Jezreel, where they looked like two miserable flocks of goats in contrast with the Syrians who filled the land. — Ver. 28. Then the man of God (the prophet mentioned in vers. 13 and 22) came again to Ahab with the word of God: " Because the Syrians have said Jehovah is a mountain-God and not a God of the valleys, I will give this great multitude into thy hand, that ye may know that I am Jehovah." — Vers. 29, 30. After seven days the battle was fought. The Israelites smote the Syrians, a hundred thousand men in one day; and when the rest fled to Aphek, into the city, the wall fell upon twenty-seven thousand men, Iva 8e Katceivot kcu ovtol /idOooatv, a>? Oe/jXaros rj ir\ri>yr) (Theodoret). The flying Syrians had probably some of them climbed the wall of the city to offer resistance to the Israelites in pursuit, and some of them sought to defend themselves by taking shelter behind it. And during the conflict, through the special interposition of God, the wall fell and buried the Syrians who were there. The cause of the fall is not given. Thenius assumes that it was undermined, in Older to remove all idea of any miraculous working of the omnipotence of God. Benhadad himself fled into the city " room to room," i.e. from one room to another (cf. eli. xxii. 25, 2 Chron. xviii. 24). — Y' I 31, 32. In this extremity his servants made the proposal to him, thai trusting in the generosity of the kings of Israel, they should go and entreat Ahab to show favour to him.
They clothed themselves in mourning apparel, and put ropes on their neck i sign of absolute surrender, and went to Ahab, praying for the life of their king. And Ahab felt so flattered by the fact that his powerful opponent was obliged to come and entreat his favour in this humble manner, that he gave him his life, without considering how a similar act on the part of Saul had been blamed by the Lord 1 Sam. w. 9 sqq.). " Is he still aliv< He is my brother!" was his answer to Benhadad's hade him quickly explain;; -:•:•:". whether (it had been utten from himsell whether he had said it with all his heart p. 398); then in the Talmud, to give an explanation (vid. G thes. p. 476). This is perfectly applicable here, so that there is no necessity to alter the text, even if we thereby obtained a better meaning than Thenius with his explanation, u they tore it out of him," which he takes to he equivalent to " they laid hold of him by his word" (!!). Ahab thereupon ordered Benhadad to come and get up into his chariot. — Ver. 34. Benhadad, in order to keep Ahab in this favourable mood, promised to give him hack at once the cities which his father had taken away from Ahab's father, and said, " Thou mayest make thyself roads in Damascus, as my father made in Samaria." There is no account of any war between Orari and Benhadad I.; it is simply stated in ch. xv. 20 that Benhadad I. had taken away several cities in Galilee from the Israelites during the reign of Baaslia. This cannot be the war intended here, however, not indeed because of the expression T?N ^9, since 2S might certainly be taken in a broader sense as referring to Baasha as an ancestor of Ahab, but chiefly on account of the statement that Benhadad had made himself roads in Samaria. This points to a war between Omri and Benhadad, after the building of Samaria into the capital of the kingdom, of which no account has been preserved. Sb nivn D^ " to make himself roads," cannot be understood as referring either to fortifications and military posts, or to roads for cattle and free pasturage in the Syrian kingdom, since Samaria and Damascus were cities; nor can it signify the establishment of custom-houses, but only the clearing of portions of the city for the purpose of trade and free intercourse (Cler., Ges., etc.), or for the establishment of bazaars, which would occupy a whole street (Bottcher, Thenius; see also Movers, Phonizier, ii. 3, p. 135). — "And I," said Ahab, "will let thee go upon a covenant " (a treaty on oath), and then made a covenant with him, giving him both life and liberty. Before *3W we must supply in thought 2xriN tEN5!. This thoroughly impolitic proceeding on the part of Ahab arose not merely from a natural and inconsiderate generosity and credulity of mind (G. L. Bauer, Thenius), but from an unprincipled weakness, vanity, and blindness. To let a cruel and faithless foe go unpunished, was not only the greatest harshness to his own subjects, but open opposition to God, who had announced to him the victory, and delivered the enemy of His people into his hand.1 Even if Ahab had no express command from God to put Benhadad to death, as Saul had in 1 Sam. xv. 3, it was his duty to punish this bitter foe of Israel with death, if only to secure quiet for his own subjects; as it was certainly to be foreseen that Ben-
1 Clericus is correct- in the explanation which he has given: " Although, therefore, this act of Ahab had all the appearance of clemency, it was not an act of true clemency, which ought not to be shown towards violent aggressors, who if released will do much more injury than before, as Benhadad really did. God had given the victory to Ahab, and delivered the guilty king into his hands, that he might inflict punishment upon him, not that he might treat him kindly. And Ahab, who had allowed so many prophets to be slain by his wife Jezebel, had no great clemency at other times."
hadad would not keep the treaty which had been wrung from him by force, as was indeed very speedily proved (see ch. xxii. 1).
Vers. 35—43. TJic verdict of God upon Allah's conduct towards Bcnhadad. — Vers. 35, 36. A disciple of the prophets received instructions from God, to announce to the king that God would punish him for letting Benhadad go, and to do this, as Xathan had formerly done in the case of David (2 Sam. xii. 1 sqq.), by means of a symbolical action, whereby the king was led to pronounce sentence upon himself. The disciple of the prophets said to his companion, " in the word of Jehovah," i.e. by virtue of a revelation from God (see at ch. xiii. 2), " Smite me;" and when the friend refused to smite him, he announced to him that because of this disobedience to the voice of the Lord, after his departure from him a Lion would meet him and smite him, i.e. would kill him; a threat which was immediately fulfilled This occurrence shows with how Bevere a punishment all opposition to the commandments of God to the prophets was follow< d, a warning for others; just as in the similar occurrence in ch. xiii. 24-. — Y< r. 'J 7. The disciple of the prophets then asked another to smite him, and he smote him, " smiting and wounding," i.e. so that he not only smote, but also wounded him (rid. Ewaldj >i - '0- He Washed t<» be smitten and wounded, not to disguise himself, or that he might be able t | al loudly to the king for help to obtain his rights, as though he had
. "With these wounds he placed himself in the king's path, and disguised him- Li VBnn] as hi 1 Sam. xxviii. 8) by a bandage over h: TBWj d< - - D01 mean ashes (Syr., Vulg., Luth., etc>, but corresponds to the Chaldee *W9j head-band, reXaficov (LXX.). — Vers. 39, 40. When the king passed by, he ci out to him and related the following fictitious tale: He had gone to the war, and a man had come aside to him ("HD as in Ex. iii. 3, Judg. xiv. 8, etc.), and had given a man (a prisoner) into his care with this command, that he was to watch him, and if he should be missing he was to answer for his life with his own life, or to pay a talent of silver (as a punishment). The rest may be easily imagined, namely the request to be saved from this punishment. Ahab answered (ver. 40), 1? Ittfifcte, " thus thy sentence, thou hast decided," i.e. thou hast pronounced thine own sentence, and must endure the punishment stated. — Vers. 41, 42. Then the disciple of the prophets drew the bandage quickly from his eyes, so that the king recognised him as a prophet, and announced to him the word of the Lord: " Because thou hast let go out of thy hand the man of my ban {i.e. Benhadad, who has fallen under my ban), thy life shall stand for his life, and thy people for his people," i.e. the destruction to which Benhadad was devoted will fall upon thee and thy people. The expression WrrB^K (man of my ban) showed Ahab clearly enough what ought to have been done with Benhadad. A person on whom the ban was pronounced was to be put to death (Lev. xxvii. 29). — Ver 43. The king therefore went home, and returned sullen ("ip, from "iiD) and morose to Samaria.
After these events Ahab was seized with such a desire for a vineyard which was situated near his palace at Jezreel, that when ISTaboth, the owner of the vineyard, refused to part with his paternal inheritance, he became thoroughly dejected, until his wife Jezebel paved the way for the forcible seizure of the desired possession by the shameful execution of Naboth (vers. 1-15). But when Ahab was preparing to take possession of the vineyard, Elijah came to meet him with the announcement, that both he and his wife would be visited by the Lord with a bloody death for this murder and robbery, and that his idolatry would be punished with the extermination of all his house (vers. 16-26). Ahab was so affected by this, that he humbled himself before God; whereupon the Lord told Elijah, that the threatened judgment should not burst upon his house till after Ahab's death (vers. 27-29).
Vers. 1—15. — Ahab wanted to obtain possession of the vineyard of Naboth, which was in Jezreel ("iKW refers to D"}3), near the palace of the king, either in exchange for another vineyard or for money, that he might make a vegetable garden of it. From the fact that Ahab is called the king of Samaria we may infer that Jezreel, the present Zerin (see at Josh. xix. 18), was only a summer residence of the king. — Ver. 3. Naboth refused to part with the vineyard, because it was the inheritance of his fathers, that is to say, on religious grounds (Wrrp ^ nWm because the sale of a paternal inheritance was forbidden in the law (Lev. xxv. 23-28; Num. xxxvi. 7 sqq.). He was therefore not merely at liberty as a personal right to refuse the kings proposal, but bound by the commandment of God.
p. 4- Instead of cting this tender feeling of shrinking from the transgi the law and desisting from his coveting, Ahab went home, i.e. to Samaria (ef. B), sullen and morose (*j?n id as in ch. i ty down upon his bed,turned his face (viz. to the wall; c£ 2 Kings xx. 2) — "after the manner of sorrowful persons, who sin-ink from and refuse all conv< i tion, and even the sight - - | _;ui(i {\l(\ not eat This childish mode cf giving expression to his d pleas* v I to i mply with his wish, si.
V(" fly that Ahab was a a ■ 1 under sin (ver. 20), who only wanted the requi to display tl. j of then v. • m the nan..- of Ahab, 1 it below with the royal seal, which probably ignature and was stamped apOD the Writing LI ^ling tin- nam.
ari m a misunderstandii and nobles of his town (j.r. the m of the magistn -. Deut xvi 18), who lived near Naboth, and [': e had an opportunity to watch his mode ef life, and app the most suitable persons to institute the charge tl. to be brought against him. The letter ran thus: "Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth at the head of the people, and set two worthless men opposite to him, that they may give evidence against him: Thou hast blasphemed God and king; and lead him out and stone him, that he may die." Jezebel ordered the fasting for a sign, as though some public crime or heavy load of guilt rested upon the city, for which it was necessary that it should humble itself before God (1 Sam. vii 6). The intention was, that at the very outset the appearance of justice should be given to the legal process about to be instituted in the eyes of all the citizens, and the stamp of veracity impressed upon the crime of which Naboth was to be accused. D^n B*h3... ttlftl, " scat him at the head of the people," i.e. bring him to the court of justice as a defendant before all the people. The expression may be explained from the fact, that a sitting of the elders was appointed for judicial business, in which Naboth and the witnesses who were to accuse him of blasphemy took part seated. To preserve the appearance of justice, two witnesses were appointed, according to the law in Deut. xvii. 6, 7, xix. 15, Num. xxxv. 30; but worthless men, as at the trial of Jesus (Matt. xxvi. 60). Sf3? Bw£j to bless God, i.e. to bid Him farewell, to dismiss Him, as in Job ii. 9, equivalent to blaspheming God. God and king are mentioned together, like God and prince in Ex. xxii. 27, to make it possible to accuse Naboth of transgressing this law, and to put him to death as a blasphemer of God, according to Deut. xiii. 11 and xvii. 5, where the punishment of stoning is awarded to idolatry as a practical denial of God. Blaspheming the king is not to be taken as a second crime to be added to the blasphemy of God; but blaspheming the king, as the visible representative of God, was eo ipso also blaspheming God. — Vers. 11—13. The elders of Jezreel executed this command without delay; a striking proof both of deep moral corruption and of slavish fear of the tyranny of the ruthless queen. — Vers. 14, 15. When the report of Naboth's execution was brought to her, she called upon Ahab to take possession of his vineyard (kh = £>"}, Deut. ii. 24). As Naboth's sons were put to death at the same time, according to 2 Kings ix. 26, the king was able to confiscate his property; not, indeed, on any rule laid down in the Mosaic law, but according to a principle involved in the very idea of high treason. Since, for example, in the case of blasphemy the property of the criminal was forfeited to the Lord as cherem (Deut. xiii. 16), the property of traitors was regarded as forfeited to the king.
Vers. 16-26. But when Ahab went down to Jezreel to take possession of the vineyard of Naboth, Elijah came to meet him by the command of God; with the word of the Lord,
" Hast thou murdered and also taken possession? " The question served to sharpen his conscience, since Ahab was obliged to admit the fact. p"iob>3 TOK means M who lives at Samaria,' ' for when Elijah came to meet him, Ahab was in JezreeL Elijah then said to him still further: B Thus saith the Lord: In the place where the dogs have licked the blood of Naboth, will they also lick thine, yea> thy blood." nns D3 serves as an emphatic repetition of the sullix (cf Ges. Jj 121,3). This threat was only so far i'ullilled upon Ahab, from the compassion, of God, and in consequence of li is humbling himself under the divine judgment (vera 27— 29), that dogs licked his blood at Samaria when the carriage WSJ washed in which he had died (ch. xxii. 38); but it was literally fulfilled in the ease of his son Joram, whose corpse was cast into Naboth's piece of ground (2 Kings ix. 25,26). — Ver. 20. Ahab answered, * Hast thou found me (met with me), O mine enemy i " (not, hast thou ever found me thine enemy I — Vulg., Luth.) LA dost thou eoine to meet me again, mine enemy I He calls Klijah his enemy, to take the Sting from the prophet's threat IS an utlrnukr caused by pei K>naJ enmity. But Elijah plied, " I have found (th< thou sellest thyself to do evil in tl.
ermine i his house, and I bel, as the principal sinner, the most ignominious end ver. 23). jnnnilPi 9onn, to sell one's self to do evil, /.*. to -j i \ « ■ one's self to evil so as to have no will of one's own, to make one's Belf the slave of evil (cf ver, 25, 2 Kings xvii. 17. The consequ this is limited power over the man who gives himself up to it a slave. F< ch. xiv. 1". 11, XT. 29,30, xvi.:),
L2, The threat - ding Jezebel 23) was literally fulfilled, according to 2 Kings ix 30 sqq. **J, written defectively for yn, as in 2 Sam. xx. 15, is properly the open by the town-wall in. Instead of *?3 we have PJfil in the repetition of this threat in L! Kings ix. L0, 36, 37, and consequently Thenius and others propose to alter the *>5 here. But tin ■ qo necessity for thi "~~-. on the portion, i.e. the town-land, of Jezreel not. in the field at Jezreel.is only a more general epithet denoting the locality, and 5*1 is proved to be the original word by the LXX. — Vers. 25 and 26 contain a reflection on the part of the historian concerning Ahab's ungodly conduct, whereby he brought such an ignominious end upon himself and his house, 'til ^r\ to pij " only there has not been (one) like Ahab," i.e. there was no one else like Ahab, " who sold himself," etc. ^pr1 for n^?r;; from mo, to entice, to seduce or lead astray (cf. Ewald, § 114, a, and Ges. S 72, Anm. 6). 3yns^ and he acted abominably. Amoritcs: for Canaanites, as in Gen. xv. 16, etc.
this letter (the Chetl D^MTI
Vers. 27-29. This terrible threat made such an impression upon Ahab, that he felt deep remorse, and for a time at least was sincerely penitent. Rending the clothes, putting on the mourning garment of hair (P^), and fasting, are frequently mentioned as external signs of humiliation before God or of deep mourning on account of sin. EN?|?rp, he walked about lightly (slowly), like one in deep trouble. This repentance was neither hypocritical, nor purely external; but it was sincere even if it was not lasting and produced no real conversion. For the Lord Himself acknowledged it to be humiliation before Him (ver. 29), and said to Elijah, that because of it He would not bring the threatened calamity upon Ahab's house in his own lifetime, but only in the days of his son. *?£ for K'SK, as in ver. 21.
CHAP. XXII. WAR OF AHAB AND JEHOSHAPHAT AGAINST THE SYRIANS, AND DEATH OF AHAB. REIGNS OF JEHOSHAPHAT OF JUDAH AND AHAZIAH OF ISRAEL.
Vers. 1-40. Allied Campaign of Ahab and Jehoshaphat against the Syrians at Ramoth, and Death of Ahab (compare 2 Chron. xviii. 2-34). — Ver. 1. "And they rested three years; there was no war between Aram and Israel." 1W\ here is to keep quiet, to undertake nothing, as in Judg. v. 17, etc. The subject to *3?j3 is Aram and Israel mentioned in the second clause. The length of time given here points back to the end of the war described in ch. xx. — Vers. 2-4. In the third year (not necessarily " towards the end of it," as Thenius supposes, for Jehoshaphat's visit preceded the renewal of the war) Jehoshaphat visited the king of Israel, with whom he had already formed a marriage alliance by marrying his son to Ahab's daughter (2 Chron. xviii. 1; 2 Kings viii. 18). Ahab then said to his servants that the king of Syria had kept the city of Ramoth in Gilead (probably situated on the site of the present Szalt: see at
Deut. iv. 43), which he ought to have given up, according to the conditions of the peace in ch. xx. 34, and asked Jehoshaphat whether he would go with him to the war against Ramoth, which the Latter promised to da " I as thou, my people as thy people, my hoi thy horses;" i.*\ I am at thy service with the whole of my military power. In the place of the last words we hi then lure in the ('limn; I ~%:~^:2 "r;\ 1 am with thee in the war 1 will assist thee in the War. — Ve: ho- shaphat wished Inquire the word of the Lord concerning the war, Ahab gathered together about 400 prophets, who all predict ne mouth a prosperous result to the campaign. T. neither the 4<>o prophets of
AAherah who had not a] unci when Elijah v, re (ch. win. 19, 20), nor prophets of Baal, as b of the earlier commentators supposed, - \ mid not inquire of prophets of Jehovah and disciples of the prophets " (Cler., Then.]. but propl, the Jehovah worshipped under the una phat did not them prophets of Jehovah, but Inquired whether thei h a prophet still in exiat- vident from ver. 26, had had him imprisoned on account in unwelcom y, A disli this prophet had its root in the belief, which \ I with heathen notions of prophecy and conjuring, that the prophets stood in such a relation to the Deity that the laf srily fulfilled their will;
a belief which had arisen from the fact that the predictions of true prophets always or.me to pass (see at Num. xxii. 6 and 17). 1 Just as Agamemnon saystoCalchaain //. iv. 10G: /xxvt* k*kuv, qv xu-xrci
— Ver. 9. By Jehoshaphat's desire, Ahab nevertheless sent a chamberlain (D^!9; see at 1 Sam. viii. 15 and Gen. xxxvii. 36) to fetch Micah (n^np, bring quickly). — Vers. 10-12. In the meantime the prophets of the calves continued to prophesy success before the two kings, who sat upon thrones " clothed in robes," i.e. in royal attire, upon a floor in front of the gate of Samaria. ]"}}, a threshing-floor, i.e. a levelled place in the open air. In order to give greater effect to their announcement, one of them, named Zedekiyah the son of Cnaanah, made himself iron horns, probably iron spikes held upon the head (Thenius), and said, " With these wilt thou thrust down Aram even to destruction." This symbolical action was an embodiment of the figure used by Moses in the blessing of Joseph (Deut. xxxiii. 17): " Buffalo horns are his (Joseph's) horns, with them he thrusts down nations" (vid. Hengstenberg, Beitrr. ii p. 131), and was intended to transfer to Ahab in the case before them that splendid promise which applied to the tribe of Ephraim. But the pseudo-prophet overlooked the fact that the fulfilment of the whole of the blessing of Moses was dependent upon fidelity to the Lord. All the rest of the prophets adopted the same tone, saying, " Go to Eamoth, and prosper," i.e. and thou wilt prosper. (On this use of two imperatives see Ges. § 130, 2). — Vers. 13, 14. The messenger who fetched Micah tried on the way to persuade him to prophesy success to the king as the other prophets had done; but Micah replied with a solemn oath, that he would only speak what Jehovah said to him.
Vers. 15—28. Micah 's prophecy concerning the war, and his testimony against the lying prophets. — Vers. 15, 16. When Micah had come into the presence of the king, he replied to his question, " SLill we go against Eamoth? " etc., in just the same words as the pseudo-prophets, to show the king how he would speak if he were merely guided by personal considerations, as the others were. From the verbal agreement in his reply, and probably also from the tone in which he spoke, Ahab perceived that his words wrere ironical, and adjured him to speak only truth in the name of Jehovah. Micah then told him what he had seen in the spirit (ver. 17): "I Saw all Israel scatter itself upon the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd;" and then added the word of the Lord: " These have no master; let them return every one to his house in peace." That is to say, Ahab would fall in the war against Eamoth in Gilead, and his army scatter itself with- out a leader upon the mountains of Gilead, and then every one would return home, without being pursued and slain by the enemy. Whilst Zedekiyah attempt emphasis to his j phecy by symbolically transferring to Allah's enterprise the sue predii b d by Moses, Blicah, on the other hand, showed to the king out of the law what would really take place in the intended war, namely, that very state of things which M- sefl before his departure a man OVCI the. congregation to lead them OUt and in, that the congregation might not 1 i sheep that have no Bhepherd
X im nrii L6, 17). — Y But although Ahab had asked for a true word of the I. he end to attribute the unfavourable proph I oal enmity. Baying to
Jehoshaphat, " Did I not tell thee that he prophesies nothing good concerning me, but only evil misi?" — Vers. 19 Bqq.
Micah waa nut I by tins, hut d to him by a further revelation the hidden ground of th proph
And the Loi Who will pen I o up and fall at Ramoth in Gilead I and one ipak therso; and the spirit can m the ranks of tl nftprning tin J M. ii * | not merely a subjective drapery introduced by the prophet, but a simple oommunj i <>f the real inward vision by winch the prophets was inspired by a lying spirit. The spirit (Win) which inspired these prophets as a Lying spirit is neither Satan, nor any evil spirit whatever, hut, as the definite article and the whole of the context show, the personified spirit of prophecy, which is only SO far a irvevfia aKciOaprov t?*}? ir\dm)<; (Zech. xiii. 2; 1 John iv. 6) and under the intluenee of Satan as it works as "ipt? nvi in accordance with the will of God. For even the predictions of the false prophets, as we may see from the passage before us, and also from Zech. xiii. 2 and the scriptural teaching in other passages concerning the spiritua] principle of evil, were not mere inventions of human reason and fancy; but the false prophets as well as the true were governed by a supernatural spiritual principle, and, according to divine appointment, were under the influence of the evil spirit in the service of falsehood, just as the true prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit in the service of the Lord. The manner in which the supernatural influence of the lying spirit upon the false prophets is brought out in Micah's vision is, that the spirit of prophecy (nsujn nn) offers itself to deceive Ahab as IjJB* nn in the false prophets. Jehovah sends this spirit, inasmuch as the deception of Ahab has been inflicted upon him as a judgment of God for his unbelief. But there is no statement here to the effect that this lying spirit proceeded from Satan, because the object of the prophet was simply to bring out the working of God in the deception practised upon Ahab by his prophets. — The words of Jehovah, " Persuade Ahab, thou wilt be able," and " Jehovah has put a lying spirit," etc., are not to be understood as merely expressing the permission of God, as the fathers and the earlier theologians suppose. According to the Scriptures, God does work evil, but without therefore willing it and bringing forth sin. The prophet's view is founded upon this thought: Jehovah has ordained that Ahab, being led astray by a prediction of his prophets inspired by the spirit of lies, shall enter upon the war, that he may find therein the punishment of his ungodliness. As he would not listen to the word of the Lord in the mouth of His true servants, God had given him up (irapehwicev, Horn. i. 24, 26, 28) in his unbelief to the working of the spirits of lying. But that this did not destroy the freedom of the human will is evident from the expression nfi£fi, " thou canst persuade him," and still more clearly from b^n D5, " thou wilt also be able," since they both presuppose the possibility of resistance to temptation on the part of man.
Zedekiah was so enraged at this unveiling of the spirit of lying by which the pseudo-prophets were impelled, that he smote Micah upon the cheek, and said (ver. 24): " Where did the Spirit of Jehovah depart from me, to speak to thee V* To npx the Chronicles add as an explanation, 3JW) '> " by what way had he gone from me I" (cf. 2 Kings iii. 8, and Ewald, § 326, a.) Zedekiah was conscious that he had not invented his prophecy himself, and therefore it was that he rose up with such audacity of help win a to Aha' in consequence of a prophetic utterance, which Ahab had brought against hid own person from Micah's subjective dislike. But Jehoshaphat narrowly escaped paying the penalty for it with his life (ver.
and on his fortunate return to.Jerusalem had to listen to a seven- reproof from the prophet Jehu in consequence (2 Chron. xix. 2). — Vers. 30, 31. And even Ahab could not throw off a certain fear of the fulfilment of Micah's prophecy. He therefore resolved to go to the battle in disguise, that he might not be recognised by the enemy. to) t"2nnn ("disguise myself and go into the battle," i.e. 1 will go into the battle in disguise;: an in fin. also!., — a broken but strong form of expression, which is frequently used for the imperative, but very rarely for the first person of the voluntative (cf. Ewald, § 328, c), and which is probably employed here to express the anxiety that impelled Ahab to take so much trouble to ensure his own safety. (Luther has missed the meaning in his version; in the Chronicles, on the contrary, it is correctly given.) Kb? nnx), " but do thou put on thy clothes." These words are not to be taken as a command, but simply in this sense: " thou mayest (canst) put on thy (royal) dress, since there is no necessity for thee to take any such precautions as I have to take." There is no ground for detecting any cunning, xafrities, on the part of Ahab in these words, as some of the older commentators have done, as though he wished thereby to divert the predicted evil from himself to Jehoshaphat. But we may see very clearly that Ahab had good reason to be anxious about his life, from the command of the Syrian king to the captains of his war-chariots (ver. 31) to fight chiefly against the king of Israel. We cannot infer from this, however, that Ahab was aware of the command. The measure adopted by him may be sufficiently accounted for from his fear of the fulfilment of Micah's evil prophecy, to which there may possibly have been added some personal offence that had been given on his part to the Syrian king in connection with the negotiations concerning the surrender of Eamoth, which had no doubt preceded the war. The thirty-two commanders of the war-chariots and cavalry are, no doubt, the commanders wTho had taken the place of the thirtytwo kings (ch. xxi. 24). "Fight not against small and great, but against the king of Israel only," i.e. endeavour above all others to fight against the king of Israel and to slay him. — Vers. 32, 33. And when the leaders of the war-chariots saw Jehoshaphat in the battle in his royal clothes, they took him for the king of Israel (Ahab), and pressed upon him. Then Jehoshaphat cried out; and from this they perceived that lie was not the king of Israel, and turned away from him. H©rri '131 T]S V"ipx; " and they thought, it is only (i.e. no other than) the king of Israel" lyV WfJ " they bent upon him." Instead of this we have in the Chronicles Ivy *3b^ " they surrounded him," and Thenius proposes to alter our text to this; but there is no necessity for doing so, as "iid also occurs in a similar sense and connection in ch. xx. 39. How far Jehoshaphat was saved by his crying out, is not precisely stated. He probably cried out to his followers to come to his aid, from which the Syrians discovered that he was not the king of Israel, whom they were in search of. The chronicler adds (ch. ii. 18, 31): "and the Lord helped him and turned them off from him;" thus believingly tracing the rescue of the king to its higher causality, though without our having any right to infer from this that Jehoshaphat cried aloud to God for help, which is not implied in tin.1 words of the Chronicles.- — Ver. 34. But notwithstanding the precaution he had taken, Ahab did not escape the judgment of God, "A man drew his bow in his simplicity" (tan? as in L! Sam. xv. 11), ie. without trying to hit any particular man, "and shot tin- king of [srael between tin-.skin- and the coat of mail." E^Pr1 arc "joints by which the iron thorax was attached to the hanging skirt, which covered the abdomen" (Cler.). The true i mail covered only the breast, to somewhere about th< ml below this it had an appendage
(skirts) co og of moveable joints. Between this appendage and tin1 true coat of mail there was a groove through which the arrow passed, and, entering the abdomen, inflicted upon the king a mortal wound; so that he said to his charioteer: Sjbn T"1', verte manus ttu turn round (cf. 2 Kings ix. 23). The
Clullub T?r (plural; is the only correct reading, since the driver held the reins in both his hands. W™ *?: f°r I am wounded. — Ver. od. 'And the conflict ascended," i.e. became more violent. The use of the verb n?y in this sense may be accounted for on the supposition that it is founded upon the figure of a rising stream, which becomes more and more impetuous the higher it rises (vid. Isa. viii. 7). " And the king was stationed (ie. remained or kept himself in an upright posture) upon the chariot before the Syrians," that he might not dishearten his soldiers, * and died in the evening, and poured the blood of the wounds in the middle hollow (P*n) of the chariot." — Ver. 36. Towards sunset the cry went through the 'army (•^D??, the army drawn up in battle array), " Every one into his city and into his land! " — In ver. 3 7 the historian shows how the word of the Lord was fulfilled in the case of Ahab. " Thus the king died and came to Samaria: " equivalent to, thus the king reached Samaria dead; and he was buried there. — Ver. 38. When they washed the chariot at the pool of Samaria, the dogs licked his blood, while the harlots were bathing (in the pool), wrn nMni is a circumstantial clause, and yn"l means to bathe, as in Ex. ii. 5. This explanation, which is sustained by the grammar and is the only tenable one, disposes of the several arbitrary interpretations of these words, together with the emendations of the text of which Thenius is so fond. In this way was the word of the Lord through Elijah (ch. xxi. 19) and the unknown prophet (ch. xx. 42) fulfilled; also the prediction of Micah (ver. 17). Ahab had paid the penalty with his own life for sparing the life of Benhadad (ch. xx. 42), and his blood was licked up by the dogs (ch. xxi. 19). The fact that the dogs licked up the blood and the harlots were bathing in the pool, when the chariot that was stained with the blood of Ahab was being washed, is mentioned as a sign of the ignominious contempt which was heaped upon him at his death. — Vers. 39, 40. Close of Ahab's history. We have no further account of his buildings. " The ivory palace," i.e. the palace inlaid with ivory, he had probably built in his capital Samaria (cf. Amos iii. 15).
Vers. 41-50. Eeign of Jehoshaphat of Judah. — The account of this in the books before us is a very condensed one. Beside the two campaigns in which he joined with Ahab and Joram of Israel against the Syrians and Moabites, and which are described in the history of the kingdom of Israel (ch. xxii. 1-35 and 2 Kings iii.), we have simply a short notice of his attempt to restore the trade with Ophir, and a general statement of the spirit of his reign; whereas we learn from the extract preserved in the Chronicles from the annals of the kings, that he also carried on a victorious war against the Edomites and Ammonites (2 Chron. xx.), and did a great deal to promote the spread of the knowledge of the law among his people, and to carry out the restoration of a better administration of justice, and to improve the condition of the army (2 Chron. xvii. and xix.). — Vers. 41—44, which give the age of Jehoshaphat when he ascended the throne, and the duration and character of his reign, are also found with slight deviations in 2 Chron. xx. 31-33, in the closing summary of the history of his reign. — Yer. 43. " He walked entirely in the way of his father Asa and departed not from it, to do what was well-pleasing to the Lord/' wher< Asa's heart had become more estranged from the Lord in the last years of his reign (see ch. xv. 18 sqq.). — On the worship of the high places (ver. 43), see at ch. xv. 14. — Ver. 44. He maintained peace with the king of Israel, i.e. with every one of the Israelitish kings who were contemporaneous with him, viz. Ahab, Ahaziah, and Joram, whereas hitherto tin1 two kingdoms had assumed an attitude of hostility towards each other. Kven if this friendly bearing towards Israel was laudable in itself, JehoahaDhat went beyond the bounds of what was allowable, since he formed a marriage alliance with the house of Ahab, by letting bis son Joram marry a daughter of Ahab and Jezebel (2 Chron. xviii. 1). — Ver. 45. The brave di'^U (rn^-sn) which he performed include both bis efforts I -then his kingdom, partly by raising fortifications and organizing the military force, and partly by instructing the people in the law and improving was (then) no (real) king in Edom; a vicegerent was king/' i.e. governed the count] This remark is introduced here merely on account of what foil miely, to show how it was that
Jehoshaphat was able to attempt to restore the maritime trade with Opliir. li this connection between the before us and what follows, we cannot infer from it, as Ewald does (Gesch. iii. pp. 4G4 and 474 sqq.), that the Edomites with yptian help had forced from Rehohoam both their liberty and also their right to have a king of their own blood, and had remained in this situation till Jehoshaphat completely subjugated them again. (See the remarks on ch. xi. 21, 22.) All that can be gathered from 2 Chron. xx. is, that the Edomites, in league with the Ammonites and other desert tribes, made an incursion into Judah, and therefore tried to throw off the supremacy of Judah, but did not succeed in their attempt. — Vers. 48, 49. The brief notice concerning Jehoshaphat's attempt to build Tarshish ships (for the word, see p. 150) for the voyage to Ophir is expanded in 2 Chron. xx. 36, 37, where we learn that Jehoshaphat had allied himself with Ahaziah of Israel for this purpose, and that the prophet Eliezer predicted the destruction of his ships on account of this alliance. When the ships had been broken in pieces in Eziongeber, no doubt by a storm, Ahaziah made this fresh proposal to him: " Let my people sail with thy people;" but Jehoshaphat would not. Ahaziah evidently wanted to persuade Jehoshaphat to make another attempt, after the destruction of the ships which were first built; but Jehoshaphat did not agree to it any more, because it was impossible for him, after the fulfilment of Eliezer's prediction, to expect a more favourable result. Thus the two accounts can be harmonized in a very simple manner, with the exception of the words " to go to Tarshish," which we find in the Chronicles in the place of " to go to Ophir," the reading in our text, and which sprang from an erroneous interpretation of the expression "ships of Tarshish" (see above, p. 150). The Chcthib "OT is an error of the pen for n'wy (Kcri); but nT3l£l (Chethib) is not to be altered into HMSb, since the construction of a singular verb with the subject following in the plural is by no means rare (vid. Ewald, § 317, a). On Eziongeber and Ophir, see at ch. ix. 26 and 28.
Vers. 51-53. Eeign of Ahaziah of Israel. — Ver. 51. For the datum " in the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat," see at 2 Kings i. 17. — Vers. 52, 53. Ahaziah walked in the way of his father and his mother, who had introduced the worship of Baal into the kingdom, and in the way of Jeroboam, who had set up the calves (cf. ch. xvi. 30-33). — In ver. 53 it is again expressly added, that he adored and worshipped Baal, as in ch. xvi. 31. — With this general description of his character not only is the chapter brought to a close, but the first book of Kings also, — very unsuitably, however, since the further account of Ahaziah's reign and of his death is given in ch. i. of the following book. It would have been incomparably more suitable to commence a fresh chapter with ver. 52, and indeed to commence the second book there also.
H1FTK1I tin; Moabitea had rebelled against Israel. Ahaziah h sick in consequence of a fall through a grating in his appei room, and Bent m( the idol Baakebub lluv. Elijah met tl:; the 1,,;ul- alltl told tUL'm that the king would die • I &> When Ahaxiah sent soldiers to fi lijah, ti v slail1 from sharing ■ similar Gate; whereupon Ehjahwent with him the km-. peated the threat al announced on account the yoke of the Israelites, and very soon afterwa ftttem] in invasion of the kii. of Judah, in alliance with the Edon ad other of the desert, winch terminated, hi m a defeat, though it contributed to the maintenance of their independence. For further remarks, at ch. iii. 4 sqq.— Ver. 2. Ahaziah could not do anything to subjugate the M abites any further, since hi very soon afterwards taken grievously ill. He fell through the grating in his upper room at Samaria, raj*?, the grating, is either a window furnished with a shutter of lattice-work, or a door of latticework in the upper room of the palace, but hardly a grating in the floor of the Aliyah for the purpose of letting light into the lower rooms, as the Rabbins supposed. On account of this misfortune, Ahaziah resorted to the Ekronitish Baalzcbub to obtain an oracle concerning the result of his illness, ^rbys, i.e. Fly- Baal, was not merely the " averter of swarms of insects," like the Zevs aTrofivLos, /xvlaypos of Elis (Ges., Winer, Movers, Phoniz. i. p. 175), since "the Fly-God cannot have received his name as the enemy of flies, like lucus a non lucendo" but was Mvla deos (LXX., Joseph.), i.e. God represented as a fly, as a fly-idol, to which the name Myiodcs, gnat-like, in Plin. h. n. xxix. 6, clearly points, and as a god of the sun and of summer must have stood in a similar relation to the flies to that of the oracle-god Apollo, who both sent diseases and took them away (yitl. J. G. Miiller, Art. Beelzebub in Herzog's Cyel. i. p. 768, and Stark, Gaza, pp. 260, 261). The latter observes that "these (the flies), which are governed in their coming and going by all the conditions of the weather, are apparently endowed with prophetic power themselves." This explains the fact that a special power of prophecy was attributed to this god.1 Ekron, now AJcir, the most northerly of the five Philistian capitals (see at Josh. xiii. 3). — Vers. 3, 4. But the angel of the Lord, the mediator of the revelations made by the invisible God to the covenant nation (see Comm. on the Pentateuch, vol. i. pp. 185-191, transl.), had spoken to Elijah to go and meet the king's messengers, who were going to inquire of Baalzebub, and to ask them whether it was from the want of a God in Israel (P£ yap as in Ex. xiv. 11; see Ewald, § 323, a) that they turned to Baalzebub, and to announce to them the word of Jehovah, that Ahaziah would not rise up from his bed again, but would die. " And Elijah went/' sc. to carry out the divine commission. — Vers. 5-8. The messengers did not recognise Elijah, but yet they turned back and reported the occurrence to the king, who knew at once, from the description they gave of the
1 The later Jews altered the name Beelzebub into Besh£e(Soto, i.e. probably lord of the (heavenly) dwelling, as a name given to the olpx,uu ruv Icttpoviuv (Matt. x. 25, etc.); and the later Rabbins finally, by changing ^Qf?JJ2 into
P2T 7JJ2, made a fly-god into a dung-god, to express in the most intense form their abomination of idolatry (see Lightfoot, Horse hebr. et talm. in Matt. xii 24, and my bibl. Archdol. i. pp. 440, 441).
habitus of the man in reply to his question, that it was Elijah the Tishbitc. B>W DfKPD n?: " what was the manner of the man? " BatPO is used here to denote the peculiarity of a person, that which in a certain sense constitutes the vital law and right of the individual personality; jigura et habitus (Vulg.). The servants described the prophet according to his outward appearance, which in a man of character is a reflection of his inner man, as *W& 'P? B^K, vlr pilosiis, hirsutus. This does not mean a man with a luxuriant growth of hair, but refers to the hairy dress, i.e. the garment made of sheep-skin or goat-skin or coarse camel-hair, which was wrapped round his body; the Jnw (ch. ii. 8; 1 Kings xix. 13), or Tjj? ITJW (Zech. xiii. 4, of Matt lii. 4, Heb. xi. 37), which was worn by the prophets, not as mere ascetics, but as preachers of repentance, the rough garment denoting the severity of the divine judgments upon the effeminate nation, which revelled in luxuriance and worldly lust. And this was also in keeping with " the leather girdle," ^VnTS*, favrj cep/xarlvT] (Matt. iii. 4), whereas the ordinary girdle was of cotton or linen, and often very costly.
Vers. 9-16. After having executed the divine command, Elijah returned to the summit of the mountain, on which he dwelt. Most of the commentators suppose it to have been one of the peaks of Carmel, from ch. ii. 25 and 1 Kings xviii. 42, which is no doubt ble, though it cannot be raised into certainty. Elijah's place of abode was known to the king; he tie.plain with fifty men to fetch the proph< To the demand of the captain, "Man of God, the king has said. Come down," Elijah replied, "And if 1 am a man of God, Let fire tall from heaven and consume thee and thy iifty." (The expression DW, and if, shows that Elijah's words followed immediately upon those of the captain.) This judicial miracle was immediately fulfilled. — Vers. 11,12. The same fate befell a second captain, whom the king sent after the death of the first He was more insolent than the first, "both because lie was not brought to his senses by hearing of his punishment, and because he increased his impudence by adding make ha (Trvroy — Q a Lap. For "13T1 I>!1 the LXX. (Cod. Alex.) have teal dvefSi] Aral eXdXrjae, so that they read by*]. The correctness of this reading, according to which i>:1 would be an error of the pen, is favoured not only by?P5 in vers. 0 and 13, but also by 13T} which follows; for, as a general rule, P5 would be followed by
IDfc^J. The repetition of this judicial miracle was meant to show in the most striking manner not only the authority which rightfully belonged to the prophet, but also the help and protection which the Lord gave to His servants. At the same time, the question as to the " morality of the miracle," about which some have had grave doubts, is not set at rest by the remark of Thenius, that " the soldiers who were sent come into consideration here purely as instruments of a will acting in opposition to Jehovah." The third captain also carried out the ungodly command of the king, and he was not slain (vers. 13 sqq.). The first two must therefore have been guilty of some crime, which they and their people had to expiate with their death. This crime did not consist merely in their addressing him as " man of God," for the third addressed Elijah in the same way (ver. 13), but in their saying "Man of God, come down." This summons to the prophet, to allow himself to be led as a prisoner before the king, involved a contempt not only of the prophetic office in the person of Elijah, but also of the Lord, who had accredited him by miracles as His servant. The two captains who were first sent not only did what they were bound to do as servants of the king, but participated in the ungodly disposition of their lord (avfi^alvovTe^ ra> ctkottu) tov 7T€7ro/i,(/)OT09 — Theodoret); they attacked the Lord with reckless daring in the person of the prophet, and the second captain, with his " Come down quickly," did it even more strongly than the first. This sin was punished, and that not by the prophet, but by the Lord Himself, who fulfilled the word of His servant.1 What Elijah here did was an act of holy zeal for the honour of the Lord, in the spirit of the old covenant, under which God destroyed the insolent despisers of His name with fire and sword, to manifest the energy of His holy majesty by the side of the dead idols of the heathen. But this act cannot be transferred to the times of the new covenant, as is clearly shown in Luke ix. 54, 5 5, where Christ does not blame Elijah for what he did, but admonishes His disciples, who overlooked the difference between the economy of the law and that of the gospel, and in their carnal zeal wanted to imitate what Elijah had done in divine zeal for the honour of the Lord, which had been injured in his own person. — Vers. 13, 14. The king, disregarding the
1 0/ rov ttpoQyitov KctTYiyopovvng xctToi tov ©sot/ tow TrpotP'/iTOV xtuovot tcc£ yiuTTct;, as Theodoret very aptly observes.
punishing hand of the Lord, which, even if it might possibly have been overlooked in the calamity that befell the captain who was iirst sent and his company, could not be misunderstood when a similar fate befell the second captain with his fifty men. scut a third company, in his defiant obduracy, to fetch the prophet (D'";C,L,: alter DHStofi is apparently an error of tin4 pen for t^"', as the following word *&yfn shows.) Bui the third captain was better than liis king, and wiser than his two predecess' He obeyed the command of the king so fir as to p* to the prophet; hut instead of haughtily summoning him to follow him, he bent his knee before the man of c>^\, and prayed that his own life and the lives of his soldiers might be spared. — V< 15, 16. Then Elijah followed him to the king (WiD, before him, before the king, not 1 the captain; and Infc for tow,
Ewald, 5 26 I.;*. having been directed t<> do so by the angel the Lord, and repeated to him the word of the Lord, which he had also conveyed to him through his n 4 and
Vers. 17 and 18. When Ahaziah d rding to thev upon the throne by his hind ond year of ram the Bon of Jehoshaphat, kin- of Judah." Tin- statement is at variance both with that in ch. iii. 1. 1«> t! t that Joram began I n in the eighteenth of Jehoshaphat, and with the seventeenth of the re aphat, whirl.
twenty-fh and also with the statement in ch. viii that Joram of Judah became kii r Judah in the fifth year of
The last of these discrepancies may he solved very simply, from the fact that, according to ch. viii 16, Jehoshaphat was still kin-; when his son Joram began to reign, so that Jehoshaphat abdicated in favour of his son about two 3 th. And the by Usher (Annate J/", ad run. 3106 and 3112), Lightfoot, and others, after the example of the Seder Olam, by the assumption of a co-regency. According to this, when Jehoshaphat went with Ahab to Eamoth in Gilead to war a-ainst the Syrians, in the eighteenth year of his reign, which runs parallel to the twenty-second year of the reign of Ahab, he appointed his son J oram to the co-regency, and transferred to him the administration of the kingdom. It is from this co-regency that the statement in ch. i. 17 is dated, to the effect that Joram of Israel became king in the second year of Joram of Judah. This second year of the co-regency of Joram corresponds to the eighteenth year of the reign of Jehoshaphat (ch. iii. 1). And in the fifth year of his co-regency Jehoshaphat gave up the reins of government entirely to him. It is from this point of time, i.e. from the twenty-third year of Jehoshaphat, that we are to reckon the eight years of the reign of Joram (of Judah), so that he only reigned six years more after his father's death.1 We have no information as to the reason which induced Jehoshaphat to abdicate in favour of his son two years before his death; for there is very little probability in the conjecture of Lightfoot {O^j). i. p. 85), that Jehoshaphat did this when he commenced the war with the Moabites in alliance with Joram of Israel, for the simple reason that the Moabites revolted after the death of Ahab, and Joram made preparations for attacking them immediately after their rebellion (ch. iii. 5-7), so that he must have commenced this expedition before the fifth year of his reign.
1 Wolff indeed boldly declares that " the co-regency of Joram is a pure fiction, and the biblical historians do not furnish the slightest warrant for any such supposition " (see p. 628 of the treatise mentioned at p. 187); but he cannot think of any other way of reconciling the differences than by making several alterations in the text, and inventing a co-regency in the case of the Israelitish king Ahaziah. The synchronism of the reigns of the Israelitish kings necessarily requires the solution adopted in the text. For if Joram of Israel, who began to reign in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat and reigned twelve years (ch. iii. 1), was slain at the same time as Ahaziah of Judah (ch. ix. 24-27), and Ahaziah of Judah reigned about one year and his predecessor Joram about eight years, so that the two together certainly reigned fully eight years; Joram of Judah must have ascended the throne four years after Joram of Israel, i.e. in the twenty-third year of Jehoshaphat, which runs parallel to the fifth year of Joram of Israel. Consequently the twenty-five years of Jehoshaphat are to be reduced to twenty-three in reckoning the sumtotal of the years embraced by the period of the kings. It is true that there is no analogy for this combination of the years of the reigns of two kings, since the other reductions of which different chronologists are fond are perfectly arbitrary, and the case before us stands quite alone; but this exception to the rule is indicated clearly enough in the statement in ch. viii. 16, that Joram began to reign while Jehoshaphat was (still) king. When, however, Thenius objects to this mode of reconciling the differences, which even Winer adopts
Vers. 1-13. Elijah's Ascension to Heaven. — Vers. 1-10. Journey from Gilgal to the other side of the Jordan. — Vers. 1, 2. When the time arrived that Jehovah was about to take up His servant Elijah in a tempest to heaven, Elijah went with his attendant Elisha from Gilgal down to Bethel. rnTy??, in the tempest or storm, i.e. in a tempestuous storm, which was frequently the herald of the divine self-revelations in the terrestrial world (vid. Job xxxviii. 1, xl. 6; Ezek. i. 4; Zech. ix. 14). D!?^? is the accusative of direction. Gilgal and Bdhd (Beit in, see at 1 Kings xii. 29) were seats of schools of the prophets, which Elijah had founded in the kingdom of the ten tribes. It is now generally admitted that Gilgal, from which they went down to Bethel, cannot be the place of that name which was situated in the Jordan valley to the east of Jericho, but must be the Gilgal upon the mountains, the elevated Jiljilia to the south-west of Silo (Seilun, see at Josh. viii. 35). On the way Elijah said to Elisha, " Stay here, I pray, for the Lord has sent me to Bethel;" but Elisha declared with a solemn oath that he would not leave him. The Lord had revealed to both that the Beal of divine attestation was to be impressed upon the work of Elijah by his being miraculously taken up into heaven, to in the third edition of his bill. Real-^Yorterhuch, i. p. 539, on the ground that the reign of Joram is dated most precisely in 1 Kings xxii. 51 and 2 Chron. xxi. 1,."), 20, from the death of Jehoshaphat, and that an actual co-regency, viz. that of Jotham, is expressly mentioned in ch. xv. 5, which does not render it at all necessary to carry the years of his reign into those of his father's, this appeal to the case of Jotham cannot prove anything, for the simple reason that the biblical text knows nothing of any co-regency of Jotham and Uzziah, but smply states that when Uzziah was smitten with leprosy, his son Jotham judged the people of the land, but that he did not become king till after his father's death (ch. xv. 5, 7; 2 Chron. xxvi. 21, 23). It is indeed stated in 1 Kings xxii. 51 and 2 Chron. xxvi. 1, 5, 20, that Jehoshaphat died and his sou Joram became king, which may be understood as meaning that he did not become king till after the death of Jehoshaphat; but there is no necessity to understand it so, and therefore it can be very easily reconciled with the more precise statement in ch. viii. 16, that Joram ascended the throne during the reign of Jehoshaphat, whereas the assertion of Thenius, that the circumstantial clause iTWT ife DD'JHrH inch. viii. 16 is a gloss, is not critically established by the absence of these words from the LXX., Syr., and Arabic, and to expunge tuein from the text is nothing but an act of critical violence.
strengthen the faith not of Elisha only, but also of the disciples of the prophets and of all the godly in Israel; but the revelation had been made to them separately, so that Elijah had no suspicion that Elisha had also been informed as to his being taken away. He wanted, therefore, to get rid of his servant, not " to test his love and attachment " (VatabL), but from humility (C. a Lap. and others), because he did not wish to have any one present to witness his glorification without being well assured that it was in accordance with the will of God. — Ver. 3. In Bethel the disciples of the prophets came to meet Elisha, and said to him, " Knowest thou that Jehovah will take thy master from over thy head to-day? " B>*n 7VD np? expresses in a pictorial manner the taking away of Elijah from his side by raising him to heaven, like iiralpeLv and viroXafxfiaveiv in Acts i. 9, 10. Elisha replied, " I know it, be silent," because he knew Elijah's feeling. The Lord had therefore revealed to the disciples of the prophets the taking away of Elijah, to strengthen their faith. — Vers. 4—7. In Bethel, and again in Jericho, to which they both proceeded from Bethel, Elijah repeated the appeal to Elisha to stay there, but always in vain. The taking away of Elijah had also been revealed to the disciples of the prophets at Jericho. Thus they both came to the Jordan, whilst fifty disciples of the prophets from Jericho followed them at a distance, to be eye-witnesses of the miraculous translation of their master. The course which Elijah took before his departure from this earth, viz. from Gilgal past Bethel and Jericho, was not merely occasioned by the fact that he was obliged to touch at these places on the way to the Jordan, but had evidently also the same higher purpose, for which his ascension to heaven had been revealed both to Elisha and to the disciples of the prophets at Bethel and Jericho. Elijah himself said that the Lord had sent him to Bethel, to Jericho, to the Jordan (vers. 2, 4, 6). He therefore took this way from an impulse received from the Spirit of God, that he might visit the schools of the prophets, which he had founded, once more before his departure, and strengthen and fortify the disciples of the prophets in the consecration of their lives to the service of the Lord, though without in the least surmising that they had been informed by the Spirit of the Lord of his approaching departure from this life. But as his ascension to heaven took place not so much for his own sake, as because of those associates in his office who were left behind, God had revealed it to so many, that they might be even more firmly established in their calling by the miraculous glorification of their master than by his words, his teaching, and his admonitions, so that they might carry it on without fear or trembling, even if their great master should no longer stand by their side with the might of his spiritual power to instruct, advise, or defend. But above all, Elisha, whom the Lord had appointed as his successor (1 Kings xix. 16), was to be prepared for carrying on his work by the last journey of his master. He did not leave his side therefore, and resolved, certainly also from an inward impulse of the Spirit of God, to be an eye-witness of his glorification, that lie might receive the spiritual inheritance of the first-born from his departing spiritual father. — Ver. 8. When they reached the Jordan, Elijah took hifl prophet's cloak, rolled it up (B^3, air. \ey. cuiivolrit), and smote the water with it; whereupon the water divided hither and thither, so that they both passed through on dry ground. The cloak, that outward sign of the prophefa office, became the vehicle of the Spirit's power which work and with which the prophet was inspired The miracle itself is analogous to the miraculous dividing of the Bed Bet by the stretching out of Moses' rod (Ex. xiv. 1G, 21); but at the same time it is very peculiar, and quite in accordance with the prophetic character of Elijah. M< the leader of the people, performed his miracles with his shepherd's crook, KHjah the prophet divided the river with his propto mantle. — Vers. 9, 10. After crossing the Jordan, Elijah allowed his servant and companion to make one more request before he was taken away, m the full confidence that the Lord would fulfil it in answer to his prayer; and Eli>ha asked, "Let D?«r*i inn?, SnrXa h irvev^aTi gov, i.e. a double portion in (of) thy spirit be granted to me." This request has been misunderstood by many translators, from Ephraem Synis down to Koster and F. W. Krummacher, who have supposed that Elisha wished to have a double measure of Elijah's spirit (" that thy spirit may be twofold in me;" Luther after the Vulgate, " ut fiat in me duplex spiritus tuus"); and some have taken it as referring to the fact that Elisha performed many more miracles and much greater ones than Elijah (Cler., Pfeiffer, dub. vex. p. 442), others to the gift of prophecy and miracles (Koster, die Proph. p. 82), whilst others, like Krummacher, have understood by it that the spirit of Elisha, as an evangelical spirit, was twice as great as the legal spirit of Elijah. But there is no such meaning implied in the words, nor can it be inferred from the answer of Elijah; whilst it is impossible to show that there was any such measure of the Spirit in the life and works of Elisha in comparison with the spirit of Elisha, although his request was fulfilled. The request of Elisha is evidently based upon Deut. xxi. 17, where 3 DSp^B denotes the double portion which the first-born received in (of) the father's inheritance, as E. Levi b. Gers., Seb. Miinst, Vatabl., Grot, and others have perceived, and as Hengstenberg (Bcitrr. ii. p. 133 f.) in our days has once more proved. Elisha, resting his foot upon this law, requested of Elijah as a first-born son the double portion of his spirit for his inheritance. Elisha looked upon himself as the first-born son of Elijah in relation to the other " sons of the prophets," inasmuch as Elijah by the command of God had called him to be his successor and to carry on his work. The answer of Elijah agrees with this: " Thou hast asked a hard thing," he said, because the granting of this request was not in Ms power, but in the power of God. He therefore made its fulfilment dependent upon a condition, which did not rest with himself, but was under the control of God: "if thou shalt see me taken from thee (n^p, partic. Pual with the D dropped, see Ges. § 52, Anm. b; Ewald, § 1 6 9, d), let it be so to thee; but if not, it will not be so." From his own personal inclination Elijah did not wish to have Elisha, who was so closely related to him, as an eye-witness of his translation from the earth; but from his persistent refusal to leave him he could already see that he would not be able to send him away. He therefore left the matter to the Lord, and made the guidance of God the sign for Elisha whether the Lord would fulfil his request or not. Moreover, the request itself even on the part of the petitioner presupposes a certain dependence, and for this reason Elisha could not possibly desire that the double measure of Elijah's spirit should be bestowed upon him. A dying man cannot leave to his heir more than he has himself. And, lastly, even the ministry of Elisha, when compared with that of Elijah, has all the appearance of being subordinate to it. He lives and labours merely as the continuer of the work already begun by Elijah, both outwardly in relation to the worshippers of idols, and inwardly in relation to the disciples of the prophets. Elisha performs the anointing of Jehu and Hazael, with which Elijah was charged, and thereby prepares the way for the realization of that destruction of Ahab's house which Elijah predicted to the king; and he merely receives and fosters those schools of the prophets which Elijah had already founded. And again, it is not Elisha but Elijah who appears as the Coryphaeus of prophecy along with Moses, the representative of the law, upon the mount of transfiguration (Matt, xvii. 3). — It is only a thoroughly external mode of observation that can discover in the fact that Elisha performed a greater number of miracles than Elijah, a proof that the spirit of Elijah rested doubly upon him.
Vers. 11-13. Elijah's ascension. — Ver. 11. While they were walking on and talking to each other, " behold (there suddenly appeared) a fiery chariot and fiery horses, and separated the two (by driving between them), and Elijah went up in the tempest to heaven." As God had formerly taken Enoch away, so that he did not taste of death (see at Gen. v. 24), so did He also suddenly take Elijah away from Elisha, and carry him to heaven without dying. It was <~nyD3 " in the tempest/' that he was taken away. The storm was accompanied by a fiery phenomenon, which appeared to the eyes of Elisha as a chariot of fire with horses of fire, in which Elijah rode to heaven. The tempest was an earthly substratum for the theophanv, the fiery chariots and fiery horses the symbolical form in which the translation of his master to heaven presented itself to the eye of Elisha, who was left behind.1 — The ascension of Elijah has been compared to the death of Moses. " As God Himself buried Moses, and his grave has not been found to this day, so did He fetch Elias to heaven in a still more glorious manner in a fiery chariot with fiery horses, so that fifty men, who searched for him, did not find him on the earth " (Ziegler). This parallel has a real foundation in the appearance of Moses and Elijah with Christ on the mountain of transfiguration, only we must not overlook the difference in the departure from this life of these two witnesses of God. For Moses died and was to die in the wilderness because of his sin (Deut. xxxii.
1 All further questions, e.g. concerning the nature of the fiery chariot, the place to which Elijah was carried, the day of his ascension, which C. a Lap., according to the Romish martyrology, assigns to the 20th of July in the 19th year of Jehoshaphat, and others of the same kind, which have been discussed by the earlier commentators, are to be set down as useless trifles, which go beyond the bounds of our thought and comprehension.
49 sqq.), and was only buried by the hand of the Lord, so that no one has seen his grave, not so much for the purpose of concealing it from men as to withdraw his body from corruption, and preserve and glorify it for the eternal life (see the Comm. on Deut. xxxiv. 5, 6). Elijah did not die, but was received into heaven by being " changed" (1 Cor. xv. 51, 52; 1 Thess. iv. 15 sqq.). This difference is in perfect harmony with the character and position of these two men in the earthly kingdom of God. Moses the lawgiver departed from the earthly life by the way of the law, which worketh death as the wages of sin (Rom. vi. 23, vii. 13); Elijah the prophet, who was appointed to admonish for future times (o /caTaypafal? iv iXeyfjiols ek icaipovs), to pacify the wrath before the judgment, to turn the heart of the father to the son, and to restore the tribes of Jacob (Ecclus. xlviii. 1 0), was taken to heaven as the forerunner of Christ (Mai. iii. 23, 24; Matt. xi. 10, 11) without tasting of death, to predict the ascension of our Lord, and to set it forth in Old Testament mode; for as a servant, as the servant of the law, who with his fiery zeal preached both by word and deed the fire of the wrath of divine justice to the rebellious generation of his own time, Elijah was carried by the Lord to heaven in a fiery storm, the symbol of the judicial righteousness of God. " As he was an unparalleled champion for the honour of the Lord, a fiery warchariot was the symbol of his triumphal procession into heaven " (0. v. Gerlach). But Christ, as the Son, to whom all power is given in heaven and on earth, after having taken away from death its sting and from hell its victory, by His resurrection from the grave (1 Cor. xv. 55), returned to the Father in the power of His eternal deity, and ascended to heaven in His glorified body before the eyes of His disciples as the victor over death and hell, until a cloud received Him and concealed His figure from their sight (Luke xxiv. 51; Acts i. 9).1 — Ver. 12. When Elisha saw his
1 The actual truth of this miraculous departure of the prophet is strongly confirmed by the appearance of Elijah, as recorded in Matt. xvii. 3, 4 and Luke ix. 30, upon which the seal of attestation is impressed by the ascension of our Lord. His ascension was in harmony with the great mission with which he, the mightiest of all the prophets, was entrusted in that development of the divine plan of salvation which continued through the centuries in the interval between Moses and Christ. — Whoever is unable to do justice to the spirit and nature of the divine revelation of mercy, will be unable to comprehend this miracle also. This was the case with Josephus, and even with Ephraem the Syrian father. Josephus, for example (Ant. ix. 2, 2), says nothing about the master carried thus miraculously away, he exclaimed, " My father, my father, the chariot of Israel and horsemen thereof!" and as he saw him no more, he took hold of his clothes and rent them in two pieces, i.e. from the top to the bottom, as a proof of the greatness of his sorrow at his being taken away. He called Elijah *3N, " my father," as his spiritual father, who had begotten him as his son through the word of God. " Chariot (war-chariot) and horsemen of Israel," on which the Israelitish kings based the might and security of their.kingdom, are a symbolical representa- miraclc, and simply states that 'IIa/oc; i£ dvQpurruv r^xviadn' kxi ovOii: tyvu ftiycotQ tyis oyi/hsdov ociiTov ty,v TiMurr/j. and adds that it is written of Elijah and Enoch in the sacred books, art ytyivmitB d$*9iig. ^at/a-rov ot xvruv ovOii; oloiu. Ephraem, the Christian father, | the last clause of ver. 11,
" so Elijah went up in the whirlwind to heaven," in his exposition of our chapter, and paraphrases the rest of the words thns: l< There came suddenly from on high a fire-storm, and in the midst of the flame the form of a ehariot ami of horses, ami separated them from one another; one of the two it left on the earth, the other, namely Elijah, it carried up on high ((lOC^lQA. » \v);
but whither the wind (or Spirit? |^CJ) took him, or in what place it left him, the Scriptures have not told us. They say, however, that some years afterwards an alarming httcr from him, full of threats, wu delivered to king Joram of Judah." Following the lead of such predecessor! as these, J. D. Michaelia, win. I o much of his orthodoxy, informed the " unlearned1'
(in the Amnerkungen to his Bibel-tibertetzung) that Elijah did not go to heaven, but was simply carried away fn»iu Palestine, and lived at least twelve years more, that he might be able to writ.- a lett« r to king Joram (2 Chron. xxi. 12), for u men do not re letters from people in heaven.*1 This incident has been frequently adduced since th< i osion of Elijah.
But there is not a word in the Chronicles about any letter (Cn£D, "l-DD, Or niiS. which would he the Hebp w for a letter); all that is said is that i writing (2J"D£) from the prophet Elijah was brought to Joram, in which he was threatened with severe punishments on account of his apostasy. Now such a writing as this might \ 1 have been written by Elijah before his ascension, and handed to Elisha to be Bent by him to king.Joram at the proper time. Even Bertbeau admits ti. rding to the chronological data of the Old Testament, Elijah might have been still living in the reign of Joram of Judah; and it is <i priori probable that he both spoke of Joram's sin and threatened him with punishment. It is impossible to fix the year of Elijah's ascension. Neither the fact that it is mentioned after the death of Ahaziah of Israel, which he himself had personally foretold to that ungodly king, nor the circumstance that in the war which Jehoshaphat and Joram of Israel waged with the Moabites the prophet Elisha was consulted (ch. hi.), warrants the conclusion that Elijah was taken from the earth in the interval between these two events. It is very obvious from ch. iii. 11, that the two kings applied to Elisha simply because he was in the neighbourhood, and not because Elijah was no longer alive.
tion of the strong defence which Elijah had been through his ministry to the kingdom of Israel (cf. ch. xiii. 14). — Ver. 13. lie then took up Elijah's prophet's mantle, which had fallen from him when he was snatched away, and returned to the Jordan. The prophet's mantle of the master fell to Elisha the disciple, as a pledge to himself that his request was fulfilled, and as a visible sign to others that he was his divinely appointed successor, and that the spirit of Elijah rested upon him (ver. 15).
Vers. 14-25. Eeturn of Elisha to Jericho and Bethel, and his First Miracles. — Vers. 14, 15. Having returned to the banks of the Jordan, Elisha smote the water with Elijah's mantle, saying, "Where is Jehovah the God of Elijah, yea He? " and the water divided hither and thither, so that he was able to go through, fcWrs^ which the LXX. did not understand, and have simply reproduced in Greek characters, ac/x/xo, is an emphatic apposition, "yea He," such as we find after suffixes, e.g. Prov. xxii. 1 9; and ^ is only a strengthened D3, which is more usual when emphatic prominence is given to the suffix (vid. Ges. § 121, 3). The Masoretic accentuation, which separates it from the preceding words, rests upon a false interpretation. There is no need either for the alteration proposed by Ewald, § 362, «, of *1K into ^, "he had scarcely smitten the water," especially as not a single analogous example can be adduced of the use of &WH tjx followed by a Vav consec; or for the conjecture that the original reading in the text was Ntos (Houb., Bottch., Then.), "where is now the God of Elijah? " which derives no critical support from the ckjxjxo of the LXX., and is quite at variance with Hebrew usage, since N^« generally stands immediately after n5^ when it serves to strengthen the interrogation (vid. Judg. ix. 38, Job xvii. 15, Isa. xix. 12, Hos. xiii. 10). This miracle was intended partly to confirm Elisha's conviction that his petition had been fulfilled, and partly to accredit him in the eyes of the disciples of the prophets and the people generally as the divinely appointed successor of Elijah. All the disciples of the prophets from Jericho saw also from this that the spirit of Elijah rested upon Elisha, and came to meet him to do homage to him as being now their spiritual father and lord. — Vers. 16-18. But the disciples of the prophets at Jericho were so unable to realize the fact of Elijah's translation, although it had been previously revealed to them, that they begged permission of Elisha to send out fifty brave men to seek for Elijah. ^^3"|s: whether the Spirit of the Lord has not taken him and cast him upon one of the mountains, or into one of the valleys. |3 with the perfect is used " where there is fear of a fact, which as is conjectured almost with certainty has already happened," like firj in the sense of " whether not " {via1. Ewald, § 337, b). njrr rwi is not a wind sent by Jehovah (Ges.), but the Spirit of Jehovah, as in 1 Kings xviii. 12. The Chcthib rri*W| is the regular formation from N'3 or Wl (Zech. xiv. 4); the Kcri with the transposition of N and \ the later form: nrN3? Ezek. vii. 16, xxxi. 12, etc. The belief expressed by the disciples of the prophets, that Elijah might have been miraculously carried away, was a popular belief, according to 1 Kings xviii. 12, which the disciples of the prophets were probably led to share, more especially in the present case, by the fact that they could not imagine a translation to heaven as a possible thing, and with the indefiniteness of the expression TJ'Si 7i?p npb could only understand the divine revelation which they had received as referring to removal by death. So that even if Elisha told them how miraculously Elijah had been taken from him, which he no doubt did, they might still believe that by the appearance in the storm the Lord had taken away His servant from this life, that is to say, had received his soul into heaven, and had left his earthly tabernacle somewhere on the earth, for which they would like to go in search, that they might pay the last honours to their departed master. Elisha yielded to their continued urgency and granted their request; Avhereupon fifty men sought for three days for Elijah's body, and after three days' vain search returned to Jericho. Bfany, to being ashamed, i.e. till he was ashamed to refuse their request any longer (see at Judg. hi. 25).
The two following miracles of Elisha (vers. 19-25) were also intended to accredit him in the eyes of the people as a man endowed with the Spirit and power of God, as Elijah had been. Vers. 19—22. Elislia makes the water at Jericho ivholesome. — During his stay at Jericho (ver. 18) the people of the city complained, that whilst the situation of the place was good in other respects, the water was bad and the land produced miscarriages. H??, the land, i.e. the soil, on account of the badness of the water; not " the inhabitants, both man and beast " (Thenius). Elisha then told them to bring a new dish with salt, and poured the salt into the spring with these words: " Thus saith the Lord, I have made this water sound; there will no more be death and miscarriage thence " (D#9). n?v^? is a substantive here (vid. Ewald, 160, e). &&? ^vio is no doubt the present spring Ain es Sultan, the only spring near to Jericho, the waters of which spread over the plain of Jericho, thirty-five minutes' distance from the present village and castle, taking its rise in a group of elevations not far from the foot of the mount Quarantana (Kuruntul); a large and beautiful spring, the water of which is neither cold nor warm, and has an agreeable and sweet (according to Steph. Schultz, " somewhat salt ") taste. It was formerly enclosed by a kind of reservoir or semicircular wall of hewn stones, from which the water was conducted in different directions to the plain (vid. Rob. Pal. ii. p. 283 sqq.). With regard to the miracle, a spring which supplied the whole of the city and district with water could not be so greatly improved by pouring in a dish of salt, that the water lost its injurious qualities for ever, even if salt does possess the power of depriving bad water of its unpleasant taste and injurious effects. The use of these natural means does not remove the miracle. Salt, according to its power of preserving from corruption and decomposition, is a symbol of incorruptibility and of the power of life which destroys death (see Bahr, Symbolik, ii. pp. 325, 326). As such it formed the earthly substratum for the spiritual power of the divine word, through which the spring was made for ever sound. A new dish was taken for the purpose, not ob munditiem (Seb. Schm.), but as a symbol of the renewing power of the word of God. — But if this miracle was adapted to show to the people the beneficent character of the prophet's ministry, the following occurrence was intended to prove to the despisers of God that the Lord does not allow His servants to be ridiculed with impunity. — Vers. 23-25. The judgment of God upon the loose fellows at Bethel. Elisha proceeded from Jericho to Bethel, the chief seat of the idolatrous calf- worship, where there was also a school of the prophets (ver. 3). On the way thither there came small boys out of the city to meet him, who ridiculed him by calling out, w Come up, bald-head, come," etc. rngj bald-head (with a bald place at the back of the head), was used as a term of scorn (cf. Isa. iii. 17, 24); but hardly from a suspicion of leprosy (Winer, Thenius). It was rather as a natural defect, for Elisha, who lived for fifty years after this (ch. xiii. 1 4), could not have been bald from age at that time. — Ver. 24. The prophet then turned round and cursed the scoffers in the name of the Lord, and there came two bears out of the wood, and tore forty-two boys of them in pieces. The supposed " immorality of cursing," which Thenius still adduces as a disproof of the historical truth of this miracle, even if it were established, would not affect Elisha only, but would fall back upon the Lord God, whc executed the curse of His servant in such a manner upon these worthless boys. And there is no need, in order to justify the judicial miracle, to assume that there waa a preconcerted plan which had be a devised by the chief rulers of the city out of enmity to the prophet of the Lord, BO that the children had merely been put forward (0. v. Gerlach). All that is necessary is to admit that the worthless spirit which prevailed in Bethel was openly manifested in the ridicule of the children, and that these boys knew Elisha, and in his person insulted the prophet of the Lord If this was thi i Elisha cursed the b for the purpose of avenging the honour of the herd, which had been injured in his person; and the Lord caused this curse to be fulfilled, to punish in the children the sins of the parents, and to inspire the whole city with a salutary dread of Bifl holy majesty.1 — V*< r. 25. Elisha went from Bethel to Cam. e at 1 Kings xviii. 19), probably to strengthen himself in solitude for the continuation of his masters work Be returned thence to Samaria, win i rding to ch. vi 32, he p I a hou
CHAP. III. JORAJft OF ISRAEL, AND THE EXPEDITION AGAINST 1COAB WHICH HE UNDERTOOK IN COMPANY WITH JEHOSHAPHAT.
Vera I 3. REIGN OF JORAM Of [BRAIL — For the chronological statement in ver. 1, see at ch. i. 17. Jorarn or Jehoram v.
1 Augustine, or the author of the Sermo 201 dc Tempore (or Sermo 41 <h Elisseo int. v. of the Opp. August., ed. J. P. Ifigne, p. 1826), which is attributed to him, gives a similar explanation. " The insolent boys,1' he says, M are to be supposed to have done this at the instigation of their parents; for they would not have called out if it had displeased their parents." And with regard to the object of the judicial punishment, he says it was inflicted ll that the elders might receive a lesson through the smiting of the little ones, and the death of the sons might be a lesson to the parents: and that they might learn to fear the prophet, whom they would not love, notwithstanding the wonders which he performed.1' not so ungodly as his father Ahab and his mother Jezebel. He had the statue or pillar of Baal, which his father had erected in Samaria, removed; and it was only to the sin of Jeroboam, i.e. the calf-worship, that he adhered. Joram therefore wished to abolish the worship of Baal and elevate the worship of Jehovah, under the image of the calf (ox), into the religion of his kingdom once more. For the singular suffix naftE see Ewald, § 3 1 7, a. He did not succeed, however, in exterminating the worship of Baal. It not only continued in Samaria, but appears to have been carried on again in the most shameless manner (cf. ch. x. 18 sqq.); at which we cannot be surprised, since his mother Jezebel, that fanatical worshipper of Baal, was living throughout the whole of his reign (ch. ix. 30).
Vers. 4-2 7. War of Joram, in alliance with Jehoshaphat, against the Moabites. — Vers. 4, 5. The occasion of this war was the rebellion of the Moabites, i.e. the refusal to pay tribute to Israel since the death of Ahab. Mesha the (vassal-) king of Moab was a possessor of flocks, and paid to the king of Israel 100,000 lambs and 100,000 rams; not merely at the commencement of each new reign (Cler.), but as a yearly tribute pH?n, to bring again = to bring repeatedly, as in Num. xviii. 9, etc.). This yearly tribute could not be exorbitant for the land of the Moabites, which abounded in good pasture, and was specially adapted for the rearing of flocks. The payment of tribute in natural objects and in the produce of the land was very customary in ancient times, and is still usual among the tribes of Asia.1 1$) signifies both a shepherd (Amos i. 1) and also a possessor of flocks. In Arabic it is properly the possessor of a superior kind of sheep and goats (vid. Boch. Hieroz. i. p. 483 sq. ed. Eos.), iov may either be taken as a second object to yvr\} or be connected with Dv^ as an accusative of looser government (Ewald, § 287, h). In the first case the tribute would consist of the wool (the fleeces) of 100,000 lambs and 100,000 rams; in the second, of 100,000 lambs and the wool of 100,000 rams. In support of the latter we may quote Isa. xvi. 1, where lambs are mentioned as tribute. — Vers. 5 sqq. The statement
1 Pecunia ipsa a pecore appellabatur. Edam nunc in tabulis Censoriis pascua dicuntur omnia, ex quibus populus reditus habet, quia diu hoc solum vecti'jal fuit. Mulctatio quoque nonnisi ovium boumque impendio dicebatur. — Plinii h. nat. xviii. 3.
concerning the rebellion of the Moabites, which has already been mentioned in ch. i. 1, is repeated here, because it furnished the occasion for the expedition about to be described. Ahaziah had been unable to do anything during his short reign to renew the subjugation of Moab; Joram was therefore anxious to overtake what had been neglected immediately after his ascent of the throne. He went to Samaria Wfln ti% at that time, namely, when he renewed his demand for the tribute and it was refused (Thenius), and mustered all Israel, i.e. raised an army out of the whole kingdom, and asked Jehoshaphat to join in the war, which he willingly promised to do (as in 1 Kings xxii. 4), notwithstanding the fact that he had been blamed by prophets for his alliance with Ahab and Ahaziah (2 Chron. xix. 2 and x\. 37). He probably wished to chastise the Moabites still further on this occasion for their invasion of Judah (2 Chron. xx.\ and to do his part by bringing them once more under the yoke of I: I to put it out of their power to make fresh incursions into Judah. — Ver. 8. In reply to Joram's question, "?>y which v, shall we advance (against Bfoab.'" Jehoshaphat derided in favour of " the way through the desert of Edom." There were two ways by which it v. le to enter the land of the
Moabites; namely, either by going above the Dead Sea, and crossing the Jordan and the boundary river Arnon, and so entering it from the north, or by going round the southern point of the Dead S and advancing through the northern portion of the mountains of Edom, and thus entering it from the south.
The latter way was the longer of the two, and the one attended with the greatest difficulties and dai mny would have to cross mountains which wi ry difficult to ascend if they took the northern route, they would have the Syrians at Ramoth in Grilead to tear, partly also because the Moabites, from their very confidence in the inaccessibility of their southern boundary, would hardly expect any attack from that side, and might therefore, if assailed at that point, be taken off thenguard and easily defeated, and probably also from a regard to the king of Edom, whom they could induce to join them with his troops if they took that route, not so much perhaps for the purpose of strengthening their own army as to make sure of his forces, namely, that he would not make a fresh attempt at rebellion by a second invasion of the kingdom of Judah while
Jehoshaphat was taking the field against the Moabites. — Ver. 9. But however cleverly this plan may have been contrived, when the united army had been marching round for seven days and was passing through the deep rocky valley of the Ahsy} which divided the territories of Edom and Moab, it was in the greatest danger of perishing from want of water for men and cattle, as the river which flows through this valley, and in which they probably hoped to find a sufficient supply of water, since according to Kobinson (Pal. ii. pp. 476 and 488) it is a stream which never fails, was at that time perfectly dry.
In this distress the hearts of the two kings were manifested. — Vers. 10—12. Joram cried out in his despair: "Woe, that Jehovah has called these three kings, to give them into the hand of Moab!" (s3, that, serves to give emphasis to the assurance; see Ewald, § 330, b.) Jehoshaphat, on the other hand, had confidence in the Lord, and inquired whether there was no prophet there, through whom they could seek counsel of the Lord (as in 1 Kings xxii. 7); whereupon one of the servants of the Israeli tish king answered that Elisha was there, who had poured water upon the hands of Elijah, i.e. had been with him daily as his servant, and therefore could probably obtain and give a revelation from God. Elisha may perhaps have come to the neighbourhood of the army at the instigation of the Spirit of God, because the distress of the kings was to be one means in the hand of the Lord, not only of dis-
1 The usual route from southern Judaea to the land of the Moabites, which even the Crusaders and more recent travellers took, runs round the Dead Sea up to the mouth of the Wady ed Deraah or Kerak, and then up this wady to Kerak (vid. Rob. ii. p. 231). The allied kings did not take this route however, but went through the Wady el Kurahy or es-SaJieh, which opens into the southern end of the Dead Dea, and which is called the Wady el Ahsy farther up in the mountains, by Seetzen (i?. ii. pp. 355, 356) erroneously the Wady el Hossa (Rob. ii. p. 488), a ravine through which Burckhardt passed with the greatest difficulty (Syrien, ii. p. 673). That they advanced by this route is a necessary inference from the fact, that when they first suffered from want of water they were on the border of the Moabitish territory, of which this very wady forms the boundary (ver. 21; see Burckh. p. 67-1, and Rob. Pal. ii. p. 555), and the water came flowing from Edom (ver. 20). Neither of these circumstances is applicable to the Wady el Kerak. — Still less can we assume, with 0. v. Gerlach, that they chose the route through the Arabah that they might approach Moab from the south, as the Israelites under Moses had done. For it would have been impossible for them to reach the border of Moab by this circuitous route. And why should they go so far round, with the way through Edom open to them?
tinguisliing the prophet in the eyes of Joram, but also of pointing Joram to the Lord as the only true God. The three kings, humbled by the calamity, went in person to Elista, instead of sending for him. — Vers. 13, 14. In order still further to humble the king of Israel, who was already bowed down by the trouble, and to produce some salutary fruit of repentance in his heart, Elisha addressed him in these words: "What have 1 to do with thee? Go to the (Baal-) prophets of thy father and thy mother! Let them help thee." When Joram replied to this in a supplicatory tone: 7K, no, pray (as in Ruth i. 13), 'i.e. speak not in this refusing way, for the Lord has brought these three kings — not me alone, but Jehoshaphat and the king of Edom also — into this trouble; Elisha said to him with a solemn oath (cf. 1 Kings xvn. 1: '• If I did d id Jehoshaphat, I should not look at thee and have respect to th.1 should not deign to look at thee, much less to help thee. — Vera. 15 17. lb- thru Bent for a minstrel, t<> collect his mind from th.- impressions of the outer world by tl I the instrument, and by subduing the self-life and life in th.- external world to become al I in the intuition of divine things. On this influence of music upon the Btate of th.- mind, the remark on 1 Sam. rvi 1,;. ill' \ at I ' den I. ben*-magm 1. 2).— As the minstrel v. playing, th.- hand of the Lord came upon him (njrn according to the later d """ hi l Sara rvii Ewald 5, />, an I — - [q i k; that he said in the name of the Lord: " M this valley full of trend (niry, mf. I >i the imperative; for Ml Ml, G l § 1 4); for thus saith the Lord, ye will see neither wind nor rain, and this valley will be filled with that ye ma ble